(Not So) Deep Sh*t on Conspiracy Theories (Part 2)

In Part 2 of this episode, Chris and Steve continue to explore conspiracy theories and the missing chapters of human achievement. They delve into the mysteries surrounding NASA's moon missions and alleged UFO cover-ups, and examine whether they challenge our perception of truth.

This discussion questions the impact of skepticism on societal trust and power dynamics, highlighting ethical concerns about potential government deceptions and corporate greed. The conversation reveals how misuse of terms can mislead debates and affect collective consciousness.

We also examine why past extraordinary feats seem unreplicable today, despite technological advances. This episode encourages you to ponder the balance between trust in experts and healthy skepticism, acknowledging the fallibility of authority figures. Embrace the complexity of truth and the importance of asking critical questions.

Contact Us:

Twitter: @NotSoDeepShit

Facebook.com/NSDSChrisandSteve

Instagram.com/nsdschrisandsteve

Email: [e-mail]

Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE, LIKE and LEAVE A REVIEW for the show!

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm Chris, I'm Steve and we're talking about some
deep shit.
That's all things are.

(00:34):
Things are complicated and that, I think, is the core of a lot
is most things require effort tofigure out.
We all cannot be an expert ineverything.
There isn't enough time,especially, I mean, maybe we
could be an expert in a lot ofthings if we didn't have to
spend, you know, most of ourlife toiling away to survive.
But that's another, that's astory for a different day.
So it's impossible to become anexpert on everything.

(00:56):
And that's why I say, with alot of these conspiracy theories
, with a lot of these things, Iwant to hear the arguments for
and against lot of these things,I want to hear the arguments
for and against.
But the reality is, in a lot ofthese cases, I don't have the
requisite knowledge to reallysay like, let's take, you know,
let's take a big.
Another conspiracy that oftenyou hear of right is the moon

(01:18):
landing.
You know, there's reams andreams that have been written on
that.
You know, um, do I believe it?
I don't necessarily, I'm not,I'm not inclined to believe it.
Could I build a case in my headfor where it's plausible?
Yeah, I could if I thoughtabout it.
Um, it's just funny.

Speaker 2 (01:38):
How many people will not like, will not even
entertain it like do you eversee the video of one of the
capsules taking off from themoon?
Yeah, apollo, it's one of them.
I don't think it's the firstmoon landing and it's just such
a bizarre video.
Again, I'm not an astronaut,I'm not anything to do with that

(02:00):
kind of science, so I don'tknow, but just as a regular
person living in 2024, lookingat something that happened in
the 70s, right, right, because Idon't think it was the first
moon- landing.
Right, right, right.
You say to yourself okay, howdid they film that?
Right?
And there's one video, chris,that the thing takes off, and

(02:23):
it's just, first of all, ittakes off.
It looks weird.
Okay, it almost off, and it'sjust, first of all, it takes off
, it looks weird okay it almostlooks like it's shaking on a
string or something.
But again, that's me looking atit, right, um, but the camera
that is filming it is somewhere,um, you know, on the moon,
right, right, and they say itwas on a rover or something,

(02:44):
right?
And as the whatever they callthat a capsule takes off, the
camera, pans up and follows itgoing up into the sky.
And I said to myself, well,who's manning the camera, right?
And how do they get it to panup while that's happening?
And you know, if you read aboutit, you'll say, well, maybe

(03:08):
they were able to use remotecontrol.
But then other people say, well, there was a delay, there had
to be a delay in the signal.
But my question that came to mymind right away was well, how
come they didn't drive thisrover around and use the camera
and show us everything else onthe moon?
Yeah, it's just, I said, who'sman Like?
Again, I have a very basicknowledge of it.
That's the problem, right, butmy knowledge of it, but my basic

(03:31):
knowledge at least questions,and then I say, okay, let me
find the answer, but there isn'tan answer, right, if?

Speaker 1 (03:39):
you want to get shut down in a group of people.
One of the quickest waysbesides mentioning UFOs,
although that's getting less sobut one of the quickest ways to
get shut down is to bring upquestions on the moon.
Oh yeah, because that has beenbuilt into people.
But that is an important issueis why do people act like they

(03:59):
do to, first of all, the termconspiracy theory, the
accusation of being a conspiracytheorist.
Why do people react like theyreact?
And it's a wonder to behold.
Because there are certainconspiracies, the moon landing

(04:20):
being chief among them.
People are instinctive to repeland recoil and go no, no, no, no
, that's crazy talk.
And I'm like all right, I getit, maybe it is crazy talk.
There's a lot of crazy talk.
It's just talk.
We're just talking Right, likeI'm not, that's that was.
I'd recently put out a bonusepisode that kind of talked

(04:42):
about you know, considering isnot believing, and that was sort
of my whole philosophy on that.
It's like why can't we talkabout things Like I'm not asking
you to go whole hog on this,I'm just saying let's kick it
around.
And there are some very obviousquestions.
Now there are some questions onthe moon landing that I don't
understand.
There's a lot of things aboutlight and the pictures from the

(05:05):
moon landing and they say and Idon't know, enough about Like
the way the shadows the way theshadows fall and the way the
things, and somebody canconstruct a really good-sounding
argument, and then I say Idon't know enough about that
subject to refute it.
But I also don't know enoughabout that subject to say that's
true, because you could just betalking gibberish, I don't know

(05:28):
enough about it.
And I think that's true of alot of things.
We just don't know enough tosay, right, like there are
questions.

Speaker 2 (05:35):
There's a saying and it was a quote, but I only know
it as a saying and I think ithas to do with a lot of the
different stuff we talk about isthis They'll say if the science
cannot be questioned, it's notscience, it's propaganda.
So if you tell me something andyou get mad that I question it,

(05:56):
well, maybe your position isn'tthat strong, Because if I
believe something and I knowit's true, I can say whatever
you want.
I'm not going to get mad at you.
I'll say, yeah, look at this.
And that's the end I mean.
After a while I'll say I'm notgoing to talk about it anymore,
but I'll give you the answer.
Now, if I can't give you theanswer, well, maybe I should
rethink what I believe, right?

Speaker 1 (06:19):
I would love to see no-transcript, like I want to

(06:46):
see all these things dissected.
There's that Buzz Aldrin was onConan and there's a clip and
you can find it out there onYouTube where Conan is talking
about the moon landing Right andhe says something along the
lines of I remember gettingwoken up and brought down to
watch the moon landing live onTV and Buzz Aldrin interrupts

(07:09):
him.

Speaker 2 (07:09):
He says no, you didn't.

Speaker 1 (07:09):
No, you didn't.
He's like there were no cameras.
You saw an animation and yourmind is equating that animation
with seeing the actual event.
But there is footage of themwalking on the moon and
according to, stepping off andwalking on the moon so is he
saying that footage?
Was shown later.
He may have been talking aboutthe landing itself, and like

(07:31):
that's the thing is, when he'stalking about the landing, he
may have been talking about thecapsule, but before that.

