#11 | UFO Disclosure: Salvatore Pais ft. Dave Rossi

Deep dive into Salvatore Pais' patents and the science of zero point energy. Asking Salvatore Pais about the MH370 videos. Discussing Cold Plasma and EVOs

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Welcome to the stream, guys. Today I have a very
special guest. Do you guys know him as the Navy's
developer of the UFL patents. Salvator Pias is back with
me today on hard Trus. Let's get started right away. Welcome,
please with me, salvat Or Pias, Sir, Welcome to the
live stream.

Speaker 2 (00:21):
How are you doing, hey, brother, how are you doing
for ORBS? A pleasure to be here. Hello to all
your followers, your viewers, your subscribers. Hi, guys and girls.
All right, let me start off the bed. Quick disclaimer.
None of these statements I make here, opinions and so forth,

(00:45):
are in any way associated with the United States Navy
or the United States Space Force. I come here on
this podcast as a private citizen. All the statements I make,
all the opinions I make are my own. United States
Government has absolutely nothing to do with this whatsoever. Now

(01:06):
give me two minutes because I really got to get
this off my chest and let me finish the thought
before the stream is over. So whatever questions you got
to ask, ask, but let me start with this. I
have a feeling I know how these things move, how
these orbs. It's very Oh my God, it's so freaking simple.
I couldn't sleep last night, so I was thinking, dude,

(01:31):
it all has to do with a very a rather
simple relationship between time and frequency could be frequency of
spin or frequency of vibration. If you do a quick
dimensional analysis, you'll see that time swiggle line or is

(01:51):
on the order of one divided by frequency just from
a unit's point of view, But that also applies to
the physics. If you apply the chain rule to that,
T say equals a constant that has no dimensions, divided
by saying frequency of spin. I prefer frequency of vibration

(02:12):
because you can vibrate much higher. As you and I
shall discuss eventually. We're not gonna give numbers, but anyway,
so again, T equals a constant dimensional is constant divided
by a frequency, say, of vibration. If you apply the
chain rule chain rule. We're talking about first year college

(02:35):
differential calculus, all right, chain rule. If you apply the
chain rule to this relationship, you're gonna get something that
basically says minus delta t T being time is on
the order of delta frequency say delta omega divided by
omega square. It's that freaking simple that minus delta T

(03:01):
talks you can say to a reverse termporal excursion, if
you want to go that way, or if you can
consider the Minkowski space time metric. One of the solutions
to it when delta x equals delta y equal delta
zquals zero, one of the solutions to it is minus
delta S for displacement equal c the speed of light

(03:26):
delta T. Put in the delta T and notice how
the signs all of a sudden become positive. It talks
to a possible displacement. So in other words, what these
orbs are doing, they're bathing. They're bathing the aircraft in
a sea of frequencies non ionizing radiation. It's key, and
I'll talk to it eventually. We have to possibly you,

(03:48):
me and Dave ROSSI have to write a paper on this. Eventually.
Maybe we'll do it in OSLF. It's huge, It's so
freaking simple and beautiful. But the whole idea is it
basically give a method of propulsion whereby when you have
this bath of non ionizing radiation and developing the aircraft,
when you dial up the frequency just from the formula itself,

(04:11):
and if you go back into the recording, you'll see
the exact formula that I was talking about. From application
of the chain rule. You basically displace this thing, but
it needs to shwingle limit. It needs for the quote
unquote conditioning of the vacuum, so it allows the space

(04:33):
the Minkowski space time metro to occur in a how
should I say modified vacuum, Let's put it that way,
A conditioned vacuum. We'll talk more about this, but this
is how they display.

Speaker 1 (04:49):
More questions on that, and I want to get into
it and a few but what I want to really
start with though, with you, is on your background, because
there's so much confusion I think over it. You know,
first of all, let me ask you this, why are
you doing public appearances at all? What is your motivation?
And did you get permission from the Navy to do
your appearances.

Speaker 2 (05:10):
Only as a private citizen. That's why I give the
disclaimer at the beginning of all this. And then again
I always speak to Ecube brother. I always say, we're
not here to educate or in any way enlighten the
enemy e Cube. So I do not give numbers, I

(05:32):
do not give ranges. I give concepts ideas. Now, how
to enable these ideas. You actually need numbers, you need
specified condition environments. Period, go ahead.

Speaker 1 (05:45):
Are you doing it so that people will be privy
to this information knowing, you know, not thinking that it's
currently real, because a lot of people think that your
your patents and your technology and the science that you
push is pseudoscience. They love to say that. So I
guess the question I'm getting is are you what?

Speaker 3 (06:00):
What?

Speaker 1 (06:00):
What are you getting out of this?

Speaker 2 (06:03):
I am a part of this. I this is my way.
Nobody will accept my papers. Nobody. Uh. My way of
of how should I say, of of of convincing the
world that in any way my ideas were correct, was
to publish patents and not even then these days are

(06:25):
allowed anymore. Nowadays it's getting harder and harder to get
certain ideas past the primary examiners. These are the guys
that can actually have the office of action to allow
the pattern. So what I get out of this is
my ideas being heard number one and number two. Sometimes

(06:45):
it's just for example, the Russians give us recently what
orationik It's called I think Hazel not treat the exact
translation from the Russian. And it's interesting because they're talking
about subclass ammunitions like this hypers on thing actually clusters
away or anyway, So the hazel lout tree speaks to clusters.

(07:06):
I think up to five hazel nuts on one branch.
So anyway, it's it's an interesting idea, but it just
gives them an idea that we too have concepts that
they have not heard of. So in a way, it's
how should I say, be careful how you handle us,

(07:26):
because if a private citizen can get on this, and
how should I say, speak to a dance physics even
though they it's called pseudo science. Look, the truth of
the matter is in time. I don't know about space.
But in time, all these ideas will be cleared, they'll
be validated, they will be verified. Just like your idea

(07:49):
that m three seventy what happened with it is correct,
it's starting to take fruition. So will my ideas when
they be accepted, and they will at that point in time.
That's all. But yeah, of course, so.

Speaker 1 (08:03):
You put the so you put it out there so
that in the future people will go this guy, you know,
put marked his stamp on the world in twenty sixteen,
in twenty nineteen and said this stuff's real and may
take you a while to accept it, but it's out there,
and the proof is there is that knacket representation of
your motivations.

Speaker 2 (08:20):
You could say that, but also I represent all the
people that were not heard, all the people who's the
quote unquote pseudo science never stand.

Speaker 3 (08:30):
On the.

Speaker 2 (08:32):
Oh completely, they're there. For example, people like Harold putovsh
have had a noble price, but because the man was
associated with the remote viewing stargate and so forth, all
these interesting names. But anyway, because let me, I got
a lot of questions to ask you community, Yeah ahead.

Speaker 1 (08:54):
No, we're gonna get to all these things. So you know,
let's just keep it h you know, somewhat brief and
then we'll we'll, you know, we a lot of lesson
to discuss here. So one more thing though too, in
your background is so what is your background after in
the early two thousands. There's a gap between when you
were at Case Western, you were working with NASA Glenn
as a research graduate student, I believe, and then all

(09:17):
of a sudden no one heard about you until your
patents come out. Were you working with the Navy and
other military organizations that entire time?

Speaker 2 (09:25):
I wish there was a hiring freeze in NASA, and
even though I had a graduate research fellowship and I
would have been given a permanent government position once I
had graduated from Case Western Reserve University with my PhD,
because of that high and freeze, they were not able

(09:46):
to take me on. So I had to find the thing.
I was part of a consulting engineering company. I think
it was called Cisco and Hennessy at one point, and
there was a period that I was actually laid off.
I have an interesting past, but when I was laid off,
I started reading a lot on my own and developed

(10:08):
some of these physics concepts even back then.

Speaker 1 (10:11):
So okay, that's good to know. So were you at
the NASA Breakthrough Physics Propulsion Program workshop? Did you attend
it at all? It's been rumored that you were in
attendance because of the crossover and when you were working
with NASA.

Speaker 2 (10:27):
I do not remember that, sir. I do not remember that.
It's quite possible that maybe I was in one or
two conferences, but no, I did not. My only paper
at that time, I think, published in ninety five, was
in the essay I think it was Technical Papers. It

(10:47):
was something called the induced trust effect a method of propulsion,
rather interesting propulsion method. You can read that paper. I
think it's still as part of the se SAE series
of papers. He can google it and find it.

Speaker 1 (11:07):
Did you see the most recent UFO hearings of this
immaculate constellation and all this stuff that was going on?
And you're familiar with that.

Speaker 2 (11:16):
You mean immaculate constipation?

Speaker 1 (11:20):
So I'll tell you yes, because have you seen this
document that was released along with it that references you
several times in it? And it looks to be a
historical reference of all of people related to the UFO community.
How pudas mentioned ninety three times in it here, it
mentions your work and your PhD dissertation at Case Western,

(11:42):
and it connects you to NASA Glen again in a
weird way where it says that you were working at
NASA Glenn and Nick Cook, the author of Hunt for
Zero Point Energy, he was told that NASA Glenn was
working on breakthrough physics which led to the creation of
a device capable of high speed interstellar travel. Now I

(12:03):
have to ask, like, are you connected to whatever is
being talked about here? Because your patents are literally a
interstellar faster than light device. So what is your thoughts
on this?

Speaker 2 (12:16):
Nothing travels faster than the speed of light special relativity.
We're going back to Einstein. Einstein is correct, Einstein shall
always be proven correct. That's just the prophecy you've heard
it first year anyway. Yeah, I don't think Einstein needs
me as a profit to let the world know that

(12:36):
his incredible work is will will always be valid given
a certain medium. Again, as you will know, squal see
zero divided by n square, where n is the index
of refraction. So we are talking about within a giving medium.
This speed of light is a constant. It's one of
the fundamental assertions of special relativity on which that fundamental stands.

(13:02):
As a matter of fact, this whole thing that I
spoke about in the beginning using the Minkowski it's based
on metric to show how the displacement of these orbs,
how they take place, is based on special relativity, and
in particular this idea, the speed of light within a
given medium is constant, and no nothing can go past

(13:25):
the speed of light in a given medium unless you
condition the vacuum itself. So, in other words, unless you
condition the medium for which this traveling way, whatever craft
it is, occurs.

Speaker 1 (13:40):
So is that a yes you worked on it, or
no you didn't work on it.

Speaker 2 (13:43):
Oh? No, no, absolutely not. As a matter of fact,
I was in a whole different branch. I was in
the flu dynamics branch. I was working on a CO
and crossflow. Yeah, co and cross flow basically methods of
heat t in space.

Speaker 1 (14:03):
Okay, that's gonna be relevant to it. And later discussion here.
So I got more questions. I'm gonna shoot at you
here as well. Are you aware of technology that is
beyond the public's understanding that the public would just say
doesn't currently exist right now?

Speaker 2 (14:21):
Absolutely not, sorry, Other than my own applications, my own
patent applications that I came from. I tell you all
these ideas I got by reading certain books. For example,
my favorite remains to this day, and that's why I
cannot even though he is a person that cannot tolerate

(14:43):
my work in any way, I will always hold doctor
Eric W. Davis in very high esteem because one of
my favorite books of all time is Frontiers of Propulsion Science,
that he co edited with markmel.

