Something has Been Watching Us? ||Dr Beatriz Villarroel || NEW PEER REVIEWED PAPER ON TRANSIENT OBJECTS IN SPACE

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Good evening, seekers of truth, seekers of the unseen. Uh,
pull up a chair, dim the lights, and let's talk
about the sky's dirty little secrets, the ones that governments
tend to whisper about in skiffs, scientists bury in footnotes,

(01:47):
and the disclosure movement claws at like a cat. I
am Ty Roberts, and I am having trouble with my
placement on the microphone tonight. In this unfiltered, you know,
kind of solo narration, I just want to take a
look and crack open the vault on this no panels,

(02:09):
no guests, just me, you and the story that's been
literally screaming for attention. It's all over X right now,
big debate, and we'll kind of start at the beginning.
And I did, so what I what I want to
do in this is I also want to God damn,

(02:33):
placement on this microphone is terrible, and it looks like
the service is coming in and having an issue with
the internet here too. I apologize for that. I really
just kind of threw this together last minute because everyone,
like literally everyone is talking about it and I have
some you know, we're gonna talk about it in the

(02:54):
live show tomorrow as well. So I mean kind of,
I don't want to get too too bogged down in it,
but I definitely also uh want to give my like
unfiltered and unfettered attention. So like I said, let's start
at the beginning of the hypothesis. Uh that, let this

(03:16):
feuse and we'll kind of trace it through the the
white paper process. Uh. You know, it survived the gauntlet
of peer review. Uh, and I think that is a
you know, it's it's what people and debunkers have been
asking for for so long, you know, like video evidence
was no longer good enough, pictures not clearly not good enough.

(03:42):
So they what we wanted, and what I think a
lot of the community wanted was active like PhD scientists
and experts working on this and writing papers. And now
that we have that, I mean, it's it's like it's
it's the goalpost. Just keep getting pushed back. And I

(04:04):
get it, Like I get it, there are things that
that we need to be skeptical about. But I mean,
come on, who made these people who have made a
career out of dismissal are are almost and I'm not
gonna name anyone, but some of the debunkers they seem

(04:25):
to be just as bad as like the the UFO gurus,
and it's just like take them at their word and
take them at this and you know what they say
is the truth, and you know anything outside of that
is uh, your your opposition. Like we can't disagree, we

(04:49):
can't sit in the same room disagree, but at the
end of the day, shake hands and walk away at
least maybe learning something or showing a bit of empathy
and being able to at least put yourself in the
shoes of the other person. There's no more of that
right in the world that we live in right now.

(05:11):
It's just if you don't agree, you become the enemy.
And this is trickling down in so many different facets.
I mean, look at Disclosure tonight and those guys in
Red Pandaquala. It's like this stuff is taking over the drama,
the inherent chaos that seems to be the UFO ex community.

(05:37):
And I'm guilty, Like I I'm not Jeremy Corbel and
say that I don't interact with it. I definitely do,
but I try to stay as neutral and as impartial
as I can be, you know, looking at it from
both sides, just like I do on the show. But anyway,

(06:00):
I want to look at how every turn the gatekeeper
seem to have official disclosure, uh, moving the goalposts, dangling
transparency like it's a carrot out a string and it's
just always right out of reach. It's maybe not bedtime
rereading for the casual stargazer, though, I'll try to keep

(06:23):
it kind of simple. No PhD required, wink wink uh.
If your knee deep in UAP lore, I think you'll
not belong to the frustrations. If you're new, welcome. By
the end, you'll see why these vanishing lights aren't just
dots on old plates. They're a mirror to our place
and the cosmos. And because the universe loves a plot

(06:46):
with a twist, we'll cap it with an interstellar wildcard.
Everyone's watching right now, and it's three eye outlets. It's
the third cosmic drifter crashing our solar party with with
anomalies that make the Vasco transient kind of you know,
look like not child's play. I wouldn't say that, but

(07:07):
I think people are running rampant with the three I
Atlas story. There's definitely some oddities. I know. I've been
in talks with people like al Vi lobe, Mark D'Antonio.
They don't agree at all. But then also, I've been
talking with h my NASA that the NASA Chief of
Aerospace Medicine, who also you know, uh worked in you know,

(07:32):
chemical engineering and was a flight surgeon and uh did
did a lot of a lot of a lot of work.
I got him talking to me about it too, saying,
you know, certain things don't add up. So uh yeah,
buckle up. Uh we're gonna whether you're like it or not, Uh,
we're gonna. We're gonna jump into it. So let's rewind