Speaker 2 (07:37):
Do you remember in your life anyone ever telling
you that some of that'sanimation I don't remember I
never heard that.

Speaker 1 (07:43):
I never heard any of that I said okay, now we'll
watch an animation.
Well, there was the question oflike okay, there's the footage
of him stepping onto the moon,but wouldn't the cameraman have
been the first person on themoon?
Cause somebody had to go outthere and turn with the camera
and they said well, no that wasan arm that came up, but the one
I always come back to is likeyeah, but how long does it take

(08:06):
a signal to get from the moon?

Speaker 2 (08:10):
Could we do that back then, Like it seems hard now I
find it interesting how a lot ofreally great scientific minds
today talk about the difficultywith getting to the moon because
of the radiation.
They say how they're stilltrying to figure it out.
Talk about the difficulty withgetting to the moon because of
the radiation.
Yes, right, they say howthey're still trying to figure
it out to get a person there.
And you say wait a minute, didthe atmosphere change?

(08:36):
What happened?

Speaker 1 (08:37):
The argument I've heard is that a lot of that data
of how to do it was stored ontapes that no longer exist,
because obviously Kind of likethe footage, right, like the
storage of that stuff no longerexists and, of course, a lot of
the obviously the people whowere involved in that are dead

(09:01):
and somehow NASA didn't do agood job of keeping the
knowledge.
Like the knowledge that theydeveloped while doing it is lost
now because of x, y and z, andI kind of like all right, that's
a reasonable explanation, butit still opens up more questions

(09:25):
.
Like, really like this data,just from a technological
standpoint, right, if we wereable to do something, then are
you really saying we have zeroidea how to do it now with 2024
technology?
With 2024 technology, we haveno idea when we knew exactly how

(09:47):
to do it in the late?

Speaker 2 (09:50):
60s.
Well, you know all thesedifferent discussions you can
kind of put into differenttopics, right, because you know
I really enjoy ancientcivilizations that are known to
be mainstream.
I enjoy ancient civilizationsthat are not so much mainstream,

(10:13):
and the not so much mainstreamdiscussion a lot of times
involves the fact that there mayhave been technology that
somehow got lost and that's howthings were done.
Maybe it wasn't you know someout of the outer space person
that came to help, but humanswere on a different track, or

(10:33):
their civilization was on adifferent path than ours is
today, and they were able tofigure out how to do things and
we just don't know what.
That is Right.
So and that's a lot of timessaying that's crazy how could
someone come up with somethingand we don't't know what that is
?
And that's a lot of timessaying that's crazy how could
someone come up with somethingand we don't learn from it down
the road?
Well, this exact thing issaying that in a span of 50 or
60 years, right we lost it, welost this knowledge.

(10:56):
So if we believe that, why is itso hard to believe the other
thing?

Speaker 1 (10:59):
Right, it's cognitive dissonance when you hold in
your mind two opposing ideasthat can't coexist, but somehow
you make them coexist, like wetrust our organizations and we
distrust our organizations atthe same time.
We will frequently make jokesabout the airlines losing our

(11:21):
luggage and being shitty and theshitty meals we get.
Like, we joke about, likealmost, the incompetence of our
airlines, yet we get on theseplanes and trust them with our
lives to fly us from point A topoint B.
We trust, you know, we trustgovernment, but we don't trust
government.
We, you know, like it's thesetwo thoughts like oh, technology

(11:43):
can't be lost.
Once something's discovered,it's here forever.
Well, why haven't we been backto the moon?
Well, we lost that technology,right?
Okay, so it does happen.
Apparently happens quitefrequently.
It happened just now.
How many artifacts have we found?
I've there's.
There's been a few.
I'd love to do a deep dive inthat one of these days.

(12:06):
Of these ancient things, wefound that we don't really know
what they're used for, becausewe don't know what they are, but
they existed in ancient times.
And somebody, there's somethingon a ship.
I can't remember exactly whatit was, but it was some sort of
like device that they're likewhat is this Like?
What was it used for?
And they think it might havebeen like a very basic computer.
They don't know, it's ancientand it's kind of like it's a

(12:28):
curiosity and they just kind ofhave it.
It says things like couldknowledge be lost?
Was going down?
Here's a kind of a conspiracytheory.
Nikolai Tesla, that's a big one, right, it came down to two
paths for our future developmentthe Tesla way, or I think it

(12:51):
was the Edinson way.
Right, you're talkingelectricity.
Electricity, right, the way wehave now was a choice.
It was a choice.
We could have gone this road.
We could have gone this road.
We went this road, which givesus what we have today.
What would have happened if wetook the other road?
What if the Tesla methods,which supposedly, again, I'm not

(13:15):
an expert, another thing that Iwant to dive into at some point
, to do a show on, but myunderstanding of the Tesla thing
is there's talk aboutelectricity through the air and
that like transmitting itwithout wires and without I
don't know, like the people whosupposedly, again, part of the

(13:35):
quote-unquote conspiracy theoryis that all of Tesla's papers
were seized by the governmentupon his death.
Some have been released, mostof them have not.
What were the thought things?
You know what were the thingsthat tesla, what would our world

(13:55):
look like if tesla, uh, his wayof transmitting electricity?
Now they'd'd say, well, his waywasn't viable, that's why we
went with the other way.
Okay, I could believe that.
Could you also believe a worldwhere we went with one way over
another because profit could bemade from one way where it was
harder?
Like, if you're transmittingelectricity to the air, it's

(14:18):
really kind of hard to meterthat.
Right, if you have to run awire, then that's a that you can
meter, that you can say, okay,I'm running this wire and any
electricity that comes to youthrough this wire I'm going to
charge you for.
Now, if you put an antenna upand you're getting electricity
wirelessly, I don't know howmuch you're getting and how much
you're using, so therefore itmakes it harder for me to like.

(14:41):
Could you believe a world wheredecisions were made not for the
betterment of everybody but tokeep uh, you know, either to
create an industry or keep anindustry safe?
No, you know how manyquote-unquote conspiracy
theories have we heard over theyears about water engines?

(15:02):
You know how many things have Iheard about this person
supposedly invented an enginethat could run on on hydrogen,
you know, in water or whatever,and and it worked.
And oh you know what.
They suddenly committed suicideand all their records were lost
and other technologies didn'treally work.
Now fill up your car with gasand get the hell out of here.
You know, am I saying that'swhat happened?

(15:26):
I don't know.
I have no way to know that.
I'm just saying it's plausible.
Here's another one, anotherconspiracy that I've heard
kicked around, that there's awhole line of research that
physics was pushed away from,and that's gravity.