Speaker 1 (15:02):
Why do you think that he doesn't like you? Eric W. Davis?
For the people in the chat who are not familiar.
It's probably the number one world expert on wormholes and
other advanced space propulsion concepts. Definitely has connections to black projects.
John Ramuir's of the CIA alluded to the fact that
he had seen him on his name on bigot lists.

(15:24):
So what is it Do you think he's a gatekeeper
of this technology? What do you think? Why is it
you think he doesn't like you.

Speaker 2 (15:31):
When I try to publish, I think it was a
Journal of British Interplanetary Society. When I try to try
to publish there, he really ripped into my work big
time with the several emails to some really good people
that loved my work at the time. Was Hermann, David Frohning, Frowning,

(15:55):
fro n I n G. For some reason his name
is not is not so much mentioned, but at one
point in time it was him, It was put off.
It was Paul Murad that were very high up in this.
Of course, with Eric W. Davis, who's always been there.

(16:16):
Quite possible he is one of the gatekeepers. He is.
If you read that book Frontiers on Propulsion Science, that
the section that he himself wrote in which he argues
he argues for possibility of vacuum decay, the idea of
vacuum melting again, modification of the medium through which is

(16:38):
for you to travel, for reduction of inertial forces. I mean,
come on, the man is an absolute genius on the
level of put off, I would argue. So problem is,
of course he doesn't like my work. Now he says
he doesn't like my work. Maybe it's for a different reason,
Maybe deep down he does. That's it possible. Maybe one

(17:01):
day him and I will have a beer and laugh
over this. I hope, hope, I hope so because I
I yeah, I hold him in very high esteem.

Speaker 1 (17:10):
Good segue real quick, because we'll talk more about those
guys in a minute. But so, do you think UFOs
are real? There's something out there called the UFOs unidentified
flying objects that are floating around in the sky.

Speaker 2 (17:22):
You need you mean, I acknowledge effing objects, absolutely, absolutely
they What do you think this whole idea that their
phenomena bothers me. I'll tell you the truth.

Speaker 1 (17:32):
We got this thing floating around here right, This is
my UFO floater. I can be whatever you want. Give
me a ball, like, give me a flying saucer or
whatever it is. Salvat or pie is. And by the way,
am I saying your last name correctly? Is that pies have?
I've been saying it incorrectly as well? What is sal

(17:55):
What is the energy source of this UFO? What? What?
In your opinion, what's the energy source? Where's the energy
source coming from for this thing it's floating around freely
in the sky.

Speaker 2 (18:08):
Well quite possibly it's it's on board that craft, but
exactly how it operates, whether it can manipulate the superforce,
in which case it's their, or it can generate certain
condition electromagnetic fields which generate gravitation waves of high frequency,
in which case it's towers that that power source would differ.

Speaker 1 (18:35):
So yeah, So I don't understand how any power source
could be on board because again Einstein equals mc squared
the amount of energy levels that would be required just
to levitate for a prolonged period of time. The more
mass you put in your craft, it's a self defeating prophecy.
The more energy it now requires for that thing to levitate.

(18:57):
So how could it require how could it be something
that's on board? To me, the only logical explanation would
be there must require an external energy source that's not
on board. How would you respond to that?

Speaker 2 (19:10):
I would beg to differ. Now, you and I have
never had an argument, but in this I must stand
my ground. I believe that the energy source of this
of whatever is on board. And why because it doesn't
need to be something extremely big. Again, there's a lot

(19:31):
of things that you can achieve via resonance and non
ionizing radiation, especially when you oscillate plasmas in a certain mode,
certain fashion. I'll just leave it there. No numbers, we'll
talk about that.

Speaker 1 (19:47):
Yeah, okay, okay, So let's just let's you know what.
I'm fine. I'm happy to have disagreements, you know, and
you know, professional disagreements and understanding. I'm still learning about
this a lot. So anything where I off base, please
correct me. Now go back to you.

Speaker 2 (20:04):
But you must eventually elucidate your idea that that the
that the power source could be external to the craft,
because it's interesting, it's very interesting. After all, you have
to understand that if you consider something called god what
did he call it? Was it radiative energy? What did

(20:27):
Nicola Tesla.

Speaker 1 (20:28):
Called his radio energy?

Speaker 2 (20:30):
You know, radiant energy?

Speaker 3 (20:32):
That's it?

Speaker 2 (20:33):
Yes, yes, yes, And he had the ability to to
to to in a way. Uh. He he had a
very strange craft. I remember seeing it in one of
his patents, but for some reason, Uh, it's it's very
you don't find that patent. Uh, it's it looks very strange.

(20:55):
It looks almost like an asymmetric capacitor speaking of the
the brown So anyway.

Speaker 1 (21:04):
Yeah, do you believe in energy? Tesla?

Speaker 2 (21:07):
Did by that you mean zero point energy?

Speaker 1 (21:13):
Well, however you think of it, I think of it
as zero point energy. What do you think do you
think we can extract zero point energy?

Speaker 2 (21:21):
Some people seem to think so. So who am I
to differ? Why why should I say no to that?
I like to speak to things that I have knowledge of,
and to me, I think the study of the super
force is very important as to exactly how, for example,

(21:44):
et guide their craft, because it seems to be far
more than just something mechanical in nature or rather electromatic,
however you want to see it. That it seems has
to do with their consciousness as well, which is very
very strange.

Speaker 1 (22:01):
But go ahead, go back to your patents real quick.
And that's okay. So let's straight upat are your patents operable?

Speaker 2 (22:09):
Every one of them has been enabled. That's why they.

Speaker 1 (22:13):
Enabled, different than operable. Though enabled there's two different terms there,
but operable would imply that one has been produced and exists.

Speaker 2 (22:23):
All these theoretical concepts. All these are theoretical concepts as
far as I know. The only thing that's been attempted
was the high energy electromagnetic field generator, and we were
not able to obtain charges electrical charges photose ultracapacities higher
than say ten to the minus eight coolambs. Yeah, we

(22:46):
need at least one coolamb of charge to generate certain effects.

Speaker 1 (22:50):
Yeah, that's an eight orders of magnitude different than what
you were trying to achieve. So how do you reconcile
those results with your belief and opinion that your science
is going to be proven to be real in the future.
And to me, there's a discrepancy. You know, you're looking
at this result and the mainstream people are looking at

(23:11):
and going, well, he had his high energy electromagnetic field
generated result and the result is eight orders of magnitude
too low. So how is it that you're so confident
that it can produce these energy levels?

Speaker 2 (23:25):
Okay, from a solid, an electrified solid point of view,
we should have gone with pelotrons vand graph generators, they
can actually generate charges much higher than that. Then the
whole idea was to prevent the subject from marking and
losing the charge, So that would have to be done
in specialized environments. I will not say exactly what can

(23:47):
be done, but again Van the graph generators peleotrons which
are dynamic in nature, but you can think of them
as dynamic undergraph generators. They have the ability of generating
very high electrical charges. The whole idea is how do
you keep the electrified solid from arcing from giving away

(24:12):
that charge? And that's not simple now, but I believe
the Shwinger limit can be broken, but with plasma, not
with electrified solids. It's possible that also there may be
a way to engineer an electrified solid to bring about

(24:33):
Schwinger limit breaking, but it would be much harder from
an engineering aspect.

Speaker 1 (24:44):
Yeah, So this is what I was getting at is
that I saw one of your other interviews and you
did mention that, well, these solids can't obtain the energy
levels are required, but plasma might be able to. So
what I'm hearing here is that you're saying that, well,
the experiment that we did didn't use the optimal medium

(25:06):
in which to produce these energy levels, but that the plasmas,
you know, therefore theoretically could if we were using that.
I just want to know. Is that an accurate representation
of what you're saying.

Speaker 2 (25:16):
There in a way. But even the experiment itself, even
though it had such a small charge on it, you
have to remember there were two anomalies if you fired
that experimental the experimental results, which the Senate Arm Service
Committee is the technical staffers that actually investigated the work

(25:39):
that came and interrogated doctor Sihi over it, among also
the Invention Evaluation Board at the time. They concluded that
these two anomalies had to be looked into because even
with small charges, you could not dismiss them. It'd be
different if it was a one, you know, only one anomaly,

(26:03):
but there were two, and they were specific to a
particular biological sensation which was reproducible. Look carefully into that
because if ten to the minus eight coulombs can generate
that effect, can you imagine what a one coolamb of
charge kutu? Anyway?

Speaker 1 (26:24):
Yeah, yeah, So what if these patents are so disruptive
and I've been hearing this all or I've been hearing
national security talker Carlson was just talking to Clayton Morris
talking about he believes the truth of UFO disclosure is
extremely disruptive. Then why would the Navy let these patents

(26:44):
become publicly available? And I think I know the answer,
but I want to hear your thought on it. You
know these patents, Your patents represent a technology shift that
could be free energy certainly means propulsion mechanisms that can
make us an interstellar Why are we telling everybody about it?

Speaker 2 (27:07):
Given the nineteen fifty one Security Act. I asked myself
the same thing. As a matter of fact, the pattern
attorney for the organization I was working for at the time,
in a way question why was this let out into
the open? To this day, I'm not sure it could

(27:33):
quite be that they could not find anything wrong with
the physics, and yet to the Invention Evaluation Board this
sounded very much like science fiction. The only reason that
they put them out again is that they couldn't find
anything wrong with the physics. There was nothing. And as
a matter of fact, you're going to remember that five

(27:55):
times I went in front of the Invention event is board,
and I can maybe the passion in my voice, maybe
the fact that I went to the drive board and
actually showed them the equations, showed them the exact derivation
for Maxo's equation, exactly what I was talking about. Not once,
not twice, not three times, five times I did this,

(28:19):
and maybe I was able to convince them I actually
knew what I was talking about, and I do know
what I'm talking about.

Speaker 1 (28:26):
So Russia and China have this technology already. Do you
think that might be a reason why they let it
come out.

Speaker 2 (28:35):
I have no idea whatsoever. But you have to understand
that I truly believe that I'm not an original in this.
I'm one hundred percent sure that someone would have noticed
this in the time of all of the heavy side
and the how should I say, the heavy side version

(28:56):
of Maxo's equations coupled well, simple Harmonica lator gives the
price effect, of course, not taking into consideration the core plasma,
the an equilibrium effects and so forth. That's a whole
different matter, the whole idea of breaking the Shwingle limit.
But someone would have realized that such electromagnetic energy flexes

(29:17):
of such high intensity are feasible at that time, and
quite possibly because there were such great engineers. I mean,
these were times that gave rise to people like Nikola Tesla.
They were most likely they they questioned, these were great
engineers man, and I truly believe that at that point

(29:39):
in time, it's as if it's as if there was
a timeline shift. It's as if quantum mechanics took over
the minds of everyone and instead of following say Max
Swellin and Einsteinian physics on one path, freebody just went

(30:01):
for the quantum mechanics way.

Speaker 1 (30:04):
So are you saying that we can amplify energy? Is that?
Do you believe that that's possible, that we can just
take energy in a circuit and amplify it using say
like parametric.

Speaker 2 (30:17):
Oscillations resonance effects. Absolutely, look carefully at one particular paper
I trip l E Plasma. It's it's published in I
trip l E Transactions on Plasma Science. The title of
the paper is the Plasma Compression Fusion Device. It's the

(30:40):
one paper that was truly accepted by one of the
most prestigious journals in existence on plasma physics. This is
I Triple E TPS that accepted this and it's being
cited by very high level Chinese research teams. One of
them actually I Tropolate Journal of Cybernetics. You have to

(31:04):
ask yourself why it's very interesting. But I look very
careful in that paper equations five and six. There's one
particular equation that speaks to a resonance effect that based
on certain frequencies, based on certain conditions, you can have
energy great energy amplifications started from a modest power level.