(07:53):
uh to twenty seventeen. Ironically, Uh no, not going where
you think we're going. Uh. But Beatrice Villa Roel doctor
Bia to her ex followers at doctor bea Villa Reale
if you're tweeting or ex posting this later, she's a
sweetest astrophysicist with a nose for the anomalas. She's not

(08:18):
chasing little green men. She's very much a data hound,
sifting through dusty archives like a cosmic archaeologist, and she
stumbles on something odd in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey
plate posse. I don't know if I'm saying that right,

(08:39):
but those black and white snapshots from nineteen forty nine
to nineteen fifty eight, and that is what's mapping the
northern heavens on glass point like flash stars that blink
on for a heartbeat under forty five minutes. Cosmically, that
is so quick. Uh and then vanish no trace uh

(09:02):
in follow up exposures. Uh, no matches in modern catalogs
like sd S S or you know guya natural Uh
meteors uh streak, meteors streak. Uh. These are static points.
Asteroids move predictably. Yes, that's how I wrote it. So
these yeah, these aren't typical. And I know, Uh, I'm not.

(09:32):
I don't pretend to know what this all means, which
is why I was going to say, I did grab
the interview that she did with Ross Coltart's I want
to play a couple of clips of that while we
go through it. Uh, I actually are. I did talk
to her and she did agree to come on the podcast.

(09:53):
She has an answered sense. Obviously she's been been super busy,
but you know, I really want her to come on
and explode it, explain her hypothesis. But it hits like
a Roague commet. You know, these are transient objects vanishing
and appearing, you know sources during century of observations or

(10:19):
VASCO for short over seven years, her team combed six
hundred thousand plates on earthing over seventy thousand of those ghosts.
But here's what's interesting and kind of what has kept
to me interested. They cluster in linear alignments, hugging the

(10:40):
geosynchronous Earth Orbit GEO that sweet spot thirty six thousand
kilometers up, where as ats like weather birds loiter not
random scatter soldiers in formation marching across the sky. You know,
early skeptic scoffed and you know said it was play

(11:01):
defects and shadow geometry is something I've heard as of
recent But it seems that uh or or what what
was the other one? Emulsion glitches from the analog era,
and and her counter has been statistical rigor. They're not

(11:24):
just kind of like fuzzy smudges. They're sharp uh sub
This is where I did when I had to look
it up like four times. Uh there's sharp sub arc
second points with magnitudes that are deliberate and and they
vanished too quick for known junk meteors. Planes even early

(11:47):
balloons leave trails. And again this is you know, an
an era, that is you know, pre the space program,
so so you know, nothing's supposed to be up there.
So I want to bring in this what is it
called this interview that she did and we'll go back

(12:12):
to the other part in a minute, but hopefully you
guys can hear this. Where is it? Let me know
if you can hear.

Speaker 2 (12:22):
It identified objects into a peer review journal, especially journals
as prestigious as the ones you're talking about. Let me
do a quick summary. So the study that you did,
you were looking at pre satellite transient sky events and
you basically stylize nearly three hundred thousand short lived transient

(12:46):
events that were captured on red sensitive photographic plates from
the first Poloma Sky Survey. And these exposures were all
taken between nineteen forty eight and before humans put satellites
up in the nine to late nineteen fifties, and each
of these exposures lasted about forty five fifty minutes, and

(13:08):
you focused on identifying cases where three or more transient
points appeared along a straight line during the same exposure.
And the reason why those lines matter is if a
single flash appears on a skyplate, it could be a glitch,
but multiple point like lights perfectly aligned and visible in

(13:28):
one long exposure photo that hints at something coordinated, possibly
spinning or reflective objects. And you can rule out natural
sources like meteors, stars and asteroids. They don't line up
and appear simultaneously. You can rule out plate defects because

(13:49):
you were able to show, weren't you as you told
us previously that when you go into the shadow of
the sun, obviously it removes the reflectiveness, so it's it's
not a plate defect, and you basically what the only
plausible explanation is artificial reflections from flat highly reflective services

(14:16):
in geosynchronous orbit. That's that's exactly what explains you're talking about.
How many of these objects are we talking about, Beatrice.

Speaker 3 (14:27):
So we had two candidates that are highly interesting that
the paper resulted in, and there's still one little caveat
for these two candidates. There's a minuscal chance that it
might be something called optical ghosting on the in the instruments.