(15:47):
That in the 50s there was a bigpush to research gravity and
how gravity could be used as apower source, how gravity could
be used to harness that power,and it never went anywhere
according to conventional wisdom.

Speaker 2 (16:07):
And it was abandoned.

Speaker 1 (16:10):
But man, it's weird because it seems like everybody
abandoned it at just the sametime and over the years, a few
people have dipped their toeback in and gotten promising
results and something's happenedto them.
Now is that a conspiracy.
Yeah, there's a woman named amyeskridge and she's the one I
heard about, if you, if yougoogle her, amy eskridge, she
was a scientist of some sort andshe was putting out as of a few

(16:34):
years ago, was putting out allthis stuff about gravity
research, about how, you know,this is research that has been
kind of dumped, but it hadpromise and then she suddenly
that she suddenly killed herself.
You know, it's like how manypeople suddenly do that?
Where you go, I'm not sayingI'm not saying that's what's

(16:55):
going on, but man, something'sgoing on you know how many
people who are working onscientific things just suddenly
one day go.
You know, I've been putting allmy efforts into this but I
think I'm just going to offmyself and move on.
It's like did you, did youreally do that?

Speaker 2 (17:13):
Oh yeah, she was an anti-gravity propulsion research
scientist Died.
She allegedly died of suicideafter presenting an anti-gravity
propulsion paper to NASA.
Interesting Now again.

Speaker 1 (17:30):
I'm just reading one thing here this is the theory,
though this is the idea behindthis.
Remember we were talking aboutthe degree of power necessary
for these UAPs to do what theydo.
There's a thought that it'sgravity, that if you can harness
the power of gravity, you cando these things like.
That's the explanation.
Do you want to know how thesethings fly at crazy ass speeds?

(17:52):
It's because of they're able tomanipulate gravity in a way,
and what's scary about that?

Speaker 2 (18:00):
um, okay, she's the daughter of a retired nasa
engineer yeah, she was a bigdeal.

Speaker 1 (18:05):
I remember hearing about her and then when she
passed away, it was a big dealonline.
It was like people talkingabout you know, amy eskridge and
how you know she was dippingher toe back into gravity and
she was saying that you know,different people had told her
kind of behind the scenes.
You know, don't be careful,because they don't want, they
don't want you looking into this.

(18:27):
Now here's the question why?
Why would somebody not wantsomebody else to look into
gravity?
Well, if you look into ittheoretically, if you were able
to harness that power, that's alot of energy.
Remember how much energy ittakes for the UAP to do that.
Put that in a lot of energy.

(18:51):
Remember how much energy ittakes for the uap to do that.
Put that in a bomb.
Like unlocking this technology,really unlocking it.
We think that the nuclear, youknow, splitting the atoms a big
deal.
This unlocking this could makethat look like a squirt gun.
So I guess you could understandwhy they wouldn't want just
anyone looking into it.
Like, can you imagine some, youknow somebody, with ill intent

(19:13):
unlocking the secret ofharnessing the power of, like,
all of a sudden, unlimited power?
Oh man, we can make this bomb,and this bomb has the power to
literally destroy the planet.
I'm not talking about likenuclear, which just would like
wipe the planet clean.
What if there was a power thatliterally could blow up the
planet, like the death star blewup alderaan, like that kind of

(19:34):
thing.
Is that conceivable?
Well, when they talk about the,the degree of of energy that is
theoretically possible toaccess via this technology
Theoretic Wouldn't you thinkthey'd really want people not to
get there?
Like it's understandable, youknow, like it's, and we see it

(19:57):
play out all the time.
Our government has clearly donethings to other nations to
prevent them from gettingtechnology.
How many times have we heardabout Iran having nuclear
scientists, you know,assassinated, basically to
prevent Iran from, because wedon't want them to get a nuclear
weapon?
So we put a lot of effort intomaking sure that if they make

(20:19):
progress on a nuclear weapon,that progress is lost, that
facility is blown up.
That facility is blown up,those scientists are killed.
We make damn sure that theydon't get that technology,
because the thought of themhaving that technology scares us
.
Now take something like gravity, holy shit.
That's a whole other level.

(20:39):
I'm not saying that's the truth,I'm just saying one could build
a case like the laziestargument is why?
Like?
When people are like, why wouldthey do that?
Like the ufo one, I hear that alot.
Well, if there were ufos, whywould the government hide it?
They ask that question verylike why would they hide it?
And you think about it for liketwo seconds and you go why

(21:02):
wouldn't they hide it?
It's destabilizing to our wayof existence.
It's destabilizing to ourenergy consumption.
It's destabilizing to ournation states.
It's destabilizing to ourconfidence in our, in our
organizations and ourinstitutions.
Like I said, you, you tell thepublic that their institutions
have been lying to them for 90years, about 70 years, about

(21:24):
ufos, and they lied to you.
But now we're telling you thetruth.
You know what I'm saying.
Like it's, it's obvious.
If you think about it for onesecond, you'd go, of course,
like you know.
Like you know, like if youfound out somebody you knew well
was lying to you about somefundamental thing about
themselves, like somethingfundamental, and you'd be like,

(21:46):
would you ever trust anythingthey said again, like you'd be
like a little suspicious, like Ithought for years.
You know, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (21:53):
Now if they had a good reason, you might Maybe.

Speaker 1 (21:57):
Well, again, a good reason is is there a good reason
for hiding this?
Of course there is.
I'm sure there is.
Of course there's a good reasonfor hiding this.

Speaker 2 (22:05):
Of course there is.
I'm sure there is.
Of course there's a good reasonIf it's being hidden.
I'm sure there is a reason thata lot of people say is good or
proper.

Speaker 1 (22:13):
You could make an argument that when this all
again talking about UFOs, whenthis started to percolate was in
the late 40s, after world warii, and at that point the soviet
union, the cold war like thatwas ramping up.
Like the last thing that theyneeded at that point was another

(22:37):
complication.
So let's hide it, like I thinkthe core of hiding some of these
things were probably, at itscore, a good intention, but it
why would they hide it?
Well, it's very likely thatmajor crimes have had to have
been committed.
If you were to keep like, ifyou do an intellectual exercise

(22:59):
and say this secret has beenhidden, could you conceivably
think that major crimes havebeen committed in?
Many people have been, like,totally mocked and ridiculed for
coming out and saying I sawthis thing, I know about this
thing or this ufo thing.

(23:20):
Right now, years later, thegovernment comes out and says
it's all true, right, well,isn't that illegal?
Like, couldn't someone whoselife was ruined because they saw
something and they weredenounced by everybody,
including the government?
This doesn't exist.
What you saw doesn't exist.
You're crazy.
Now, years later, thegovernment comes out and says oh
yeah, we lied, it does existand we're hiding it.