(31:30):
Let's leave it at that. It's interesting that they have
found that paper and they're really really it's interesting that
the citing it's it's as if they're holding it up
and saying, ah, look at this interesting. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (31:47):
So, I mean amplification of energy to me is massive,
and that's something that I took away from our first
interview a year ago, which could mean that you can
achieve energy levels any energy level that you need for anything,
which to me is extremely dangerous. And if that's true,
that could explain why this science, this technology is kept

(32:10):
secret for the interest of national defense. Whether or not
we can pull infinite energy from the environment is a
different question, and I think either of these being true.
Either pulling infinite energy from the environment or amplifying energy
that we already have are both just extremely dangerous and
the implications are huge. But if that's also true, it

(32:31):
can't be kept hidden forever. And the reason why I
point this out is because you've mentioned and you mentioned
it again just now that how could other scientists not
have seen this in the Maxwell's equations. How could they
not have seen this in the heavy sides versions of
the equations that are out there. It's just simple math.
You look at the energy level, it's equal to something squared.
You know, that's an exponential growth indicator. Now what I

(32:57):
want to do in that go ahead and commentation.

Speaker 2 (33:00):
Yeah, you have very student observation, bro. I've noticed certain
things about you. I got to say it to your
audience because I do respect you greatly. I think within
the last year you've really come up. You've it is
amazing you are not of a physics pedigree, because I
believe that you can actually hold your own with almost

(33:21):
anyone in the field if they're willing to give you
a chance to speak. See that's the big if. However,
in my opinion, you have the three piece brother, all right.
You have patience, you have persistence, and you have perspicacity
which leads to the big P. I believe that one
day you shall prevail in your quest to prove image

(33:44):
three seventy is a very real thing.

Speaker 1 (33:49):
I hope. So yeah, And I think a lot about
our last conversation where you said one of the things
you said is, Man, you said something. I think about
what Ashton would have to go through to prove that
this stuff is real. And I think about that almost
every day because man, it had to go through a
lot of craft in order to try to get to

(34:09):
get this information out there, which is why I appreciate
you being here. And actually I want to ask you
a few questions about the MH three seven zero videos
here and just get right to it. So, I mean,
my first question is when did you first hear about
me or see those videos? Was it after I reached
out to you, or had somebody reached out to you

(34:29):
before that that made you aware of my stuff?

Speaker 2 (34:34):
Exactly when you reached out to me, I started looking
into you because I had no idea what to expect.
You told me that I was going to be your
first Heart Truth podcast, and that's a really cool name.
I got to say, Heart Truth because this is this
is the hardest truth imaginable. So you you you hit

(34:54):
you hit that nail right on the head.

Speaker 1 (34:56):
Bro.

Speaker 2 (34:57):
That's that's a great podcas name.

Speaker 1 (35:01):
So you saw it for the first time right after
I got in touch with you. You saw it, And
now I want to know what your impressions were when
you watched And I'm gonna pull the video up here
where we can kind of look at it together. And
what were your impressions when you saw specifically this video
here for the first time.

Speaker 2 (35:23):
Oh man, when I saw those orbs, I saw this thing,
this one orb. Just start exactly what it's doing now,
just start to go around this thing. And all of
a sudden it started to join another one and then
another one, and I said, oh my god, they're forming
a bubble of non ionizing radiation around this thing. There's

(35:46):
no way, there's no way what's about to happen? I anticipated,
do you understand I knew before that black hole happened,
let's call it a black was.

Speaker 1 (35:57):
Going to happen.

Speaker 2 (35:58):
Beforehand, I knew that would happen. I knew that would happen.
That's why when I said, I said, this is it.
This is the price effect. Of course, it's you know, Hubris,
that's the only thing I got going for me. Brother,
That's not one thing I'm losing anytime soon.

Speaker 1 (36:14):
So have you ever seen videos like this, military videos
like this before, anything even similar remotely similar to this? Ugh?

Speaker 2 (36:24):
Never ever, And even if I have, because you point,
I would not be able to discuss because that would
give away methods.

Speaker 1 (36:35):
Yeah, yeah, that's fine. I had to ask anyway, now,
when you watched this part at the end with the
slow mod, what are you thinking as an engineer here? Like,
what do you what is this? What does it make
you think of when you're watching this?

Speaker 2 (36:52):
Oh? My goodness, I was absolutely I could not believe
that this was happening.

Speaker 1 (37:03):
Why do you think there is like that?

Speaker 2 (37:05):
At the end, they're actually focusing as much nonine on
its radiation around this craft in order to act to
condition the local vacuum around the craft the aircraft in
order to form this wormhole opening for one of the

(37:26):
becker what's a warmhole. It's really a black hole connector
to Whitehall. Whatever has an entrance will most likely have
an exit. I do not believe in space time singularities.
I'm afraid Penrose was one hundred percent wrong from this
point of view, it never goes to zero. There's a
quantum bounce as car is correct, there's an oshter car

(37:46):
bounce at the plank scale. There's no such thing as
a space time singularity. And this whole idea of spaget
I can't even pronounce it. It's so idiotic. Every time
I hear, oh, we're going to be pulled into the thing,
and look, it's just a way to travel.

Speaker 1 (38:06):
Do you think that there is a Casimir effect happening
here being offsetting a Coolan repulsion effect when they converge together,
Because when I look at see that conversion, I immediately
think of Coulan force distance between the two charged objects
being reduced. You know, it's going to increase your force exponentially.

Speaker 2 (38:25):
You think that's force is really the force of repulsion
between particles of the same charge. That's the way I
view the Coulan force. Again. The whole idea of why
I thought that they were getting close and started to
oscillate around this thing is to basically create that resonance
effect that would build a field to the levels it

(38:49):
would need to break locally the Shwingle limit. That's why
I thought that they would start pulsating inward. You see
how they start oscillating around this thing, and at one point,
you know, you can actually see them change course, change direction.
That's also very interesting because now.

Speaker 1 (39:09):
You mentioned that with the vectory in earlier at the
beginning as well as that you thought that it must
be related to time.

Speaker 2 (39:15):
And yes, and it's so freaking simple because think from
a dimensional scaling point of view. Just from a simple
dimensional analysis, time goes as one divided by frequency. Could
be spin or vibration. It doesn't matter. The mathematics are
similar for both spin and vibrations. Anyone that wants to
study that, go to a first year first year college

(39:41):
book and you'll see what the why I say, the
mathematics of spin and vibration are very similar. Now the
whole once you have times on the order one divided
by frequency if you use the chain rule, so we
talk about first year for college, first year differential calculus,

(40:01):
the chain rule, okay, in this case would be A
divided by B, where a b are functions of say
the same variable X. Just look up the formula and
you will see that what you get once you applying
the chain rule to T is on the order one
divided by frequency, you get t sorry minus delta t,

(40:26):
so minus the change in time is on the order
of the change in omega. In other words, the change
in frequency divided by the frequency square. That comes right
out of the chain rule. And you have to ask
yourself at that time, just think think Minkowski spacetime metric.
When you have delta x equal delta y called delta

(40:48):
z equals zero. So say you center this thing, you
get as a solution of the space time metric of
Minkowski space dimetric minus ds equals see the speed of
light times dt. Well that minus d T. Put in
this formula and you'll see how displacement can come from
basically bathing this craft in a say frequency and nan

(41:12):
ionizing radiation. It's important and actually it's very interesting because
the price effect speaks to this. But anyway, uh, why
not non ionizing because it would have been really easily
uh detected on the infrared imagery if it was ionizing.

Speaker 1 (41:31):
Right, Yeah, that's a good point.

Speaker 2 (41:34):
We're so we talked about something small and then terror
hurts level very interesting.

Speaker 1 (41:41):
Okay, Yeah, we're gonna talk more about that in just
a second. There's a couple more questions on the videos.
Do you think that video is a test if you
were to look at this as somebody who's been works
for the military, do you think, like you know, if
you're if what you're looking at here is real and
this is you know, breaking the swinger limit as you're

(42:02):
claiming here, do you think that this technology has been
used before? Or do you think any anything that you
watch this video leans you one way or another on that?
And really what I'm getting at here is, you know,
how long do you think we've had this technology? If
this video is real, this is ten years old?

Speaker 2 (42:22):
Ah, dude, If this is Look, the physics that I
see here seems very plausible to me. Given the piece effect,
given the idea of the super force, given the idea
of time is on your order of one divide by
frequency that we just spoke off, coupled with the Minkowski metric,

(42:42):
all this makes sense. Number one. Instinctually call it intuitive
science and technology. Yeah, I see this as being extremely
plausible Number one. Number two, if this was a forgery

(43:03):
and so forth, whoever did this would have had to
be an expert in physics. Not only that, a mind
of such great imagination would have.

Speaker 1 (43:21):
Maybe Eric Davis made the videos real quickly. Why is
this black? You can actually see this open up and
you can see it close as well. Black is cold.
We know we can tell just looking at the engines.
Laterally on what does this mean when this is black?

Speaker 2 (43:40):
So do you remember when you and I spoke, uh,
when I say you can almost see a refraction way
as if this was flu dynamics, as if what you're
doing here throwing a pebble into a pool. Have you
ever seen a pebble thrown into a pool? When it
enters it forms this almost black like cavity because right

(44:04):
does not penetrate in the quote unquote black hole that
you're creating. There is you can't see food because you
see what think of it from a fluid dynamics point
of you. This is a medium. The quantum vacuum is
a medium the so called vacuum energy state. Because a

(44:24):
state represents a structure, and while we're looking here is
a structure that has a certain vacuum energy. What you
have done is is conditioned that vacuum energy manipulated to
the point that it no longer at that particular point
that you see so black. That's the actual nothingness. What

(44:48):
you see around it is what you have done to
achieve their nothingness. The medium, the quantum vacuum is a thing,
is a material entity. Look at fre and will check
and how he argues against Lawrence Krause. When Lawrence Krause
goes on his die tribe about everything, Hey from nothing.

(45:12):
There's no such thing as nothing unless you yourself created Yeah,
negative energy, rantom vacuum.

Speaker 1 (45:22):
Would you call this negative energy?

Speaker 2 (45:23):
Then I choose not to use those terms because I'm
again I that's going too far even not not even
I there uh negative see to me, it's either not

(45:49):
there or there's something to it. The idea of going
negative to me is more like Cartesian coordinates. It's something
that you yourself has. What is the word I'm looking for.
It's it's a way that we're addressing things, all right, Yeah,

(46:10):
it's it's it's it's I don't know, I got something
on my screen.

Speaker 1 (46:15):
Well, I think of it is just going below sea level.
But I think I guess what you're getting at is
that you're pointing energy, but the energy is still just
normal energy. You know, you're just, in my opinion years
going below what we thought of as absolute zero.

Speaker 2 (46:27):
Okay, all right. The way I would think of then
is negative energy density. That would speak to a negative pressure,
and negative pressure I can deal with because it means
a suction pressure. And that's exactly what you're doing. You're
creating a conditioned vacuum whereby the craft is sucked into
that condition vacuum. That hole that you're creating is a

(46:48):
zone of negative energy density. Then you and I are
on the same level of speak.