Speaker 1 (14:46):
What when when that door keeps doing that, I keep
thinking it's in here, So I'm like, what the hell
is that? So I hope everyone I got this camera
switcher and I'm just so obsessed with the t our
feed so fun to do, but yeah, I'm so I'm sorry.

(15:07):
I do have to stop it every couple seconds so
we don't get copyright straight. But again trying too that
was creepy.

Speaker 3 (15:19):
How do I speaks against it is because we looked
at the blue sensitive images and you don't see anything there.
If it would be optical ghosting, you would also see
with the same setup of the instruments, you would see
something there, but we don't. However, we always always leave
that little caveat. But what even more talks about these
things are little is because when we look at all

(15:41):
the transients, not only at aligne ones, but all the
transits in the Earth shadow, we do see this huge
deficit of transience. And that really speaks for that. What
we are dealing with our solar reflections from very flat,
very reflective objects in synchronous orbits.

Speaker 2 (15:59):
Doctor tellby what could this be? What are these objects?

Speaker 3 (16:04):
Well, these are objects before Sputnik one, when humans have
nothing up there, and these things, no matter what they are,
they need to be really frat reflective, like a mirror.
And I personally don't know anything natural that produces and
that looks like that that fulfills.

Speaker 1 (16:24):
I know something and I've had a vi lobe. Oh
this is a good moment for Oh no, I'm already
on that camera, so let me go to this camera
and say, this is a good moment for a camera.
So which I had a vi Lobe in that chair.
I have not aired the episode yet, but I had

(16:45):
Avi Lobe in that chair a while back, and I
need to invite him back in. But a muamua what
Avi was saying that oh mulla mula looked like and
that it could possibly be a probe and I don't
think we got enough data on it. And again I'm

(17:06):
not saying that that's exactly what it is. But you
know if three eye and that's why I tied three
eye at liss In because three iye Atlas is giving
that very that nickel with no iron. It's it's giving
that signature which is we've never seen we don't see

(17:27):
nickel without iron, and you know iron being very heavy
and corrosive, we don't use it. We separate it and
use that in our space program. So again this is
pre space program. So again pointing towards an and uh I,
three eye atlasts do I think it's an alien spaceship?

(17:47):
Probably not. Is it interesting and could it be some
sort of probe that does that that does hide itself
as a rock or I think it's totally plausible and
just I mean the de Bunkers are like even Mark
D'Antonio is an astronomer and a good friend of mine,
Like I kind of got a disagreement with them, and

(18:08):
I'm like, dude, like stop downplaying it like it's super interesting.

Speaker 2 (18:16):
It's these requirements, so I like correct in saying there
are literally tens of thousands of these objects that you've detected.

Speaker 3 (18:24):
We see that roughly thirty five thousand transients are belonging
to this kind of category, but that is just for
the northern hemisphere, which means that we would need to
have around seventy thousands of transients around I mean for
the whole Earth. And from that we can estimate that
maybe tens of thousands, two hundred thousands of objects around

(18:47):
the Earth must have been there.

Speaker 2 (18:49):
So now we know that they were there in pre
spot Nick nineteen fifties, what do we know about whether
there's still there? Can we rule out the possibility or
the problem ability that they're still there in geosynchronous orbit.

Speaker 3 (19:04):
I have no idea because if these are what they
think they are, I mean, if these are artificial object
which the signatures are pointing towards, I have no idea
what they could have done or if they are there still.
I would assume they're there still.

Speaker 2 (19:21):
But it's a reasonable conclusion, isn't it, doctor, that if
these are artificial objects, some civilization has constructed them.

Speaker 1 (19:31):
Yes, I would say so.

Speaker 3 (19:33):
I mean it's not ours.

Speaker 2 (19:35):
And when your peer review colleagues asked you questions, were
they aware of the significance of what this paper is
these papers are pointing to, I don't know.

Speaker 3 (19:45):
We were talking about the technicalities, not about the implications.

Speaker 2 (19:50):
It's interesting because scientists get bogged down, and obviously for
good reason, in exploring alternative prosiaic explanations. But when you
think about it and step back from them, occasions of
what you're saying, this is massive. You are the author
or the lead author of two papers which essentially suggest

(20:10):
that there are artificial constructed objects in geosynchronous Earth orbit
in the nineteen fifties before humans sent up satellites, and
to this day we don't know if those objects are
still there. But they are indicative of something constructed.

Speaker 3 (20:33):
Isn't that exciting?

Speaker 2 (20:36):
Good for you? I mean, the implications are this might
be the first scientific evidence of a non human intelligence,
and it.