(23:41):
There's another reason to keepit secret?
Can you imagine the legalimplications of that?
Can you imagine the legalimplications of okay, lockheed
got the pieces of the crashedUFO to try to back engineer?
We gave it to Lockheed.
We didn't give it to thisaerospace or that aerospace.

(24:03):
We gave it to Lockheed.
We can't tell anybody.
We have it either.
So this company got an edgefrom the government that these
other companies didn't get.
Do you think that they willlook at you know the day the
government comes out and saysall this stuff is true?
Don't you think all thosecompanies will turn around and
go wait a second.
That means my competitor got anedge that I didn't.

(24:26):
I'm suing because we're supposedto get equal treatment, like
the implications of the coverup,let alone the implications of
the thing itself, like howdisruptive the existence of
someone else out there would beto our way of life.
But the implications of thecover-up are probably more scary
than that, because would youever trust anything again?

(24:50):
Like, really, ufos are realguys.
Everything about UFOs is 100%real.
We've been lying to you allthis.
We had to actually kill thembecause they got way too close.
Yeah, sorry about that, Our bad.

(25:19):
Do you know what I'm saying no,I do.
If you really start to think itout, the reason for covering
this up becomes clear.
And how many secrets have toget uncovered.
Iran-contra, that was a big oneback in the day.
I remember, yes, reagan.
Iran-contra, that was a big oneback in the day.
I remember.
You know, like our governmentwas selling weapons to, you know

(25:44):
was selling to our enemy inorder to fund a secret war in
South America.
Like the legal implications ofthat.
We were breaking so many lawsby doing that.
And they did it.
They got caught for it.
You know, like it's not, likethis stuff hasn't happened.
It happens all the time.

(26:06):
We see it happen, weacknowledge it happens and then
you say, well, they could bedoing that with UFO.
That's crazy talk.
Oh, come on, if there was UFOs,why wouldn't they just come out
and say it?
And I hear that so much.

Speaker 2 (26:19):
I hear it less, though, the older I'm getting.

Speaker 1 (26:22):
I know.
But it's like I hear that likea lot, like it's not that big a
deal, like why would they keepsomething like that secret?
And it's like are you kiddingme?

Speaker 2 (26:32):
everything about it is huge well, I think that it's,
um, it's something that, ifit's what's happening right,
it's self-perpetuating, in thatmaybe today there isn't a really
great reason to keep it secretI, if so, more reason to let it
out.

(26:52):
Yeah, so I don't know Right, um, but uh, so if it wasn't
something that was already said,hey, no, no, don't worry about
it, that's nothing happening fordecades.

Speaker 1 (27:04):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (27:05):
I might believe it, like, oh yeah, what is the real
reason to not tell us now, right?
Um, but to your point, well,you're going to undo all these
other things that have beengoing on for decades now.
So that could be one of thestrong reasons, right?
I don't know.
We're a planet, especially thedeveloped countries, that pretty

(27:27):
much we pretty much run on thetrade of energy, right, the
trade of energy right.
So, yeah, if there is anotheralternative energy source that
is pretty much free foreverybody, yeah, it would
certainly turn things on itshead as the power structure of

(27:48):
the civilized world.
So that's kind of a big thing.

Speaker 1 (27:53):
It would be a disruption.
Like anything's a disruption,and you know the old saying it's
not the crime, it's the coverupit's.
That's often true.

Speaker 2 (28:00):
Well, I mean that's why you get mad at your kids
right, not so much for what theydid wrong.
It's what they lied about.
It's just you're not beingupfront with me.
With me about it.

Speaker 1 (28:08):
And that's true of most, and you know there are
punishments for that.
But in covering it up, it'shard to cover up a crime without
getting sucked into more crime.

Speaker 2 (28:20):
Yeah, I mean, you get punished worse when you lie
about it.
Right, that's just how lifegoes, that's human reaction and
how many times.

Speaker 1 (28:26):
You know, you know that people will cover up.
You know the degree of thingsthat people will do to another
person, especially if they don'tknow.
It's easy to do things topeople you don't know.
If you know somebody personally, you've got to be a certain
level of like psycho to dosomething horrendous to someone
like that you know well.

(28:47):
But it's very easy for peopleto do horrendous things to large
groups of people they don'tknow at all, especially if they,
you know, um, make them intheir mind or in propaganda,
make them not equal humans.
You know you'll hear that a lotlike when somebody's trying to
like they're animals, they're,they're, they're not worthy of

(29:08):
anything, they're whatever.
Whoever our, our enemy is evil.
Anything we do to our enemy, upinto and including evil acts,
is justified because our enemyis evil.
It's a very common tacticDehumanize your enemy and then
you don't have to treat him likea human.
We do that all the time and wesee it done all the time.

(29:31):
But then if you take it alittle bit like, you take it to
its natural conclusion and yougo well, then obviously people
are doing things.
You know, would somebody putprofit above the safety of
people in an airline, oh God, no, nobody would ever do that.
That's crazy, okay, but yetyou'd have.
You've had some airplanecrashes where it was, where it

(29:53):
was tracked back to defective,like cost cutting and things
like.
We know that that has happened.
There was a boeing, the boeingone.
There were these planes thatwere crashing and I didn't know
about this, but there was a newsystem they had put in the plane
.
I can't I don't know thespecifics of it, but basically
it would detect and it wouldmake certain aircraft maneuvers

(30:17):
based on things that it detected.
And when they rolled it out, ifthey made a big deal of it,
they would have had to retrainall the pilots.
They didn't want to do thatbecause it was expensive, so
they just kind of did it anddidn't really make a big deal
that there was this new feature,and this new feature went

(30:37):
haywire and it caused a crash.
It was because this I can'tremember something to do with
like detecting the angle of theplane and opening flaps or
something like that, and thepilots didn't realize that the
new version of the aircraft hadchanged the way they did this
thing and it caused it caused acrash.
That was a decision that wasmade fiscally, like we don't

(30:59):
want to spend the money doingthis, so we're going to flip a
coin and like, literally like,risk the lives of, you know,
hundreds and hundreds ofpassengers each day.
They did it.
It happened, like we know ithappened.
But then when you say, well,somebody could do it, nobody
would ever do that.
It's weird.
It happened, like we know ithappened.
But then when you say, well,somebody could do it, nobody
would ever do that.
It's weird.
It's.
It's a self protection.
We love to protect ourselves.
We don't want to think thatpeople would really do that

(31:21):
People would put.
Would there be people who wouldliterally kill, like thousands
upon thousands of people Ifthere was a little bit of profit
that they could make from it?
Nobody would ever do that.
Of course they would.
Happens all the time.
Happens all the time.
We don't want to admit it it's.
It's.
It's startling to behold that,really that that's the biggest

(31:41):
implement, uh, impediment Ishould say to these conspiracy
theories.