Speaker 1 (46:54):
That's what I'm talking about, Okay, So let me just
get right to it. So did you make those orbs
south in those that video? I mean, I'm looking at
your patents and you have to understand that if I
add up your patents, you have a magnetically confined fusion patent,
high frequency gravitational wave, high temperature induce or piso electric
induce high temperature superconductivity, inertial mass reduction for a trans

(47:16):
medium craft, and high energy electromagnetic field generator. You add
that up and it looks a lot like an ORB
that could float around freely with no inertia and achieve
superluminal speeds like we're seeing in those videos. And it
might be the Navy recording that video as well, and
it was in twenty fourteen, like right before you drop

(47:37):
your patents, So do you have some connection to that video?

Speaker 2 (47:42):
Complete serendipity and synchronicity. Sometimes these things just happen. This
is why I believe in something more than our quote
unquote reduction is materialistic physical view of the world. I
do not understand why it happened. I do not understand.

(48:04):
Sometimes I wanted myself who gave me these ideas? Who
put them in my head? They've been there for some time.
It all started with that paper Conditional Possibility of spacecraft
propulsion at superluminal speeds. Took me four and a half
years to get that paper published. Finally it was published
only when that other paper, High Energy Electromagnic Field Generation

(48:26):
was published. And again all the time I've had to
work for it, extremely hard to get these ideas through,
and yet at that point in time it all worked out.
You have to ask yourself why, who gave the okay?

(48:48):
What made certain things occur for this to happen? Then?
And there, I tell you, man, I think what deal
What we're dealing with here is a war between the
children of darkness and the children of the light, and
It's been going on for epochs for eons. Sometimes they

(49:08):
have a small victory. Sometimes there's something happening. Everything is
being driven towards a certain culmination point. I don't know
what that point is. And I know this sounds weird, but.

Speaker 1 (49:25):
I'm that weird. But I mean, like, are you recognizing
your patents in this video? Like the thing I couldn't
get past last time was why you were praising me
so much when you're a Navy engineer. And I was
just some guy being like, hey, these videos are crazy,
like can this be real? And I literally thought that
you had gone to the future and met a future

(49:47):
version of myself or maybe I went to the past
or something. But then I thought about it some more
and I went this guy must be recognizing his technology
in these videos, and there's not a lot of people
on earth that would have that revelation. Like That's why
I asked you the question, or what you you recognize
in this video? So are you recognizing your work or

(50:08):
any component of your work in these in this video?

Speaker 2 (50:13):
Let me just answer it this way, brother, If I
was the creator of those warps, I would be in
a skiff within a skiff, within a skiff. You understand
you would have never heard of my name, you would
have never heard of my existence. I would be one
of those people you have never heard of. There was
incredibly genial that all the powerful beings in this world

(50:38):
would come to me as an at that I don't know,
as an article you know of science and technology. Kind
of think of him, think of me at that point
in time, kind of like an invincible, invisible Elon Musk type.
You know, It's that's not the case. Brother. I am
not the inventor of those warps, although I wish I

(51:00):
had I would have been.

Speaker 1 (51:01):
Do you think that half Eric Davis know who made
those orbs?

Speaker 2 (51:06):
Quite possible? I mean, these are people of extreme brilliance,
and I'm pretty sure that, uh, they know a lot
more than I do. Ye remember that they associated with
a certain individual by the name of Jay Stratton. Why
it was extremely to meet, although our paths did not

(51:29):
intersect after that to my dismay, But yeah, Ja Stratton
was one of the best. I'm not sure if it's
quite possibly.

Speaker 1 (51:38):
Is you ever meet help poot Offer Eric Davis in person?

Speaker 2 (51:42):
No? I wish him, No, No, I haven't. In fact,
the only person I met was Jay Stratton.

Speaker 1 (51:57):
A chance who Ken Shoulders? You ever meet him?

Speaker 2 (52:02):
By I've heard of ken Shoulders, E Vos and so forth.
But Bostic another one. Bussard, Oh my goodness, I love Bussard.
He's so funny. Everything he says about the idea that
will never achieve fusion and a takamac is so right
on the mink.

Speaker 1 (52:20):
I need that quote because I'm one hundred percent all
in on tokamax just being a scam. What was the
quote that like, he's never seen a star in the
shape of in tape of a toroid before look.

Speaker 2 (52:32):
Up, look up on YouTube. There must it must still
be there he gave him. I think it was a
Google talk and uh, he was so funny in it
that the whole audience, and we'll talk about these are
Google scholars, you know that, the whole audience just died laughing.

(52:53):
He said, I do not recall ever seeing a star
in the form of a donut something like that, but
the way he said it was so comical. Everyone just
broke down and laughed.

Speaker 1 (53:05):
It's like, so, when did you figure out that it's
all about plasma.

Speaker 2 (53:12):
The mathematics if you look carefully at the price effect
there's a O make a square term in the and
that speaks to something that has to do with plasmos.
I'll leave it there.

Speaker 1 (53:26):
Yeah, so when when did you figure that out? How
long ago?

Speaker 2 (53:32):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (53:32):
Man, nineties thousands?

Speaker 2 (53:36):
No, well, twenty fifteen, something of the nature that when
I started putting stuff on paper, when I said, I
must try to at least publish these but nobody will
take it as a matter of fact. Yeah, that SA
paper and high frequency gravitation. Wait generation, thank you very

(53:56):
much for putting that out because it got a lot
out of views. Brother, I tell you you are you're
starting to change the world. Man, You'll see. But anyway,
so so I hope that these papers, you know, with
your support, are gonna be seen by a lot of people.
We just need a lot of people looking at these man.

(54:17):
I'm I'm I'm done with the MIT physicists. I'm done
with the Harvard type. They will never accept this number
one because of n by number two. I don't know, jealousy, huh,
prestige whatnot? And also and also the idea that an

(54:38):
engineer thought these ideas before physicist did. There's an almost
an unspoken war between the physicists and the engineers. Nobody
likes to touch it. But put it this way. Even
Einstein said, the smartest man he's ever met was Tesla.

(55:01):
So the greatest physicist of all time recognized the greatest
engineer of all time. How interesting it's about first victory.

Speaker 1 (55:10):
You should have given up on the academia in a
while back. It's all I mean, media is dead. Academia
is dead. It's all about social media. It's all about
how many views you can get on social card.

Speaker 2 (55:19):
Man, it's hard. I come from them. I am one
of them. You have to understand. I'm of a certain pedigree.
I went through that process. I sweated blood and tears
for the PhD qualifier. I was in that freaking room
for six and a half hours after doing ten days
trying to solve an unsolvable problem. Basically, it didn't sleep

(55:41):
for ten days. And then anyway, it's so once you
go through that process, once you go through that process,
it's hard to turn your back. These are my people.
When your own people, when your own tribe does not
accept you, what do you do?

Speaker 1 (55:59):
Anyway, I want to ask a couple more questions, and
then we got Dave back in the in the back room,
I'm going to bring him up and then we can
chat about some more science, and I'm gonna ask you
guys about some UFO stuff as well. But I want
to get your thoughts real quick on cold fusion Ponds
and Fleischmann, so are familiar with their work at all?

(56:21):
You mean do you mean do you mean.

Speaker 2 (56:26):
Low energy nuclear? No?

Speaker 1 (56:30):
Sorry, Sal, I'm just like the UFOs. I'm not rebranding
into UAPs. I'm calling it cold fusion still, some people
calling it low energy nuclear reactions. Now the new rebrand too,
is catalyzed fusion that they're calling it.

Speaker 2 (56:44):
But it's a whole different physical mechanism. We're not talking
about very high temperatures, very high pressures. This is a
whole It's as if you're coercing, not you're not forcing,
you basically pantalizing.

Speaker 3 (56:58):
You know.

Speaker 2 (56:58):
It's like having a the ugly dude and a beautiful
supermodel meeting on the dance floor, all right, and all
of a sudden you see the supermodel being attracted toward
this really ugly dude. But why because he's certain movements
he's doing. He's doing the bah bah luli. You know

(57:18):
what I'm saying. Yeah, he's got those moves, brother, So
that's what I'm talking about there. Look, there are many
roads that lead to Rome. The whole idea is to
get to Rome, but there's only one via apia. Remember that.

Speaker 1 (57:35):
Well, you answered like half my cold fusion questions in
one response, which I appreciate because I was gonna build
up to the point that I think that cold fusion
is not being judged based on the right metrics, by
the right results, because like you said, it's a complete
different beasts. We're not dealing with high temperatures. I've heard
you mentioned the Maxwell Bozeman equation or Bolts bol Boltzman

(58:02):
sorry Matchael Boltzman uh curve, and that's used to figure
out in hot fusion, like where the ignition level, the
ideal temperature is for the ignition level. But when you're
dealing with cold fusion, you're dealing with a complete different mechanism.
You're not dealing with temperature is your main variable to
You're actually dealing with like this pressure gradient where you're
just like you said, I love your analogy.

Speaker 2 (58:24):
Of the fact i'd dude with a supermodel. No, it's
not necessarily fat, because you know, when you're of a
certain weight it's hard to do certain inertial reduction moves.
But again, the whole idea is that the guy is
not quote unquote on the same level as the chick,
but she's extremely attractive to him. Why because of the

(58:47):
movement in the ocean.

Speaker 1 (58:50):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (58:51):
Now, anyway, so so.

Speaker 1 (58:53):
You're not you hadn't seen Ken's shoulder stuff that you're
familiar with his work, because basically Ken's shoulders the same,
and we can produce the self coherent balls of plasma
that are self sustaining, self organizing, they are long, long lived.
And when I look at that, I go, oh, that's
what we're looking at in these videos. We've got this

(59:15):
ball of plasma that's not dissipating. You look at the
heat signature. Heat signature, there is uniform with the background.
Have you read Jackna Champkins Force Free Time Harmonic Plasmoid's
paper By any chance.

Speaker 2 (59:28):
I have not, but please send it to me.

Speaker 1 (59:31):
Okay, So you didn't get your inspiration from any of
those guys went on your plasma fusion confinement.

Speaker 2 (59:40):
Very simple, simple stuff, everything simple. As a matter of fact,
the navit, the pattern attorney, who happens to be a
very good friend of mine, His name is Mark Lute
g l ut of Ukrainian American Ukrainian, but Glute is
pronounced not blood glute, Mark Lute. He basically said, the

(01:00:04):
price effect is like a bag of chips. You keep
on taking one after another after another, you keep on
wanting some more. The whole idea is that the same
physical phenomena can apply to different applications. That's the whole thing.
And when it came to the plasma compression fusion device,

(01:00:24):
everything just you know. I actually saw, I actually saw
the dynamic fuses, how they would have to work, how
they would counter rotate. For the first time in my life.
I remember reading up a Tesla having a similar thing
having run through his mind. He already knew his invention
would operate before he actually put it into practice. I

(01:00:46):
saw that plasma compression fusion device working. I know it
will work.