Speaker 3 (20:44):
Subtainly is going to be. What they like about this
is that we are giving exact methods and strategies for
people to explore the UFO question and a question if
they are here, through just easily available methods many astronomers
over the whole world can work with because these play
archives exist in so many countries, and you don't need

(21:08):
to be part of some very expensive, big collaboration because
if you have access to this open data, anyone can
go in. They can analyze these data sets, they can
download them, and they can check if there's a deficit
in the Earth shadow or if they see alignments. It's
a very open source way of working. So I think, yes,

(21:30):
we're going to be able to really pin down a
very secure answer very soon if more people try to
replicate this and work with the same questions.

Speaker 1 (21:40):
So fast forward. Since this interview, we're going to fast
forward to twenty twenty five and Beatrice is not hypothesizing anymore.
She's publishing white papers and drops them as a preprint
on a place called Now I'm not familiar with what

(22:04):
this is a R is it x I V or
x I N, it's some whatever, it's some group and
she co authors. Uh. The co authors on the paper
include H Enrique Solano and UH Cadre of International Eyes.

(22:28):
The bombshell Uh a twenty two sigma statistical uh deficit.
That's not a TYPEO twenty two standard deviations. Uh. So
that's the kind of number that makes uh lottery winds
look probable. Anyway, the transients during Earth's shadow hours when

(22:51):
the plate's caught the night side sky, Uh, sunlight out
of glints are off. Uh, They're they're completely off. So
what that says, I guess is that these aren't stars
or quasars. Their reflections, like she said in the interview,
from these flat mirror like uh surfaces, and you know

(23:15):
that really again that drives me towards the idea of
something like Omuamuha, which Avi said was uh, you know, uh,
flat like a pancake. And if it if it was
made of you know, these like three iye atlis, which
you know was was nickel uh or it has a

(23:37):
lot of nickel and no iron. That's a metallic surface,
I mean, and that would you know kind of shine
uh shine off. But again this is the pre the
pre satellite era. So it's that is what is so interesting.
But the debunkers, like you know, and and and the

(23:58):
debunkers uh are the ones that uh you you you
would probably expect. H. I don't wanna. I don't. It's
we don't have to name any anyone. But I did
bookmark a couple posts and so so Beatrice submitted her paper.

(24:19):
It's been peer reviewed, which is again something that we've
been asking for in the community for for so long.
That that and a VI lobe and Harvard and you know,
they were doing their thing with the Galileo project. Uh.
Then there's Gary Nolan and the Saul Foundation. They're doing
their thing. And it finally seemed like there were real scientists,

(24:44):
like they were real, real like brilliant minds coming into
this field and coming into it with with really not
you know, not not again. They're not chasing little green men,
so to say. But they're also not afraid to ask

(25:07):
the question what if? And I think every scientist should
ask that what if? And I think Beatrice especially has
put forth data a peer reviewed paper, a white paper,
but then she submits it to this place. Apparently it's

(25:27):
like it's where papers go to to live or die,
you know, and and some of them aren't even published,
but they get put on there so that other scientists
can read them and go through them, and you know,
so it it apparently gets rejected from this site, which

(25:48):
is also a site that or or a server, so
to say that had put up and maybe I think
I know when it exactly was, but they had put
up a paper that you know, was challenging of what

(26:12):
Beatrice is saying or putting forth in her paper. And
the reasoning they gave her, and I have it, I'll
pull it up in one second on Twitter. The reason
and they gave her is said one of them was
that it was just not of interest. And but they
ran in a paper that was in challenging, challenging it,

(26:33):
so it was of interest. Then is that what made
them not interested in her?

Speaker 2 (26:38):
You know?

Speaker 1 (26:39):
And again is that something we see where someone muddies
the water right before before the real work can be done.
We've been dealing with that in the UFO community for forever, literally,
you know this the same time David Grush testifies. Uh,

(27:00):
you know, a Miami or or the Las Vegas alien
thing happens and it just muddies the water, so no
one cares about any of it. Or the Miami Mall
happens while you know, this thing's happening, and it's just
it happens to us all the time. So anyway, with
that being said, it seems like that could be a reason.