Speaker 2 (31:46):
I think the people listen I think one of the hard
things people have is coming togrips with the fact that we live
in a society that is prettymuch a lot of the commerce is
controlled by corporations,right, and we don't want to

(32:09):
believe that a corporation couldbe that heartless, because once
we believe that it kind of justmakes everything else kind of
just kind of suck, and you know,everything does kind of suck,
you know like if you just saidyou know I enjoy X in my life
and who supplies it to me asthis corporation.

(32:32):
But the minute they could getthe upper hand on me, even if it
has to do with my demise, theydon't care, right, you know, the
only reason they don't careabout my demise maybe is the
fact that I can keep buyingthings, right.
So if you wrapping your brainaround that because, like you
know, I would never feel thatway about you, right, right.

(32:53):
So it's hard for me to thinkwell, there's this company that
does feel like that about me,you know it just, it kind of
isn't a good feeling, so wedon't want to feel that way and
it wasn't like the company saidwe want to kill these people.

Speaker 1 (33:10):
Like it wasn't that overt.
What they said was people likeit wasn't that overt.
What they said was this wasmore we can make more profit if
we do this, but this makes it alittle less safe.
Are we okay with that?
And pretty much universally,they said yeah, we're okay with
that, right?
We?

Speaker 2 (33:28):
don't want to have.
We don't want to believe thatthere could possibly be a
meeting where there's a costanalysis and part of the cost
analysis is what is the costthat we're going to have to pay
out if there's human lives lost?
And I can't tell you I've beenin a meeting like that because I

(33:48):
haven't, but I'm not soPollyanna in this world to think
those don't exist and they doexist, and because they exist
makes us know that there's apart of society that's soulless,
that's heartless, and I thinkthat as individuals, we don't
want to think that way.

Speaker 1 (34:06):
And that is the core of a conspiracy theory.
A conspiracy theory is yourtheory that there are a group of
people conspiring to dosomething that's not right for
their own gain and we laugh atconspiracy theories, while, if
you really break it down,conspiracies happen all the time
, every day.

(34:26):
Some are uncovered, some arenot.
Some are uncovered years later,some are never uncovered, you
know, especially when you know,uh, when all involved are dead,
you know, uh, isn't that like aI can't remember?
There's a saying or somethinglike that is how do you, how do
three people keep a secret?

(34:47):
well, when two of them are dead,right now, because you know one
person could keep a secret onceit's more than one, you can't
guarantee anything.
So how do you do it?
Um, what's another way to keepa secret?
You don't write anything down.
There used to be in our societynot our society, but like in in
the world an oral tradition.
We hear about that all the time.
Right, there are oraltraditions where these, this

(35:08):
culture, didn't really writestuff down, but they passed it
from story to story to story.
It was their oral tradition.
Right, that's how they passtheir knowledge.
We understand that that happens, but that doesn't happen
anymore.
We write everything down.
Do you know that's not truethat there are insiders from the
government that'll tell youthere are some top secret stuff
that when they talk about itUFOs being one of those topics

(35:30):
that in some cases it's pensdown, it's pencils down, it's
the pencils down or somethingthey call it.
They basically say we're goingto discuss this and those of us
in the room are going to discussthis, but none of us are going
to write it down.
It's not going to be writtenanywhere except in our heads,
and when somebody new comes inthe program, we'll bring them in
.

Speaker 2 (35:49):
Now you think that that sounds crazy.
I'd be kicked out of thatwithin minutes.

Speaker 1 (35:51):
Hi, my memory's so bad I bet you don't.
They'd be like do you rememberwhat we talked about?
Last time and I'd be like Ihave no idea what we talked
about last time.

Speaker 2 (35:57):
No, I do not.
We just talked about it 10minutes ago, steve, but that's.

Speaker 1 (36:01):
The thing is like that it's impossible to keep
these things from us.
It's really not, because inmany cases, people don't want to
know.
People don't want to know andso they will blindly look at the
obvious in front of them and goI don't see that and turn the
other way, because to accept itwould disrupt their reality.

Speaker 2 (36:35):
So, really, I think I get really like I'm going to
start railing against whenpeople say conspiracy theory,
because it's such a stupid thing.
If you're trying to, if you'retrying to elicit that kind of
feeling in people, I just thinkit should be called something
else, honestly, because, um, butI don't know what it could be
called but that I think what'strying to be put across is,
instead of saying, conspiracytheory, I think what the person
that's using that term is tryingto say, you know this is
bullshit, yeah, bullshit, yeahRight, and um, it's a really

(36:58):
clever way of doing it.
Um, but I think that peoplegenerally are becoming way more
accepting of the fact that thereare kernels of truth that are
known today, that they aretruths within these so-called I

(37:21):
mean, they are conspiracytheories.
This is exactly what they are,but when you say it that way, it
elicits a different response.

Speaker 1 (37:29):
Right, the word conspiracy and the word theory
when used in their definitionRight, they're innocuous, but
when put together conspiracytheory, they have this power.
And I think what people shouldbe asking themselves is where
did this come from?
Did this aversion to conspiracytheories, did it naturally

(37:51):
develop?
Because I think that's what alot of people think is they say
people don't like conspiracytheories.
I even said that like peopledon't want to think that it's
that conspiracies can happen,and that is true.
But do you think our aversionto conspiracy theories, do you
think that was a naturalevolution or do you think that
was kind of helped along?
Like there's there's, there'sevidence, sufficient evidence

(38:14):
that that was very much helpedalong, that certain elements and
it sounds crazy when you say it.
I can already hear people outthere.

Speaker 2 (38:20):
Well, it's controlling a narrative.

Speaker 1 (38:23):
Of course a government would want to control
a narrative.
That's how you run acivilization.
You don't run a hugecivilization by letting
everybody just think whateverthe hell they want.
You really want to make sureyou control the narrative.
You don't want people thinkingthings that is, you know,
inconvenient to what you'retrying to set up.

(38:44):
And I think it's obvious.
When you say it like that, it'slike duh, of course, but like
all right, our government, partsof our government, elements of
our government, pockets of ourgovernment, might be
manipulating what we think.
Oh my God, that's crazy talk.
And then you watch a little bitof news and you go oh, wow, it's

(39:05):
interesting.
Watch, pay attention to wordsthey use, pay attention to how,
if they're covering a certainside of a story, they'll use
certain words, but if they'recovering the other side, they'll
use other words.
You know, um, they'll say andI'm not gonna get specific
because you know people get allupset but they'll say these

(39:28):
people were killed.
And then, when the other side,these people murdered these
people.
Right, so when one side does it, they murder these people, then
the other side does it thesepeople were killed, and just
killed.
They were just.
It just happened like they died.
That's how it goes just, youknow, and it's subtle, it's very
subtle, it's the it's and again, when you talk about this, it

(39:52):
sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Oh my god, you're telling methat somebody, that all the news
organizations get together anddecide.
No you don't have to do that.
You don't need to controleverything that people say and
think.
You just need to draw the lines.