Speaker 1 (01:00:51):
Yeah. And the reason why I bring it up is
that in Jackna Champion's paper nineteen ninety two force free
time Harmonic Plasmoids, he is specifically bringing up the energy
levels and that are these massive energy levels. How Fox
that worked with Ken's shoulders also brought up the energy levels.
I have a link to that but in here he's

(01:01:14):
also saying it seems like that the temperature would be
equivalent to the background atmosphere, which is what we see
in those videos. But then down here at the bottom
says casmir forces will arise in situations we're owing to
the high conductivity of the plasma. Due to the large
number of free electrons, components of the electromagnetic zero point
background energy cannot penetrate uniformly into the plasma. This will

(01:01:37):
result in a lower energy density within the plasmoid and
an apparent pressure gradient due to the vacuum. Now I
read that, and I read what you just mentioned, and
then I go, wow, you haven't read this, because it
sounds like you're saying the exact same things that you're creating.
You're pushing out zero point energy from a certain region
of space, changing the primitivity of that region of space,

(01:01:59):
which change the speed of light, and now you're creating
a bubble. Creating a bubble there is that? How would
you read that?

Speaker 2 (01:02:06):
I would read it as a plasma bore. That's what
I was created within my dynamic fuses. But no, this
is one. This is on the record. I have never
read that paper before, nor seen it again. All the
price effect inventions are original. They came out of the
acastic field. Let's call it.

Speaker 1 (01:02:29):
Okay, let's let's bring Dave on. If you're ready, we
can just kind of nerd out a little smiling in
the background. Here we go.

Speaker 3 (01:02:42):
What's going on?

Speaker 2 (01:02:42):
You feeling, man? How you feeling much better?

Speaker 3 (01:02:45):
Thank you? Thank you much better. This has been a
fantastic stream I've been watching from the beginning. This is beautiful, awesome.

Speaker 1 (01:02:52):
Yeah, thank you guys for both for being here. I
want to talk some science. I want to talk some physics.
But before we get to that, let's talk a little
bit about this UFO community stuff that's going on. Actually,
I want to start with the letter that sal you
submitted through Dave Rossy. Here, we got everybody here, got
Dave banned actually on Twitter. I don't think he's on

(01:03:14):
by the way, so's out there.

Speaker 2 (01:03:18):
Yeah, come on, elon, just watch the last project Unity pod.
Come on, see what I have to say about you.
Come on.

Speaker 1 (01:03:26):
Yeah, And I watched that Projectility interview, and in that
interview you actually were asked about something similar related to
this letter. The thing that stuck out in the letter
to me was that you say you believe in human technology. Yeah,
and Project Unity Jay asked you about this and and said,

(01:03:47):
you know, so, are you saying that we could have
figured this out? You kind of allude to the fact
that we humans could have figured this out. But the
thing that I took away with just see I want
to know your opinion on is that it almost seemed
like you were saying that, like, we've figured some alien
technology out and now we're trying to weaponize it in
a way that the aliens would not have used the technology. Man,

(01:04:10):
that was a freaky thing. Is that what you were
trying to say, is that what you're trying to get
across when you talk about using human technology and that
you believe in human technology, or what do you mean
by that?

Speaker 2 (01:04:18):
No, I'll basically what I was saying is that any
reversed engineer technology based on quote unquote these ancient, antique
whatever et craft that we happened to find in a
pyramid like structure or so forth, the let's call them

(01:04:43):
the non human or rather the extraterrestrials or who knows
exactly what they are, but whoever these individuals are, whatever
these entities are, Okay, they would know their own technology
far better than us. So if God forbid there was
an armada, say by approxima sound Tory, about to attack

(01:05:04):
our solar system and take over Earth for its natural
resources and so forth, we will stand a much better
chance not having to deal with the trojan horse. So
in other words, they know their own technology. Anything developed
based on their own technology, they can defeat against what
could take them by surprise. And man is man made

(01:05:25):
technology something that Alliver heavy Side and Tesla dreamed up.
Say you understand that's simple oscillator hooked into say a
Tesla coil of some sort, generating a certain plasma vibrating
a certain frequency, could generate some wild that can take
this ship down. That's all.

Speaker 1 (01:05:48):
I mean, that's a pretty crazy thought. Plasma, but we
figured out how to turn into a death ray.

Speaker 2 (01:05:55):
Because we heard that a long time. That's right. I
speaking of our president elect Trump, ask him what's up
with this? His uncle over there. I'll let you he
knows certain things I don't.

Speaker 1 (01:06:13):
Speaking of that, let me hear both your guys opinions
on do you think that there's gonna be any difference
in the new administration? Do you think who administration is
in charge makes any difference at all when it comes
to disclosure of this technology and UFO stuff.

Speaker 3 (01:06:29):
It'll be a fight. In my opinion. Who's gonna win,
I don't know, but it'll be a fight. It's it's weird.
There's some people that are in the position to bring
these things forward that are saying to certain individuals or
groups that if you do this strategically and correctly, there

(01:06:49):
might be a way to do it. And there's other
people that don't ever want it to see the light
of day. From where I am, my little corner of
the world, and I'm not speaking for sal or anybody else,
but from what I see, it's an on going fight.
At the moment, that's what I see.

Speaker 1 (01:07:04):
I could.

Speaker 3 (01:07:04):
I hope I'm wrong. I hope it's more beneficial and forthcoming,
but that's that's what I see at the moment.

Speaker 1 (01:07:13):
So what about you. Do you think the administration makes
any difference As somebody who's worked on the inside with
the military.

Speaker 2 (01:07:19):
Even as a private citizen, Given that I am a
government employee, I will and I'm still obligated under the
Hatch Act to reserve any and all such opinions. However,
from an alternative idea point, of view, this whole idea
of camps again, the children of the darkness versus the

(01:07:44):
children of the light. This is an ongoing war. This
will not stop, This will not change in any way,
shape or form. I'm not even sure if any side
should win, because light cannot exist without darkness.

Speaker 1 (01:08:01):
Now let me let me jump onto that thene so
Peter Thiel was on Joe Rogan and one of the
things that he said was, what if if aliens are
getting to Earth and they've got this warp drive technology,
this fancy technology that's basically your patents, that potentially they
would have to be a civilization that's either all angels

(01:08:24):
or all demons. And he says that because he's saying
that we have to be all perfectly altruistic or some
type of totalitarian, pre crime minority report situation where we
can all hear each other's thoughts so that nobody would
use this technology to annihilate the entire civilization. Do you
agree with that? What are your guys' views? We'll start

(01:08:46):
with sal.

Speaker 2 (01:08:49):
Oh, my goodness again this unfortunately, this physics can be
greatly weaponized. I mean, it can make say, the Rashnik
look like looking uh I don't know, a pencil thrown
in the air that comes apart, you know, clusters of pencils,
still a fucking pencil. Excuse my language. Uh So I

(01:09:18):
passed it on to Brad Rassi, please.

Speaker 3 (01:09:22):
I think it's a mixed bag. And what I mean
by that is, for example, if you have a species
that is more advanced in a certain field, then with
regards to you know, propulsion or a form of engineering,
the space time metric, in my opinion, it doesn't necessarily
mean that they're entirely altruistic or entirely evil. Completely. If

(01:09:43):
we think of the notion of what you've studied quite
a lot about on your on your show's action of
you know, fractals, and you know, there's talk of, you know,
on the spiritual side, people talk about you know, higher self,
lower self, et cetera. It's possible some of these species
may be more matured. But again, when we think of
the notion of pure philosophical perspective, that doesn't necessarily mean

(01:10:06):
within our I guess you could say, vector of understanding
that they that they're doing good or bad relative to us,
or even relative to them. I think it's a it's
a mixed bag. I think it depends who we're dealing with.
How why I think we're dealing with a mixed bag.
I really do. That's just my opinion.

Speaker 1 (01:10:26):
But so all these UFOs have been an increase in
sightings in the last just week alone. Where do we
stand on what these things are? Do we think this
is a craft of somebody inside it? Do we think
this is a plasma orb that's floating around. Do we
think it's a drone with lights connected to it? Do
we think it's some combination while of the above? Where
do we stand?

Speaker 3 (01:10:47):
Almost? Could I if I could say really quickly and
forgive me Ashton, because I don't mean to deviate from
the when you guys had talked in the beginning of
the stream about a power source on the craft, I
just want to say, in the way I interpret it,
And again, as brothers Sell said, there are many different
ways you could skin this cat. So one way that
I interpreted is that the craft in many in some
cases may have occupants on it. There is, in my opinion,

(01:11:10):
a power source. But I would argue the power source
acts more as a facilitator between the local vacuum and
the actual what's inside the craft. Now inside the craft.
You're going to have the mass of everything way completely
differently than everything outside of the craft. So you'll be
able to have something that would be hypothetically, you know,

(01:11:32):
many many hundreds of pounds heavy on the craft, but
from an external observer or measurer, the craft and the
all the objects in it weigh almost zero in its weight.
Now in terms of are there, I think you were
dealing with motherships. I think then from there we're dealing
with probes like you know, orbs probes the way we
send you know, we have a you know, a Boeing

(01:11:56):
seven fifty seven, and then maybe we throw some drones
off of it to veil a certain area on the
land before we send our soldiers in, for example, we
could be dealing with something like that. Perhaps.

Speaker 1 (01:12:07):
So do you think that element one fifteen is a
real thing?

Speaker 3 (01:12:11):
Then? I here, here's what's interesting. I have to say.
I go back and forth. I really do, because when
you look at the specifically Edward Teller, what Edward Teller's
lawyers had said about when he met Bob Lazar or
allegedly I'm paraphrasing here, but Edward Teller's lawyers shortly before
mister teller died had in the late nineties said our

(01:12:32):
clients never met mister Lazarre, but if he did, then
they never spoke. And if they never spoke, then they
didn't meet. But if they did meet, then they never engaged.
So it was a very carefully crafted response with regards
to if they actually met or not. Do I think
element one P. Fifteen is real? I think that's moscovium

(01:12:55):
if I'm not mistaken. I believe it's been reproduced in
a German lab for like a fraction of second. If
that it's I think it's possible. At the same time,
if I could just say quickly, I think the reason
why nobody wants to admit about admit any truth with
regards to the Bob Lazar story and the S four
stuff is because just by admitting to it, you're incriminating

(01:13:18):
yourself if you had any knowledge on it. Because the
programs were so off the books that it's it's basically
they're trying, you know, trying to whitewash, not make a
witch hunt, so to speak. And there's our arguments about that.
Do I lean towards the way generally what mister Lazarre
says being true yeah my opinion.

Speaker 1 (01:13:37):
Yeah, Now what about you, what do you think, Bob Zar,
what do you think about element one fifteen?

Speaker 2 (01:13:44):
I don't know about element one fifteen. But one thing
that he said is that the sports model, this thing
that he was describing, it's as if it was three
D printed out of the fabric of space time itself.
That speaks directly to the super force, super force that
acts on the spatial temporal geometric structure locally to create

(01:14:07):
energy density hence matter, generation of matter directly as if
three D printed out of space time itself, the nature
of our reality. I truly believe Lazar is correct.

Speaker 3 (01:14:21):
If I can give another hint as well, Lazarre had
talked about his gravity A wave and gravity B wave.
In my opinion, I think what he's describing is identical
what he described there is dealing with DC gravity and
AC gravity. There's certain researchers I won't say the names,
but they stumbled upon the same thing about fifteen twenty

(01:14:42):
years ago before they disappeared, dealing with there being two
types of gravity that could be gravitational waves that could
be generated electromagnetically specifically dealing with again static gravity, and
then an alternating current type of gravity. So I'll just
leave that there. There are cons distancies when you if
you have the if people have the resources to dig

(01:15:03):
deep enough, there are consistencies that you'll find between various researchers,
and and what Lazar said in many regards.

Speaker 1 (01:15:11):
Mainly as one of those researchers, Eugene Popkinov, you think.