(27:21):
But this plot, this server does not take her paper
and let me share on X Yeah, share this tab instead.
I don't know if you can see this. Oh it
doesn't show me on the uh on the viewfinder. Oh

(27:48):
there it is. Okay, So, dear author, thank you for
one second. Let me get this banner. Thank you for
submitting your work to Okay, so it isn't a V.
I thought I'd mistyped it. H a r xi V.
We regret to inform you that this place moderators have

(28:10):
determined that your submission will not be accepted and made
public on the website. Our moderators determined that your submission
does not contain sufficient original or substance sub why can't
I speak substantative scholarly research and is not of interest

(28:31):
to r xi V. For more information, YadA, YadA, YadA.
Moderators strive to balance fair and this is key fair
assessment with decision speed. We understand that this decision may
mean decision may be disappointing, and we apologize that due

(28:52):
to the high volume of submissions that we receive, we
cannot offer more detailed feedback. Some authors have found that
asking their personal network of colleagues or submitting it to
conventional journal for peer review are alternative avenues to obtain feedback.
And that's that. So what you're essentially, what that says

(29:17):
to me is that it's so hard to say it
without sign without sounding like a complete and utter asshole.
But to me, that that is just so blatant, it's

(29:37):
so on the it's it's so it's so exactly what
you'd accept. I mean, I expect right being in the
in the in this community. And you know, it seems
whenever we take three steps forward, we're taking eight back

(29:59):
at the same time. And there is clearly something that
is gatekeeping and and some something, whether it's some individuals,
an entity, the deep state as people call it, or
just uh, you know, uh stigma alone, whether it's bias

(30:23):
actual bias on a human level, there is no place
for people who think like that anymore. It's like we
we're on a rock flying hurdling through space, and our
soul like not only are we as a solar system

(30:45):
hurtling through space, but our galaxy is hurtling through space,
and that is all hurtling through space. Like the the
the fact that we are not chasing down the biggest story.
And and as scientists when and I think what another

(31:08):
person said, let me go to it. It's Astral. He's
a good friend of mine. What he said was he
thinks that because in the paper, apparently they get to
where the hell is it? Uh, they get to talking
about nuclear Newton like nuclear uh connection.

Speaker 3 (31:32):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (31:32):
There was also a connection that I know she talks
about uh with there was the connection with the Washington
d c UH flyover that that, by the way, that
is profound to me, that that that that was a
connection uh to it, because I find that to be

(31:55):
super interesting, super compelling. And I haven't read the whole thing.
But if what she's saying is that at nuclear testing,
I mean, I don't know how it gets into nuclear.
Oh here it is, Astrol said in his opinion the
paper by doctor Villa Rouel likely got cut from the

(32:17):
server for crossing into too many fields, those fields being
astro nuclear physics and UAP data. Uh. The article is
tough to classify, so it was rejected on scope. And
I don't know if this is a I that he's
pulling from here, but he gives some some reasons and

(32:42):
moderator views on why he thinks it wasn't So I
don't know there could be a rational explanation, uh, for
for why it was not accepted. You know, maybe maybe
I maybe I am letting my bias show. I don't know,
but I thought it again, I find it wonderful. So

(33:02):
here's this is Beatrice's post. So she posted wonderful news.
Our two new VASCO papers are now peer reviewed, accepted,
and published, and they reveal some extraordinary things. She finds
statistically significant correlations between short lived transience. Again, this is

(33:25):
a pre spot mix, a pre any space program, skyplates,
UFO sightings and above ground nuclear tests. Wow. Again, nuclear tests,
that's my area of interest. Especially we show a twenty
two twenty two whatever that symbol is deficit. Oh that's

(33:47):
what I had in the thing that I wrote out
that I think I copied it from here deficit of
transience inside Earth's shadow consistent And again that's a really
interesting aspect of it in Earth's shadow. So they're not
again anyway, so consistent with a fraction of these events

(34:09):
originating from solar reflections from flat highly reflective surfaces in
orbit before the Cuban space age began. Together with her
earlier there, earlier U M n r a S paper.
Uh these results from trip titch of new methods to

(34:31):
investigate U A P using astronomical data. These they're independent
HYE level journals and these independent peer review processes. These
latest results raise a bold question. And yes, you know which, God,
she's good. That was really good. If I had read
it and clearly and concisely, that would have come off

(34:54):
so much cooler hopefully. Uh So there what she's saying
there is And then she explains what this organization is
and it's where physicists and astronomers share pre oh pre prints.
So if a paper isn't there, can you guys see this?