Speaker 2 (40:07):
Well, I mean, if you watch even just the news today,
right, it happens witheverything, right?
It just popped into my head asyou were speaking about that.
Today we have the again I thinkI was talking about it earlier
the Palestine-Israel thingthat's happening.
It's a big deal.
Some news outlets will calldifferent people pro-Palestine,

(40:28):
others will call those samepeople anti-Israel and when you
hear it, just know, just likeanything else, like I'm not
going to get into abortion, butwhen you say abortion issue,
you're pro-choice or you'repro-life.
Now in a vacuum, you knowpeople get mad at me when I do
it because I like to have funright.
But I'll say pro-choice,pro-life.

(40:49):
I say I like both of thosethings.
They both sound really good tome because I like both when
you're pro something pro ispositive.

Speaker 1 (40:58):
Positive when people are pro something, that's good.
You're pro something whenyou're anti something.

Speaker 2 (41:02):
It's negative.

Speaker 1 (41:03):
You know, it's how it's Right, words matter, words
have meaning, and specific words, the choice of specific words
matters, and I think that's whyit's important to have as wide a
vocabulary as possible, becauseif you're limited on what words

(41:26):
you can use, then you'relimited on what ideas you can
get across, and language is avery inefficient way of
communicating because they'redependent on you understanding
what I'm saying, right, not juston a like linguistic level, but

(41:47):
also on a level of likeunderstanding what my point is.
But if my vocabulary, let's saymy vocabulary, is limited, so I
can't really get across to youmy exact point, cause I don't
have the right word to really,so I use the next best thing,
which is the closest word.
It doesn't really mean what Imean, but it's close enough, but
in your mind it takes it into awhole nother level.

(42:10):
So, but it's close enough, butin your mind it takes it into a
whole another level.
So, like our communication isimperfect, anytime we have to
communicate with each other,it's an it's an imperfect thing
because we're not.
Uh, we've been watching um thethree body problem on netflix.
Have you watched that?

Speaker 2 (42:21):
no, so it's uh, it's very interesting I'm.

Speaker 1 (42:23):
I think I've read like six episodes and I think
it's eight episodes.
I believe it's the idea of anon-human intelligence
interacting with us.
I'm not gonna give anythingaway, but, um, but basically one
of the tenets is is thatwhoever this others are, they
seem to communicate.
When they have a thought, theycommunicate it like literally,

(42:43):
like it seems to almost be likea hive mind kind of thing, like
everybody knows what everybodyelse is thinking.
Okay, okay, so there are nodeceptions, because I have a
thought and you immediately knowthat thought, you know
everything I'm thinking.
And when they discover that wedon't operate like that, that we
deceive, they get worried andthey say we can't trust anything

(43:06):
you say.
And they say we can't trustanything.
You say we don't lie, you guyslie, you're a danger to us.
So and think about that Like itmakes total sense, like humans
lie to each other constantly andthey can get away with it
because nobody knows what you'rereally thinking.
But how quickly would that goaway?
If all of a sudden like peoplecould like read your thoughts.

(43:28):
Nevermind, there's no more lies.
That scares the crap out of alot of people but I like it one
could also see how that couldmake things better.
Can you imagine just takinglies off the table like that?
How quickly you'd solve?
Problems exactly right, likethings would get solved
instantly because you'd be likethere'd be no more deception,
right?
I mean, that's a, you's a, youknow it's a no, but a lot of

(43:48):
self-initiative.

Speaker 2 (43:49):
If that was the case, there'd be a lot less
selfishness in the world,because a group of people
probably wouldn't stand for theselfishness of just a couple
yeah, which, if you really thinkabout it, you know the problems
would get solved faster.
Now, would they get solved in away that you?
Would they get solved in a waythat, you know, maybe at the

(44:10):
expense of?

Speaker 1 (44:11):
some people.
Yeah, probably Well isn'teverything at the expense of
somebody?
Like no problem can be solvedwithout being at the expense of
somebody, like no matter whatproblem it is.
If it were a solution thatdidn't negatively impact anyone,
then it would be done.
Obviously, every solution isgoing to negatively impact

(44:32):
anyone, then it would be done.
Obviously, every solution isgoing to negatively impact
somebody.
A new energy source is going to,you know, be great for planet
earth.
They're going to be so greatfor the energy companies who
that's their whole bread andbutter is selling energy, and
when somebody could just put upan antenna and you know, power
their house and they don't haveto talk to anybody, you know
when.
So when, oh know when a car, anautomobile can be powered by
water.
You know that's not great forthe gas companies or anyone who

(44:55):
invests in the gas companies, oryou know any of that.
It's funny.
Like I said, we admit thatthese things are plausible.
We admit that they've evenhappened before in various ways,
and yet we just refuse to admitthat they could even happened
before in various ways, and yetwe just refuse to admit that
they could be happening now.
It's, it's.
Yeah, it's something, it'ssomething, all right.

Speaker 2 (45:17):
I was reading here about conspiracy theory and
there's a conspiracy theory ofwhere the theory, where the term
came from and they're sayingthat it looks like in some of
the documents provided by thecia during the kennedy
assassination investigation iswhether it were first was
something that was now.

(45:38):
Conspiracy theories have beenaround since the beginning of
time, but it wasn't being calledthat until they're saying this
article is talking about um, itfirst being seen in the
documents regarding theinvestigation, and they called
anyone that um was believingsomething outside the narrative

(45:59):
was a conspiracy theorist.
Yeah, it was a very, becausethat would be a conspiracy that
there were two more actorsinvolved.
Uh, yes, in the process wherethe the narrative was, there was
just this one guy.
Nobody knew he was this kind ofperson and you know we
shouldn't have given him a jobhere at this book depository

(46:21):
which I mean, I never even knewwhat a big I might have said I
don't know what a bookdepository is.
yeah, like before, I'm not sureI could like, even today, I
don't know I what a bookdepository is.
Yeah, like before, I'm not sureI could understand.
Like, even today, I don't know,I'm sure we're exactly what
that is?

Speaker 1 (46:31):
I'm not really quite sure.

Speaker 2 (46:32):
Would that be like Amazon now?

Speaker 1 (46:34):
I don't know.
I don't know that we have bookdepositories.

Speaker 2 (46:36):
What is it?