Speaker 3 (01:15:14):
I don't want to I don't want to get anybody,
including brother sal or myself in trouble. So that's why
I'm just going to say there were researchers out there.

Speaker 2 (01:15:20):
Speaking of which brothers at this point in time, quick interruption. Sorry,
Brother Ashton, sorry Brother Rossi. Neither Brother Rossi, nor Brother Ashton,
nor myself. I'm not speaking for them, but I'm one
hundred percent sure they're of the same mindset. None of
us are in the mindset that or thought of suiciding ourselves.

(01:15:41):
Just in case anybody out there gets brilliant ideas.

Speaker 1 (01:15:44):
There, you got.

Speaker 3 (01:15:48):
What I will say. What I will say is that
there are experiments that are slowly considered now as being
part of what's been called extended electrodynamics. They're somewhat being
discussed at an unclassified level dealing with certain objects that
may or may not be rotating, where they either gain
or lose their weight in very minuscule levels, and there

(01:16:09):
may have been attempts to scale that, and if the
attempts to scale it were successful, they would probably not
have made those results public.

Speaker 1 (01:16:19):
Yeah, I think that it really comes down to plasma.
Though you know, a lot of those results, one of
the things I've always noticed about them is that the
results are never really that great. Well, when it came
to these evos, there's something amazing about it, which is
that these electrons are clustering together in huge densities that
they wouldn't normally cluster together in it something called cold plasma.

Speaker 3 (01:16:41):
I'm just like, Yeah, this is the part where I'll
just openly say it, and this is what I'm about
to say here is not a reflection on any of
the views that brother sal has. I just want to
clarify that in any way these are my own views.
But I would dare to say that when we talk
about again the words, you know, negative energy, it's possible
that electricity, the way that we normally think of current

(01:17:03):
as being hot, it's possible it can be it can
get cold if you can reverse its entropy, and I'll
leave I'll leave that there again. If I've said this before,
I think a year, year and a half ago, if
people look into what the source charge problem is that
has still been unresolved in mainstream physics, and it's I
don't even think many people even know about it today.

(01:17:26):
The electrodynamicist experts of many years ago did the source
charge problem dealing with where energy actually comes from. And
if and I'll just leave that there, I think there's
something with the vector and scaler potentials that i'll I'll
leave that there.

Speaker 1 (01:17:41):
So how do you believe in the ether?

Speaker 2 (01:17:44):
I believe in the quantum vacuum? Well the lum again,
brother man, you gotta remember my tribe. What's the see?
And you one hundred percent right, you know, I will
I will only try to be part of them because
I am part of them. And it's that's why it
hurts so much to be cold a pseudoscientists. That's why

(01:18:07):
I truly hope somebody out there will will will run
a quick experiment of the Piace effect and prove me right.

Speaker 3 (01:18:16):
Well, I think I think what I'm about to say
here too. One final thing, forgive me sal for interrupting you.
What I'm about to say here is is going to
be very controversial, and it does not represent anyone else's
views in any way. I believe that the energy densities
that sal has been discussed in his amazing papers and

(01:18:38):
in his patents are achievable when you have the implementation
of negative energy working in a very conducious like form
where the cold side or the negative side offsets the
heat or positive side. So you can attain these densities
in a certain way that would that do break the
Shwinger limit. It is that is not considered to be

(01:19:00):
mainstream in any capacity. I probably get made fun of
a lot if I said that in open groups, although
again many closed groups I've spoken to have acknowledged this,
So you start getting into, you know, controversial territory. But
I am very confident that sells inventions are very feasible.

Speaker 1 (01:19:21):
Yeah, do you think it's Do you guys think that
it's analogous or exactly the same as the dynamic Casimir effect.
Do you think the dynamic Casmir effect is breaking the
shower limit and causing photon pair production to I.

Speaker 3 (01:19:38):
Think if you can use resonance to scale up what
the Casmir effect does, then you can break it, Yeah,
I think so, Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:19:46):
What about you, Sal, what do you think about dynamic
Casmir effects?

Speaker 2 (01:19:50):
Interesting mechanism. Again, quite complex for my palate, But then again,
I go with simple things trying to solve complex problems.
I've always believed that the solution to all complex problems
is simple, depending on perspective how you look at it.

Speaker 3 (01:20:08):
So there's there's a pathth into regarding the Casimir effect.
Sorry Ashton, that I'll send to you that your audience
may be interested if you haven't seen it already, dealing
with deploying a certain type of monoatomic gas inside the
cavity to lower the ground state of the vacuum fluctuations,
to extract more energy from the potentials that now become

(01:20:28):
real observable particle fluctuations. And then if again, if you
can use resonance to scale that up. I'm not going
to with respect I will not go into how to
how to engineer that practically on the stream here, but
if one could use resonance, I think that there's an
entire field of physics that Tesla was onto, that brother

(01:20:48):
Sal is onto very strongly, that is has completely been
whitewashed from from the from the field.

Speaker 1 (01:20:57):
Yeah, are you talking about it? And Bernard Hayes's cosmir
cavity pattern that I'm gonna steal in a couple of
years when it expires.

Speaker 3 (01:21:06):
There's another one as well. It's from some Asian individuals,
but they uh, I think they're I'm not sure if
they're Chinese or not. But anyways, the point is is
that you have to think geometry.

Speaker 1 (01:21:19):
Yeah. That was one thing that I never expected with
a lot of this is how much of a difference
frequency plays a role.

Speaker 2 (01:21:25):
So uh oh, speaking of what talot, you hit on
something when you said frequency, it's really important. Okay, that
frequency square term. If you get me in a skiff
with some very important people, Phutov can be there, w
Davis can be there, of course, Dave you, everyone that mattis,

(01:21:49):
Jay Stratton, everyone that madis and has some say saying
this whole thing possibly elan down the road. I can
show in less than five minutes when I'm talking about that,
given that omega square term, I can we we can
break the Shwinger limit.

Speaker 1 (01:22:08):
Do you think those guys don't know that though, like
I feel like they have to know.

Speaker 3 (01:22:12):
No, they know, they know. No, they know.

Speaker 2 (01:22:15):
That's why I'm not That's why I'm not being brought
into a skiff and question anyway.

Speaker 1 (01:22:20):
Yeah, so that that kind of goes to my next
point is sal you told me, you said, if you
go on Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson, bring me with you.
So that still hasn't happened, but that offer stands out there.
If Tucker Carlson people are watching, Joe Rogan is watching,
what is it that you want to say to Joe

(01:22:41):
Rogan or Tucker Carlson, Why do you want to go on?

Speaker 2 (01:22:48):
Unification? Brother? The only way this Earth can survive given
what is coming. And I tell you what is coming
will be a test like humanity has never sinned before
since the flood. The unified Earth can withstand it. It

(01:23:10):
takes advanced physics to deal with it. If we do
not come together as a united Earth, leave aside all
our differences, enjoy the idea of homo sapient sapien jubilate
in the fact we are humans. We shall fall like

(01:23:37):
we've never forfell before. We had a chance after the flood,
given the historical narrative, I don't think we'll have a
chance this time. Unless we come together for the event occurs.
I will not say what the event is. I dare
not even think it because your thoughts become actions under

(01:24:03):
certain conditions, So it's better you leave it.

Speaker 1 (01:24:06):
I mean, I think it's kind of where do we
talk about it? Because people out there speculating, there's so
much confusion in the UFO community about is there gonna
be a Project Bluebeam? Are the aliens invading us? Are
we gonna get hit by an asteroid?

Speaker 3 (01:24:22):
Like?

Speaker 1 (01:24:22):
You know, sure your thoughts can manifest reality, but how
do we stop something unless we are already talking about
it in the open? You know, So what are we
dealing with here? We're dealing with alien invasion? Are the
aliens gonna come out of the water? Are they gonna
come back from you know, they visited us fifty years ago?

Speaker 3 (01:24:38):
Or you know, if I could say a natural cycle
of the planet that is in harmony with the cosmos
that lifts the veil energetically on certain phenomena that we're
always right in front of us, but we're too energetically
covered up for us to notice. I think that sales
technology could help stop it. My opinion is that I

(01:25:00):
could be wrong my technology.

Speaker 2 (01:25:02):
It's our technology. Sure, thank you, sure, speaking of this NonStop.
So now it's our technology, and that the three of us,
the entire worlds. Yes, I believe these patent applications were
let where where by some great act of God, I

(01:25:23):
don't know what else to call it. They were led
into the public consciousness to facilitate a possible way out. Yes, nightmare.

Speaker 3 (01:25:36):
There's what I'm going to say here has already been
public knowledge by mister Boyd Bushman, the controversial Lockheed Martin
engineer who made a few videos before he died dealing
with the possibility of what's called the apophice comment uh
in correspondence with a potential poll flip of the planet.

(01:25:59):
It's pass every twelve thirteen thousand years, the planet and
we as a species go through a cycle, and we
may be coming up to the end of that cycle
once more.

Speaker 1 (01:26:10):
Yeah, I mean, I've heard all the doomsday stuff, but
it's something like that. There's nothing we can do about,
you know, the polls flip whatever. I mean, doesn't matter
where you're going to be, You're you're just lucky to
draw at that point we can annihilate and if the
aliens come invade the heck. If they don't have teleportation
technology or annihilation whatever the heck we're doing, then you know,
good luck to them. Now with a let's assume that

(01:26:35):
the A three seven zero videos are real. I already
know they're real, but let's just assume they are. You know,
we're uh role playing here. When would you guys assume
human beings would have figured out not just that we
can make a floaty ball of plasma superconductive harmonic orb
as I called it, how would we when would we
have figured out that they combined them together and all

(01:26:56):
of a sudden you break the swing er limit, you know,
because one or the energy levels are large, extremely large?

Speaker 3 (01:27:04):
You as sorry? Are you asking about the historical timeline
like in the last eighty years when you think.

Speaker 1 (01:27:10):
Yeah, when do you guys think that? I mean, do
you think humans have figured it out? The biggest drama
is this is that a lot of people in the
UFO community are sure that what we're looking at those
videos represents non human intelligence. Maybe, but I think that
you guys would also argue that, well, humans like this
goes back the math and equations go back to the

(01:27:32):
early nineteen hundreds, which is a long long time ago.
I'm so my question is a you know, what do
you think that humans have had enough time to reverse
engineer or figure this out by ourselves? And when do
you think we would have taken it to the next
level where it's like now we're just zapping these things
together and proofing planes out of existence.

Speaker 3 (01:27:54):
If I could say very quickly in terms of the
historical timeline, I don't. I'm not an expert on that.
I claim to know when what happened and where. We
have to keep in mind a lot of these alleged
special access programs, a lot after they're completed, or the
you know, compartmentalized programs are finished, they kind of get

(01:28:14):
shredded and nothing gets put on record. So they do
get they do get washed away to history. So as
to who specifically cracked it first, I don't know. But
what I can say to that is the look at
what brother sal was able to do with not to
speak for him, but with what I believe was a

(01:28:35):
four hundred thousand dollars grant from the DoD. Look at
what he was able to do. Just with that, imagine
if you had, you know, twenty thirty one hundred million
dollars what you could do.

Speaker 1 (01:28:48):
Yeah, And the one thing I learned about this science
is that man super weapons are cheap. Like this stuff
is not relative how much people spend on other projects.
The government's been wasting on hot fusion. We spend like nothing.