(35:17):
Yeah you can. So it serves as the central hub.
So this server serves as the central hub for open
scientific exchange. We're unpublished, newly accepted, and even rejected manuscripts
are shared so that other researchers can read tests. So

(35:40):
there you go. Debunkers who are saying that these need
to be replicated, Well, that's what she's saying. Test and
build upon the work. It's how ideas circulate rapidly and transparently,
long before and sometimes regardless of ah true formal publication. Now,

(36:02):
both of our accepted in peer reviewed papers in PASP
and scientific reports have been rejected from the server in
one case, she was told at least an older work
in the other, and that's the one that I mentioned
that research was quote not of interest to the server

(36:24):
and a platform impeer girl results, peer review and publication
in high quality journals are no longer enough to satisfy
ooh the gatekeepers. Scientists are being prevented from reading new results.
The UFO stigma remained strong, and again I think I

(36:44):
talked about that as well. So she is chalking it
up to UFO stigma and maybe a little bit of
gate keeping. What do you guys think in the comments?
Let me know, I really you know, we're gonna be
diving in this tomorrow into the live show, h and

(37:05):
I'm super excited about it. I really am because I
think this is I have so much to say on this,
and it's it's really fascinating to me, this whole thing,
the transience. And I'll play a little bit more of
that clip, but I want to get something to hear
so vetted. So I have had Mick I almost said,

(37:28):
Mick wasp Mick West. I've had him on the show
multiple times. And I say that because I I I'm
having Tim Phillips on as well, and people have been
pretty upset at me for that one for some reason,
and then asking me to, you know, get involved in

(37:48):
other drama ish stuff not maybe not drama. Maybe it's
not drama, but like, I just want to have my
discussions with these people. I want to ask them the
hard questions about stuff like the Wall Street Journal article
and Malmstrom and this bogus idea that an EMP like

(38:09):
the directed EMP was used to and so that was happening.
And I'm going a little off tangent here, But so
you're telling me that that hazing ritual was used against
are uh, the hazing ritual was used against people that
were entering special access programs. You fucking lie to them

(38:31):
and tell them that there's UFOs show them pictures, right,
and then never tell them, never tell them that it
was a hazing ritual. Just forget that the best part
of it is them finding out that it's a hazing
ritual or or a joke. Like it doesn't make sense
that part, right, because eventually the person that gets hazed

(38:52):
becomes the hazer, so they get let in on it all,
and that's not what's happening, clearly. Then to say that
Malmstrom was a an e mp, like if you don't
think I'm gonna ask him about that kind of stuff, like,
then you don't. Uh, I don't know if I want

(39:13):
to get involved with this other stuff. It's not my place,
like it's it's not so you know, and uh, we
had to move the date because of all this nonsense
and that upsets me because you know, uh, it's it
just upsets me. But I want to do what's right.

(39:33):
So like I'll run it by and I'll ask, like, hey,
do you want to talk about this? But if he
says no, I'm gonna respect that, Like you know, I'll ask,
but if he doesn't want to, then I'll respect it.
I I I'm there for for total disclosure, but vetted
vetted commented, So there's this thing. So Mickwest is saying that.

(39:58):
So Mick West did get like attacked by a lot
of the believers about And I don't think we should
be attacking, uh Mick, because Mick Mick's doing Mick Mick.
This is what Mick does all all the time. This
is what he does. This is Mick, right. He tries

(40:18):
to find the prosaic explanation and and that's what he does.
Like if we need that kind of stuff, and it,
you know, UFO X can already feel not like an
echo chamber. I don't want to call it an echo chamber,

(40:39):
but you know, if you're in spaces with the same
people every night, you're you're going to create the same
conversations and the same you know, then there's going to
be the narrative split. And that's where I get, like
I said, I get a little dicey because if we're
defending you know, defending Elizondo, like he's your you know,

(41:01):
fantasy football team, and I say this maybe ad nauseum
that like that's a problem. Right, if you're defending Steven Greer,
like you know, like if you're staking your mortgage on it,
like that kind is like, if that's the hill you
want to die on, Like it just doesn't make sense

(41:23):
to me. Like we should understand that one person isn't
going to drive disclosure. It's going to be a group effort,
and it's going to take you know, the general public.
That's what these hearings are for. That's what you know.
People often get upset with these hearings that they're not

(41:44):
going as deep as they could be. And yeah, I agree, right,
but it's also for the general public to get involved
and to see that it's being discussed. And that's why
each one is so monumental. You know, we had one
in seventy years, and then we've had four in the
last you know, five or six years. So the needle

(42:07):
is moving, the stigma is shedding, the scientists are getting involved,
white paper like everything that Carl Sagan was asking for. Right,
with great I almost said, with great power comes great responsibility. Oh,

(42:27):
it's been a day. It's also late, and I this
is I gotta go soon. We'll be talking about this
again tomorrow. But yes, with great power does come great responsibility. However, uh,
I honestly can't remember the real saying right now, does
anyone have it in the chat for me, no extraordinary proof.