Speaker 1 (46:37):
I don't actually know .
My thought process is it's adepository.
That means books like maybe itwas like a, maybe like a library
we call those libraries alibrary nobody else can go to.
Maybe it was like a librarythat has too many books and so
they keep.
Yeah, look it up.
I have no idea what a bookdepository is.
That's right.
It's funny how often we saythings.
People say things likeconfidently and with no

(47:00):
hesitation, but if you dig in alittle bit, you know like how
many years have I been sayingyeah, you know, you know, I
don't think.
Uh, you know, lee, lee HarveyOswald shot really was the lone
gunman from the book depository,and that's a great question.
I don't think anyone has everasked me the question what is a
book depository?
Because now I think about it.

Speaker 2 (47:17):
I have no idea.

Speaker 1 (47:18):
I do not know what a book depository is.

Speaker 2 (47:21):
It says a library could also be called a book
depository.

Speaker 1 (47:24):
You just said that, yeah, yeah, that, yeah, yeah.
If I were to take an educatedguess based on the words used,
my thought process would be it'sa place where overflow books
are kept, maybe for the librarysystem of of you know, saying of

(47:46):
that of that area, like theywere at multiple libraries, and
they have an offsite place.
Wait a minute.

Speaker 2 (47:51):
The Texas school book depository company was the one
in Dallas.
Yeah, okay, it was a schooltextbook distribution firm.

Speaker 1 (48:00):
Okay, there you go.
All right, book depository.
All right.
Yeah, I never really thoughtabout what that word meant.

Speaker 2 (48:04):
I never really cared until?
Have you?
I never really cared until.
Have you ever really cared thatmuch?
No, but it's interesting, itwould pop in my head.
Then I'd move on to somethingelse.

Speaker 1 (48:31):
It's funny, though, because to not even consider
that I mean it doesn'tinvalidate anything, but like
but how many of them said itwithout really knowing what it
was?
And that's just another exampleof people do that.
All the time People will arguethings that they don't really
know that they heard that theypicked up on and it's
conventional wisdom or whatever.

Speaker 2 (48:45):
And then they get angry when you ask a couple of
questions Right, because theyhave no basis.

Speaker 1 (48:48):
They don't know where the knowledge they have comes
from.
Therefore they can't takequestions about it.
Go back to the moon landing.
You ask any questions about themoon landing, most people can't
answer them.
They can't really give you acomprehensive answer of why we
had the technology then we don'thave it now, why we we able to
get footage Then we can't get itnow, why everything seems so

(49:09):
hard now and it was seemed soeasy then and our technology is
so much more advanced.
I mean, you've you've heard thething right About our cell
phones have more computing powerthan the module that landed on
the moon.

Speaker 2 (49:23):
Right.

Speaker 1 (49:23):
I'll frequently say that, like your, your phone has
way more, not even like a littlebit more, like thousands of
times more than the spaceshuttle, the little shuttle that
landed on the moon.
You hear that all the time, andthen we think about the
implications of that.
Okay, so if they were able todo that with that technology,

(49:44):
shouldn't it be like a snap forus to do it with ours?
And it's not.
And yet if you ask anyone aboutthat, get mad at you.
They get angry.
Don't question it.
You're a nut if you'requestioning the moon landing.
I'm not questioning the moonlanding.
I just like a little clarity.
The other thing I'll hear frompeople who don't know any better
was well, if you understood thescience behind it, you wouldn't

(50:05):
ask those questions.
And then you ask them well, doyou understand the science
behind it?

Speaker 2 (50:09):
No.

Speaker 1 (50:09):
But if we did, we wouldn't ask those questions.
It's like all right, I thinkthere's a whole topic there I
would love to tackle at somepoint about the tyranny of
experts, how we've given up ourwe've given to experts.
You're an expert in this field,Therefore you know all about it
.
I know nothing about it.

(50:30):
Therefore, whatever you say, Ihave to accept without any
questioning, because you're theexpert and I'm not.

Speaker 2 (50:37):
But it doesn't work that way in a lot of other
aspects of the world.
It just doesn't.

Speaker 1 (50:43):
It works that way in the media and it works that way
with like let's just say incourt If I was going to have a
cancer, like if I was going tohave a cancer, let's say I had
cancer and I had to have, like aprocedure done to cancer.

Speaker 2 (50:56):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (50:56):
Like I want an expert , like I want someone.

Speaker 2 (50:58):
But you might want more than one.

Speaker 1 (51:00):
Oh well, of course.

Speaker 2 (51:07):
But like I'm not going to hire a, you know, I'll
just talk about what I do.
Let's say we're having a trial,right, and let's say you were
my client, chris, right, and youhad some injury to your knee,
or I know you're recovering fromyour shoulder injury, right?
So there's an expert that wehired for the trial and they

(51:31):
talk about how well, it's clear,and they get up and they show
you on the diagrams.
Well, here is exactly how theload happened from the car
accident and it caused this andhis shoulder was in a
compromised position and allthis stuff.
It's clear, the science isclear, and I can show you
exactly the science of why thishappened.
Okay, then you get someone elseup there, equal qualifications.

(51:53):
We're not talking two bums,right?
Someone else comes up there andthey have a lot of other
science as to why.
Well, you know what.
This is arthritis and thishappened because of this.
The other thing Two totallydifferent opinions about the
same thing.

Speaker 1 (52:13):
And can even use the same set of facts, oh yeah, and
be built in a different way.

Speaker 2 (52:17):
That's why, when somebody you know so I'm not
saying if you rely on experts,well there's differing experts
on almost everything.

Speaker 1 (52:26):
On most everything right.
It's most dangerous when allexperts agree, because then
that's the case where theexperts agree most everything,
on most everything right.
It's most dangerous when allexperts agree, because then
that's the case where theexperts agree on this and anyone
who questions it is told well,don't question it, because the
experts but like very rarely,even on the most controversial
of subjects, you can always findquote-unquote experts who have
a differing opinion of wherethose facts lead.
And then those experts areoften, often, you know um,

(52:50):
minimized or you know, pushedoff to the side and say don't
listen to them, and the layperson doesn't know what to
think because we rely on experts.
We don't.
One person cannot know abouteverything.
So you need experts, you needpeople who know stuff, and it
all works as long as you trustthe word of your experts.

(53:11):
And again, that goes back to mymain thesis of a lot of these
conspiracy theories that theexperts have been telling us.
No, you're wrong, there is noconspiracy.
If you start uncovering themand say, well, all right, there
was on this case and this case,so the experts lied to you,
suddenly their word becomes crapfor everything they've said.

Speaker 2 (53:34):
I don't know if that means they lied.
I think it means that theirconclusion was faulty Right.