Speaker 3 (01:29:01):
Well, you know, it's interesting, brother sal mentioned earlier the
Vandergraft generator and that speaks to you know, particle accelerators
and so on. And it's interesting when you look at
the history. I'm not saying this in a good or
bad way. If there are photos from MIT's website of
doctor John Trump, donald Trump's uncle, with mister Vandergraf in

(01:29:22):
the nineteen twenties or thirties looking at a big version
of a vandergraph machine, we can say that a Vandergraph
machine is an early version of what the CERN particle
accelerators are. So I think you know something was understood
back then.

Speaker 2 (01:29:37):
A couple of the vandigraph generator with a Tesla coil
by put it this way.

Speaker 3 (01:29:44):
Oh wow, yeah, yeah, what do you.

Speaker 1 (01:29:48):
Think about that? I mean, and do you think it
could be a combination of things going on as well?

Speaker 2 (01:29:53):
Then? Brother, I have a slightly different I go from
books because they show people. People are especially all the
books or books that are no longer in print. Once
upon a time we used to read read the actual books,
you know, hard copy things that we used to open,

(01:30:14):
and actually the leaves we would turn one by one,
very interesting thoughts, very interesting ideas. There's one such book
by Charles fort f Rt. It's called the Book of
the Damn. The Damn d a m n ed what

(01:30:35):
we're about to become. Anyway, It's called the Book of
the Damn, And in chapter twelve he says something incredibly profound.
He says, I think we are property in that I
believe somebody has ownership over us.

Speaker 1 (01:30:56):
Planet.

Speaker 2 (01:30:58):
Brother, there's so many any things we don't know. Look, man,
a lot of people have been making fun of Graham Hancock.
A lot of people have been making fun of anyone
that has tried to point us, for example, doctor Joseph
Perrol that has been trying to point us to the
idea of the Enuma leash, the Book of Creation, the

(01:31:18):
War among the Gods, the Tablets of Destiny. You think
all these were just wow, mythical ideas that we just
came How about Troy, my brother, how about Troy Schleimann
with a copy of the Odyssey under his arm, found
what we think is now Troy, possibly various vestiges of

(01:31:42):
what Troy is. So if you can do that with
a book that supposedly was written by some dude called Homer,
then how should I say, imagine what you can do
with actual books that supposedly were written by the gods
who were the Anu Naki, the children of heaven and Earth.

(01:32:07):
What do we not know about our own civilization? In
Graham Hancock's own words, are we a civilization with amnesia?
I believe we are.

Speaker 1 (01:32:19):
I'm a big fan of that thought process as well.
I mean, just we don't civilization doesn't go far back
enough in my opinion for us to be as advanced
as we have been as we are today, which I
do think there's a lot of crossover between that work
and Joseph P. Farrell. I mean, I found a clip
from him back in twenty fourteen, roughly a day or

(01:32:40):
a few days after the plane disappeared, and he was
talking about the United States using a teleportation super weapon
on the plane, which I don't think any nobody was
talking about that except for him. I'm surprised that he
hasn't wanted to reach out and talk to me just
because of.

Speaker 2 (01:32:53):
Doctor Joseph P. Farrell is one of these polymphs, even
though he has a certain degree and ah something to
do with the original Church Fathers. I believe he is
of the Eastern Orthodox religion. I think it was, but yeah,

(01:33:14):
he was of the Protestant religion or maybe Roman Catholic
at one point in time. But anyway, his his doctorate
is in in in theology religious studies. The way this
man researches, the profundity of his work, the way that
he has stepped into works for example by Igor Vitkovski.

(01:33:37):
We'll talk about the gloca, the truth about the wound,
among other things. All right, no need to get you demonetized,
so I'll just leave it there.

Speaker 1 (01:33:49):
Yeah, please don't.

Speaker 2 (01:33:50):
I like, I love that dave about as we're talking
about all.

Speaker 1 (01:33:58):
Kinds of crazy stuff. So, uh, you know, you guys
think plasma was conscious? Like what do you think? You think?

Speaker 2 (01:34:06):
What is? Read The Demon in the Core. It's the
latest book by doctor Joseph P. Farrell. Read very very
carefully what he has to say about Doctor Hands Alpha
Nobel Prize winner for Magneto Hydrodynamics one of the greatest

(01:34:27):
minds in magnetic fluid dynamics ever to exist. See what
this man thought about the sensions of plasmas under certain
conditions when driven far from equilibrium. See what he has
to say. The very fact that this man brings about
ideas from different domains is able to read his Secrets

(01:34:52):
of the Unified Field. Amazing book hardly ever mentioned. See
what he has to say about Gabriel Crone and all
those grates that once upon a time existed on the
surface of the Charles Proteus Steinmetz a giant of a man.

Speaker 1 (01:35:09):
The man.

Speaker 2 (01:35:12):
Was of a very small statue, but as far as intellect,
this man was a giant among giants. See what Proteus
Steinmanz has to say about the impulses and electric discharges.

Speaker 1 (01:35:26):
Anyway, do you think that there's a connection between hypersonic
spy planes from the sixties and the seventies and balls
of plasma floating around now? I guess what I'm saying
is that these hypersonic planes would use a plasma sheath
in front of them. As far as I can tell,
that's the earliest documentation of the military using plasma to

(01:35:50):
achieve extremely high velocities. Do you think there is something
inside of these plasma orbs or do you think they
are something that's produced externally and then achieve some sort
of equilibrium, or then there's a combination.

Speaker 2 (01:36:08):
Rather ROSSI take it. Ooh see, this is the questions.

Speaker 3 (01:36:17):
The questions are very good, Ashton. That's why I stay quiet. Yeah, well,
I think I don't mean to dodge. Let me just
say this. There are certain papers out there, I think
from the nineteen fifties and early nineteen sixties, before before
he told his colleagues that he was leaving his academic

(01:36:37):
community as friends behind and going into a world that
they wouldn't accept because it seemed too crazy at the time.
If you look at the work of what Gabriel Krone did,
you'll find that there was discussion of things like the
mention of negative resistance being feasible, but then in that
same paper he mentions that it is but it isn't,

(01:36:58):
almost as if he was forced to have to there
was censorship of his work. I think that if you
look at the possibility of the ether acting as a
sort of negative resistor, what that would do in combination
with the plasma sheath, would inhabit certain properties in phenomena
that classically, as we even think now, it would expand

(01:37:21):
the law of first law of conservation of energy. It
would violate the second law of thermo to expand it
to use the implement the quantum vacuum. I think, I
forgive me because I've worked on some contracts that deal
with that, so I really have to watch there. But

(01:37:41):
I think that plasma sheets are very interesting. I don't
mean to be vague, I'm sorry, but do.

Speaker 1 (01:37:50):
You think plasma sheets are very interesting?

Speaker 2 (01:37:53):
Put it this way, Let's do the fluid dynamic analogy
of what the Russians called the sal I believe that
I do not have the correct pronunciation the whole idea
of this, this super cavicating torpedo that rides within what
a bubble of air?

Speaker 1 (01:38:10):
Right?

Speaker 2 (01:38:10):
Well, think what plasma is. It's the next state into
instead of being a gas, it's a plasma. In otherwids,
the electrons have ionized. Why don't we think of plasma
as a transition state transition to what transition from what
we understand as three dimensional matter to quintessence, a fifth essence?

(01:38:32):
What is this fifth essence? You see? Could very well
be the quantum vacuum.

Speaker 3 (01:38:39):
I strongly agree with that. Yes, I think maybe it's
possible for a better description, or not better a different perspective,
it's possible there's a sort of memory in the quantum
vacuum that is only observable and physically realizable when you
involve plasma in that transition stage in a form of

(01:39:01):
geometrical disequilibrium. From an engineering perspective.

Speaker 1 (01:39:06):
Like a Bose Ein condensate, fit somewhere into that range
of sure.

Speaker 3 (01:39:10):
I mean some people have proposed, you know, there's that
proposed water, some people proposed hydrogen. Some propose uh you know,
ar gone Bose Einstein condensate. Yeah. Yeah, so.

Speaker 1 (01:39:28):
Let me ask a couple of quick questions. Go ahead and.

Speaker 2 (01:39:30):
South, just a quick one and then I'll stop. Victor
Lacno's paper, page three, he describes the physical mechanism of
the piece of electricity induced room temperatures for a conductor.
Because of my great hubris, I call it the pie effect,
our t SC superconductor. Anyway, you know why not? Well, yeah,

(01:39:52):
so the whole idea on pastry. He basically says, we
use a what an alternative magnetic field to create the
Bose Einstein condensate. Once we have the condensate, we set
it in motion by what a alternating current? A pulse current,
that's it. Rogen Academy of Scientists, in one freaking phrase

(01:40:14):
lacked the room temperature that I'm one percent sure one
day that will be proven correct.

Speaker 3 (01:40:21):
I believe firmly that. Sorry, if I could say that
the Bardon Cooper Schaeffer theory on super conductivity has a
deep flaw in it, in my opinion, they don't. They
don't look at what happens when you deal with uh
lattice holes and those things.

Speaker 1 (01:40:37):
Yeah, and I read the Victor lock now the way
at a high temperature superconductivity, Uh yeah, do you find
pulse pulses, alternating current alternating I don't.

Speaker 3 (01:40:49):
I don't mean to I don't mean to speak for
sal here, but and I don't mean to say it
to be uh disrespectful to your audience assion by being
very vague here. But I I there's something that's right there,
whether it's room temper to room temperature, superconnectivity or negative
energy from an engineering perspective. There and Ashton, you know

(01:41:09):
we've talked privately about this. There's something right there that
people have missed it's right there, that it's it, And
in a way it pisses me. It pisces me off
because I know that Seal knows, and I know that
we we know, but it's it's it's right there, it's
been it's been done, and yeah it's yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:41:27):
Well so this brings me up to another point, which
is that oftentimes I've found that one of the drawbacks
of disclosure is that a lot of scientists have thought, oh,
everybody's gonna figure this out. Is that I've figured this
amazing thing out. Everybody's gonna come and realize it themselves
relatively soon, but always turns out that no, we don't

(01:41:52):
and uh coming through with it. I mean, I was
just reading, uh, some correspondence between and Shoulder and some
other people in the nineties where they're like, everyone's going
to figure out the cold fusion is real now blah
blah blah. It's thirty years later, still hasn't happened. So
what I guess I want to ask you guys, is

(01:42:15):
do you believe that somebody on this earth as technology
that is beyond the paradigm of what humanity currently believes
as possible.

Speaker 2 (01:42:27):
Yes, yes, I know we do.

Speaker 1 (01:42:31):
Yes, Now why are we doing we being the United
States government in this case, or intelligence communities or defense contractors.
Why do you believe we are doing evil shit to
keep it silent, whether that be suppression, that be quite

(01:42:51):
literally killing people.

Speaker 3 (01:42:52):
In some cases, it depends how high up the chain
you want to go in this conversation. It depends how
high up you want to.

Speaker 2 (01:42:59):
Go, because brother, remember Charles fourth all right, Book of
the Damn I think we are property, brother, We're nothing
more than slaves, and fear is for fucking slaves, and
the way they control us is for fear.

Speaker 1 (01:43:22):
That's a good point. And so somebody did ask in
the chat I was looking at some of the questions,
you know, they wanted to know how consequential is this information? Well,
that's one answer is that if we are quite literally
slaves on a prison planet, then you could imagine that
they would hide technology that would break us free from that.