(42:51):
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't like that saying
personally because evidence is evidence. But the claims and Mitch Yukaku,
where's he gone? He like disappeared? Where the fuck that
that guy go? He was in like every UFO thing,

(43:14):
and then all of a sudden he just disappeared. And
I haven't seen him since, but he's he said something
that I always really liked, and that was the burden
of proofs as has shifted to the non believer. We've
got the videos, We've got the pictures. Right, it's getting
a little bit more challenging with the videos and pictures

(43:36):
with you know AI and you know the advent of
of like really really good special effects at a very
accessible uh and anyone can learn Blender and and anyone
can learn how to do like it's like the Cousin

(43:57):
Brothers for me, are a good example, like a bunch
of their stuff, like come on, like they made a
whole career off of it. And you know, don't hate
the player. I hate the game, right, hate. I hate
that every time I'm on UFO X or or on
some Facebook group. Yes, I do sometimes peruse the Facebook

(44:20):
groups because I'm apparently old. Someone said, but I I
was using the Facebook or scroll in the Facebook group
and it just it was really it gets really like toxic.

(44:44):
And I came from the world of movies in Hollywood
and that was toxic. This is a little bit less toxic,
believe it or not, but it's it's still highly like
people are at each other's throats. And you know, it's
like the Star Wars fan base, like they can't ever
seem to agree. And maybe that's just something, but I

(45:05):
think that you and I I what I The point
for what I'm saying is, I don't think the UFO
community should be something like the Star Wars community because
what we're dealing with is real. It's real, like we
this should be the cutting edge. It's one of the
most like basic fundamental questions as as an existentially capable being, right,

(45:33):
what happens after death? Are we alone in the universe?
These are things that we ponder because we're conscious. What
is consciousness? Why can I sit here and have this
conversation with you? Why can I reflect and make noises
out of my mouth that are sent through digital waves
to right now? One hundred and ninety six people total

(45:57):
on Accent and YouTube that are able to hear me.
You know, maybe with a little delay because the internet
in the studio, we have to have the guy come out,
so there could be a little delay. See I work
that in, but pretty much instantaneously. Like look at the
fact that we're here as a fucking miracle. The fact

(46:19):
that we're not like on some like we didn't, we
weren't just born into some apocalyptic fucking hellscape is because
of love. It's because of compassion, It's because of structure,
you know, religion and society and you know, love it,
hate or love it. But I mean we got it

(46:40):
pretty good. And you know, u pho disclosure. It shouldn't
be like a movie community. It should be like, uh,
you know something that's again And I think we are
getting there finally, where real real experts like a VI
Lobe like riswan Vik, like uh, Brian Keating, like Jesse

(47:05):
might Well I don't know if Jesse's an expert so
to say, but he's a genius when it comes to
research and retaining information connecting dots. So yeah, Jesse, I
mean I think Jesse does a great job. And yeah,
so I mean, I think we are getting to a
place that's that's awesome and it's amazing, but it's it's

(47:27):
not coming without its challenges. And I think the digital
age is really it's something that I mean, when you
give everybody a voice, you give everybody a voice. So
that's just the way the Internet's always going to be,
I suppose, but it can be. And that's why I

(47:49):
really advise people like the UFO community. It's intoxicating because
again we are talking about like real real the implications
are so outstandingly paradigm shifting, right, So I understand that,
you know, when we talk about these things, it's it's

(48:10):
it's easy to become enamored and to like this is
the only topic that people just throw themselves into and
they just never come up for air. But like, go
on a hike, Like I know that the cliche like
go touch grass, troll comment, but actually go touch grass.
Like go out on a hike, go out with your friends,

(48:32):
get away from UFOs for a while and go try
to you know, maybe you'll see one and then you know,
I don't know, something amazing will happen, but you have
to have you have and and Chris BLOODSOE at the
time got ridiculed for saying this. But if you're not looking,
and if you're not willing to see, then you're not

(48:54):
gonna see. And I do believe that. I do. I
think that's why a lot of children see these things.
I was a child, you said, you could say when
I saw mine at ten or eleven years old. But
we're in a new place. We are in uncharted territory

(49:17):
right now as a species with AI and the advancement
of AI and the scariness of the existential crisis that
you know that it's like we're facing down the barrel
of a gun, but we're also pointing the gun. That
paints a weird picture to sketch that. But you know