Speaker 1 (53:41):
But they gave their conclusion with such certainty
to say I'm the expert, you'renot.
My expertise tells me that thisis the truth and this is not
true.
And then you find out okay,what you said was not true.
Like again, how, how much faithare you going to put in experts

(54:01):
in the future when experts canlie to you?
You know, it's like discoveringthat lying is possible.
I think there's a movie likethat, the invention of lying.
I never saw it, but I rememberricky gervais I think is in it
where it basically takes thisit's the idea that we got to
right around the same point inhistory but lying didn't exist.
The idea of saying somethingthat wasn't true just was

(54:24):
unheard of.
And he discovers lying andstarts saying things and
realizes that, because nobodyhas a familiarity with lying,
that anything he says isaccepted as truth and it just
goes off on this crazy thingwhere you know.
It's that idea like once yourealize that everybody lies.
It's like the three bodyproblem.

(54:46):
They say wait, you guys can lieto each other.
That means you could lie to us.
How can I ever trust anything?
Any of you say you've admittedto me that you're all liars and
we know like well, that's nottrue, people do lie.
But people also tell the truthlike it's not even to the point
in again, uh, spoiler alert butlike they were talking about a
story and they didn't understandthe idea of a story.

(55:09):
Like these guys communicatingwith like a microphone, like
talking to them.
They're supposedly far away anddidn't understand that a story.
They thought it was a lie.
They're like, well, thatdoesn't.
It was like the big bad wolf inLittle Red Riding Hood and they

(55:29):
were asking follow-up questionsabout the wolf and his habits.
And then the person hadexplained well, well, no, this
is a story.
It doesn't like it's, it's nottrue.
And they're like, oh, it's in alie.
Like they didn't understand,their aversion to not knowing
what a lie was, even got to thepoint where they had no stories,
because a story is just a lie.
The story is telling yousomething that didn't happen.

(55:50):
It's not intent on lying andeverybody understands the lie.
Well, you know the, theGoldilocks or whatever, and and
all those things.
They're not true events.
They're, they're a parable toteach you some lesson, or
something like that.

Speaker 2 (56:03):
Well, isn't it only a lie if you're trying to make
someone believe it's the truth?

Speaker 1 (56:09):
lie if you're trying to make someone believe it's the
truth.

Speaker 2 (56:10):
If you take the absolute, I'm not sure if you
take the absolutist view, thoughthat I mean, I know you're
telling the truth or you'retelling a lie, and if you're
saying something that isn't true, then you're lying.

Speaker 1 (56:19):
Yes, that's a like, that's a extreme view to take
and you can't imagine it, butlike it's bizarre when you think
about it, like oh my god, thatchanges everything.
Like you'd understand why theycouldn't.
They couldn't trust us.
And to us it's like what do you?
Of course we all lie, they'lllie all the time.
Sometimes we lie for goodreasons.
Sometimes you sell a lie, thelittle white lies you tell you

(56:41):
know, they're to preventsomeone's feelings from getting
hurt or, you know, fromsomething bad happening.
You're lying, but for whatyou'd consider to be a noble
purpose.
But in their absolutist view,you're either telling fact or
you're not telling fact.
And if you're not telling fact,then I cannot trust anything
you say.

Speaker 2 (56:58):
Yeah, I mean like if your wife asks you five minutes
before you go out how does myhair look, you say it looks
great.
Right, every single time.
Right, it looks better than itever has, right.

Speaker 1 (57:16):
The last thing you're going to say is oh, it's pretty
good, but I bet you, if yougave it another 15, 20 minutes,
I'm sure you could make it looka little bit better.
Like that's not in yourinterest to say that no.

Speaker 2 (57:21):
If you're already running late, in anyone's
interest Around you, right?

Speaker 1 (57:30):
Although I'll tell you if, I, if, uh, you know, if,
if you're not in a rush.

Speaker 2 (57:32):
If there's no rush to it, then there's.
I think that's people's first.
Were you looking at that woman?
Oh yeah, there's that.
No, no it.

Speaker 1 (57:37):
Well, that's just a silly one.
I'm joking around no, I meanthis, but you're right, that
does happen, but it's just, Idon't know it's, it's uh, humans
are funny little creatures, butanyway.
So we've talked a lot.
Now we've had a nice longepisode here.
We may put this out in twoparts.
I might see I'm going to haveto review in editing but we
might have two episodes here.
We just touched on conspiracytheories.

Speaker 2 (58:00):
We're coming back.
We're coming back to that Right.

Speaker 1 (58:03):
We're going to probably tackle each of these
individually, right.
Like deep dives, yeah because Iwould love to really dissect
the kennedy.
The most recent information onthe kennedy assassination like
what?
What is known, what has beendisproven?

Speaker 2 (58:16):
um, you know is there any relationship at all to the
rfk assassination to the jfk?

Speaker 1 (58:23):
or to ufos to ufo.
There's a lot of people whotrace the that say that if you
just assume that JFK wasassassinated for reasons like
that don't have to do with UFOs,and some people will say, well,
it might have been a connectivetissue.
But there's other people whosay, like no, that was it, like
that was the reason, andsupposedly can pull up

(58:45):
communiques something daysbefore where things were
referenced that could be.
You know, I mean again, you canalways take facts and make them
out to something.
So when somebody comes to mewith a conspiracy theory, my
first thought is not to believethem and also not to disbelieve
them.
I just want to hear what youhave to say.
But I love it when people willsay, well, this, this, this and

(59:07):
this must equal this, and it'slike it could equal that.
It could be that one of yourfacts is off, which would change
the dynamic of everything.
Or it could be that those samesets of facts are true, but
there's this one additional factthat, if you add to it, changes
everything.
we don't know, everything, and Ithink I think that's the thing

(59:29):
that people have to come awayfrom this is be skeptical.
Changes everything.
We don't know everything, and Ithink I think that's the thing
that people have to come awayfrom this is be skeptical about
everything, about things thatare unproven, be somewhat
skeptical of even things thatare quote unquote proven.

Speaker 2 (59:41):
I'm not saying or even be open-minded.

Speaker 1 (59:43):
It's right.
Skeptical is yeah Negative termopen-minded and say could be,
could be something else but umno, this was a good one.
This was a good discussion.
So, as always, wonderful to seeyou.
Yeah, you too, we'll be backwith more um and deeper dives
and stuff.
There's so much to talk about.
I think we are living in one ofthe most interesting times.
I say that a lot to people that, like we're living through, I

(01:00:06):
think in the next few years,it's just the amount of things
that are coming up, newdiscoveries being made, whether
the web telescope or likediscovering another ocean under
ours, like it sounds bizarre totalk about this, but I feel like
we're on this cusp where, like,things are just going to happen
and new discoveries are goingto have to change our
perspective on things because,uh, I don't know, I think, I

(01:00:28):
think it's a lot more weirderthan we think.

Speaker 2 (01:00:30):
Well, I'm really I'm.
I'm excited about whatever'scoming next.

Speaker 1 (01:00:35):
Yes, indeed, and we'll be back to talk about it.
So, uh, that's all for now,until next time.
I'm Chris and I'm Steve, andthis has been some deep shit.
We'll be you next time.