(49:37):
what I mean, We're about to create God, not we.
I'm not about to create God like some other conscious being.
It probably is AI already sentient. I don't know. Maybe anyway,
I'm going off on tangents here. So what was the

(49:57):
last thing I wanted to say was so vetted? Was
bringing it an up. Mick West was saying the gold
standard of science is not peer review, which really does
fucking frustrate me because now so he says it is
independent replication, and of course, of course, like that's part

(50:18):
of the process, but why why come at it from
that angle. It's a peer reviewed paper with really compelling
data in it. It's everything that people have wanted for
so long. And this one isn't like some crazy weird

(50:39):
like you know, interdimensional galactic federation. Like this is literally
you know, as cut and dry as it gets, accounting
for error. And I think that's great, you know, I
think the fact that this is even happening, that Scientiss

(50:59):
certain involved, and we're getting to these points, these things
that twenty years ago, if any one of these events happened,
and we seem to be getting them on a weekly basises,
these big whistleblower things or and again I don't I
use that term loosely whistleblower, but these great witness accounts
from the military and you know, private sector and contracting

(51:22):
and special forces and you know, yeah, so on and
so forth. We're getting these amazing accounts, some of them.
Of course, take a grain, take what a grain of salt.
These amazing events are happening. Any one of these things
twenty five years ago would have been the highlight of
the ten year period. And like so there is a
lot happening. It's a lot to keep track of. But

(51:43):
that's again, that's why we did the live show on
Thursdays now and we'll we'll dive deeper into this. But
I wanted to uh just watch like maybe like two
three more minutes of the Actually no, I don't. I
don't want to. I don't want to get copyright striked
or anything like that, So I'll just probably end it there.

(52:08):
I really, uh impromptu kind of threw this together. It
was like, let's just do I want to get more
engaging with the audience, the video audience especially, you know,
I want to play with the camera switcher. Uh, admittedly
I want to play with the camera switcher. But anyway,
and that's why I bought, you know, the studio is

(52:30):
to to do these things, and uh yeah, so I
expect more of it the debunkers. I guess the moral
of the whole I probably said that three times. The
moral of this is we should be really happy that
serious people are involved. And don't attack Mick West. Don't

(52:58):
don't attack Mick for having the the Mick West like
it's that's what Mick does. Don't get mad at him
over it. Just like don't engage with them if you
don't want to. But also don't engage with the other
people that are you know, uh echo. You know, don't

(53:21):
surround yourself with an echo chamber. And you know, if
someone has opposing or conflicting you know, views, bounce ideas
off of each other, right, you don't have to agree
and and they get you know, no one's perfect, no one,
no one's perfect. So you know, I liken it to

(53:44):
the neighborhoods, the neighborhoods I grew up in. It was
like open door policy. Right from the city I lived
in a city to living in the suburbs. There was
an open door policy in both of the areas. And
that's without saying it takes a village came from. Now
people don't know their neighbors. They hate their neighbors, you know,

(54:09):
one as a Trump sign, one as of this sign.
And like there's no kids outside playing trick or treating
is like less every year, Like we are headed and
there's so much isolation going on that it doesn't scare me.
And and we can maybe we can get into this

(54:30):
one day on the podcast or at the live show.
But like the way things are going needs to change,
like ready player one. We need to all like the
I think the Internet needs to shut down on one
day a week, like you can have access to basic
functions like calling anything that would require like like an

(54:53):
emergency like that. But we should be I think the
Internet for the most part, like all everything should shut
out for a day and everyone gets unplugged and we
just societally we agree to that, like just unplugged. All right, guys,
thank you so much for being here. Pretty good turnout

(55:16):
for like no but no promotion. Thank you, guys. I
appreciate it. And again We're gonna be live tomorrow at
six thirty with my co host Corey Lindsay also is
the editor of the of the podcast like the actual
weekly podcast with a you know, a great guest that
we have every single week. The episode coming up is

(55:40):
a special one. Yeah, it's a special one, so definitely
look out for it. We'll see you guys on the
other side. And att

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Ruthie's Table 4

Dateline NBC

.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;}Something has Been Watching Us? ||Dr Beatriz Villarroel || NEW PEER REVIEWED PAPER ON TRANSIENT OBJECTS IN SPACE

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;}Stuff You Should Know

Ruthie's Table 4

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

Something has Been Watching Us? ||Dr Beatriz Villarroel || NEW PEER REVIEWED PAPER ON TRANSIENT OBJECTS IN SPACE

Stuff You Should Know