(01:43:42):
Absolutely that makes sense to metentia.

Speaker 2 (01:43:47):
Nihil seen it looks cognitio espotentia. Knowledge is power. You
don't give the fucking shapes power because they rebel.

Speaker 1 (01:43:59):
What do you think?

Speaker 3 (01:44:00):
Well, I think to address the overall concept here, I know,
for a fact. There have been people in laboratories, whether
NASA or elsewhere, that have discovered this effect on a
small scale. And this is where it's become. I call
more of it a mental brainwashing more than anything that
has over that has sort of put a blanket, uh,

(01:44:22):
psychosis on a lot of the masses. Although many people
are waking up to be fair, which is beautiful to see,
it's amazing. It really warms my heart. However, there have
been people that have made certain discoveries where experts then
come in. Those experts are also gatekeepers that of these
type of technologies that basically gaslight them into thinking that

(01:44:45):
what they see in the lab is not what they're
actually seeing, and then they just label it as you know,
electrostatic repulsion when it's it's not. And then they then
they then they deprive you of the right measurement tools
to confirm or deny that it's happened a few times.
Uh yeah, hopeful, hopefully that answers the question.

Speaker 1 (01:45:06):
But yeah, yeah, it does so. And I guess you
guys are probably somewhat familiar with the aar O. I
did speak to an officer that was going to ensure,
you know, insured to me that the case of that
mistry Simveonzero would be part of the ar's official record.
I don't know what they're gonna find or not find.
I think at the end of the day, they probably

(01:45:27):
are not going to confirm the videos are real, but
they won't be able to deny the videos are real.
What do you guys think of the ARH and do
you think the government will ever admit to this or
do you think it's going to take people like us
right now talking about this. What is your opinions on
what it would take for disclosure to happen.

Speaker 3 (01:45:45):
It's going to come through you and others, not Errow
my opinion, sal what do you.

Speaker 2 (01:45:51):
Think the Office of Immaculate Constipation?

Speaker 1 (01:45:58):
Sorry I didn't catch that.

Speaker 3 (01:45:59):
Well, is it.

Speaker 2 (01:46:02):
The Office of Immaculate Constipation?

Speaker 1 (01:46:08):
Got it?

Speaker 2 (01:46:11):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:46:11):
And this makes me think about the letter to Ash
and Forbes, where at the end says all you can
do is talk about it. You know, if somebody has
this type of technology that is this powerful, they have
access to, in my opinion, unlimited energy based on the
conversation that we've had today, as well as manipulating space

(01:46:32):
time itself, which is teleportation, and probably a lot of
other really magical type effects, so they would have unlimited
power compared to what we think from the public perspective today,
there might Do.

Speaker 2 (01:46:48):
You know one person that I really don't get and
I've said this in the j Anderson interview on Project
Unit Dan, I'll repeat it here. Richard Dolan with his
idea of breakaway civilization, which doctor Joseph Ferrell followed on,
and the two of them together brought upon a very

(01:47:09):
interesting way of thinking towards the possibility of a breakaway civilization.
It's as if after twenty seventeen, the entire history of
design knowledge fucking objects has been white clean. Now we
only talk about UAPs, we talk about the SOULFA and
there whatnot. You know, all of a sudden, we have

(01:47:33):
new faces with new histories instead of the old faces
with the correct histories.

Speaker 1 (01:47:42):
Yes, yeah, so that's this is a good thing where
let's just talk some smack about the UFO community a
little bit and maybe we can close after this as
well as that I heard you talk about Richard Dolan,
and I remember I was brand new to the whole community.
He was one of the first people that I found.

Speaker 2 (01:47:58):
The remarkable mind. He truly is a great researcher.

Speaker 1 (01:48:03):
And he was talking about the technology and the breakaway
civilization concept. And now the reason why I started to
interrupt there is that what I've realized is that a
lot of these people are kind of connected in a
little click. And the problem when you make clicks, in
my opinion, is that people have a tendency of peer
pressure the ash conformity experiment. So one of the narratives

(01:48:26):
that I've seen, and this is why I wanted to
bring up with you earlier, is that a lot of
these people are pushing the idea that humans could not
have under figured this technology out or understand this technology,
that it's some somehow it's just beyond human comprehension, which
would then rule out this idea that we've developed this technology,
that we've reverse engineered it, or that there was a
breakaway civilization. They say that it must be aliens that

(01:48:50):
figured this out, and you see them all droning the
same narrative about it. Even Loue Alzando will say, well,
we have the temporal problem. But then I listened to
Sow say, well, once you look at Einstein's equations from
nineteen fifteen, anybody could have figured this out. So I
guess what I'm getting at is, like, what would you
want to tell the UFO community or what reps do

(01:49:11):
you have with that community right now? On what I
would consider it to be this controlled disclosure that's being
pushed by a community that's in a click together, Like,
what do you think, what would you tell those people?
And what do we need to do to open our minds?
More to the various options related to disclosure.

Speaker 2 (01:49:33):
Hold the fucking line, hold the fucking line. Stand by
your principles, remember your history. Do not buy into these
ephemeral dreams, illusions, delusions that have such a beautiful facay
to them.

Speaker 1 (01:49:56):
I like it.

Speaker 3 (01:49:58):
What do you think I would say? The field right
now is a shit show. You have disinformation agents. You
have a few people in there telling the truth. Again
relative to their field of expertise. There may be people
that you know are telling the truth in one area,
but in other areas they have sources that feed them

(01:50:19):
things that are either wrong. We're dealing with probably the
most messed up, psychological, psychologically manipulative field probably on the
planet from a human perspective. I have not seen any
other field that has been so infiltrated by intelligence that
has been so manipulative and so deceiving and conniving as

(01:50:39):
I have in the the alternative science UFO UAP field.
There are very good people out there doing very good work,
don't get me wrong. But there are also a lot
of people that are doing things on purpose that they
know is incorrect that they're spread with regards to spreading information.
And then there are other people that are legitimately being
used as useful idiots. So that's that's where I would

(01:51:02):
leave that. I would say, try your best to go
with your intuition, your own discernment. I'm not sitting here
claiming I can look at the field and know everything
about everybody, but I'd like to think I have a
general idea of what groups are dealing with what and how,
And you start it becomes tough, right because you have
if you have a one group that's telling the truth

(01:51:23):
about one thing, but then they have to you know,
stop at a certain point and then they have to
tell a lie because it overlaps with you know, American
national security. It becomes a tough situation to deal with
for the people hearing the information and the people providing
the information. With good intent the ones that have bad intent.

(01:51:45):
But now what I'm hearing is pre energy is possible.
We got floaty orbs of plasma. They can probably teleport airplanes.
The United's governments figured it out.

Speaker 1 (01:51:55):
And we can't really talk about it because it's adversarial
issue of nash security where we're in an arms race
against China and Russia. I ran in North Korea here, uh,
and it comes a lot more awkward than just aliens.
That's that's what I've taken away from today's conversation.

Speaker 2 (01:52:12):
So two hours, and that's why he took away. What
about time, It's not the order of one divided by frequency.

Speaker 1 (01:52:21):
And when you worry, I'm going to get all the science.

Speaker 2 (01:52:25):
Don't forget what I said in the beginning to do
the chain rule on time is on the order of
one divided by frequency. And you'll see what I'm talking about.
You hook that with a Minkowski a space time metric,
and you'll see how these things displace and you see
how that negative sign all of a sudden becomes positive.
It's a beautiful thing anyway, man. I like keeping things

(01:52:46):
in the positive.

Speaker 1 (01:52:47):
It's just me, you know, no one, And I think
that the negative side is we're probably going to destroy
ourselves with this technology. I mean, that's just how I
see it. But hey, there's a chance that we might not.

Speaker 3 (01:52:59):
There's if I could leave on a positive note before
I have I have to go myself and thank you
so much guys for having me. This has been an honor.
I will say Ashton that whenevery so often when you're
doing your streams every week or every couple of days,
when I tune in wherever I am, if I'm traveling
or I'm at home or whatever, there's certain things I
see people say in the comments, and I go, how

(01:53:22):
the hell did they see that? You know, There's certain
things I look and I go, my god, I go
this this should maybe shouldn't be put on a live
stream chat. So what I'm trying to say is you're
you're you're doing good work. You're doing very good work.

Speaker 1 (01:53:36):
Thank you. Yeah, I see it too. There's people in
my live streams probably right now watching where I'm going.
Oh boys, several times where I don't I don't highlight
their comment because I'm like, there's so on the on
the money that you know, it could actually like help
out people that are our adversaries. But it's a fine
line between what do we disclose safely that we aren't
going to destroy ourselves versus you know, change the whole

(01:53:59):
play in it forever, you know. And I think that's
what makes this topic so so tough to say.

Speaker 3 (01:54:04):
If I and also if I can mention one more thing,
there's a for a lot of people in this field,
the ones looking into the science that you tend to
attract with your audience, which is beautiful, there's a lot
of I noticed, there's a there's everyone goes through their
journey where they discover a certain terminology or a certain
experimental concept and they don't fully understand it. And because

(01:54:25):
they don't fully understand it, I don't mean this in
a good or bad way, they then plaster it all
over the internet. But then, you know, six months later,
after they learn more about it, they remove those posts
because they realize how sensitive what they said earlier was
and they didn't realize that. So it's a learning journey
for a lot of people when they realize, for example,
we talk resonance in a cavity, that sounds harmless, but

(01:54:48):
then if you go and new experiment with resonance in
a cavity with maybe some more you know, engineering adjustments.
You start to think, holy shit, should I even talk
about resonance? So it's a it's a it's a learning
journey for a lot of people. And it's very interesting
to see because your platform Hash has been the most
open about it, and I love it.

Speaker 1 (01:55:07):
I have plausible deniability. It's like, oh, if I accidentally
give away the secret sauce, I didn't know. So that's
what I love about open.

Speaker 3 (01:55:13):
You know what makes you know? What makes me laugh?
You know what makes me laugh. A lot of this
ship is on the web. It's just you have Yeah,
that's what makes me.

Speaker 2 (01:55:21):
It's considered pseudoscience. It is so shot upon that everybody
dismisses it out of hand, right speaking of something they're
gonna dismiss right out of hand because remember Hawking brought
to us the whole idea of chronological protection, the idea
that you cannot have reverse temporal excursion. Look very carefully,

(01:55:45):
I watch just just a time equals or rather yeah
equals a constant. This constant has a lot to do
with breaking the Shwingle limit. But I'm not going to
go into it to it too interesting because it speaks
to certain thing. But what I'm about to say now,
I hope you follow us about. They will enjoy this.

(01:56:07):
Given that Hawking said you you cannot go back in time,
how about that time? Look how simple it is. Time
is and the ordo one divided by frequency. Apply the
frame the chain rule to that you get negative delta
t zanti ato of uh delta omega di vita by
omega square. So, in other words, under certain conditions, if

(01:56:30):
I was to say, stay in a chamber of a
certain ionizing radiation given a certain frequency, so all of
a sudden dial up the frequency, Oh what might happen?
Because it speaks to a negative delta t gentlemen, reverse
temporal excursion.

Speaker 3 (01:56:49):
It might be possible. It might be possible to engineer
something where you you increase, you you reverse the entropy,
and therefore you get phenomena that thing. In classical physics
has been able to explain.

Speaker 2 (01:57:04):
Simple stuff resulting in a highly complex phenomenon. That's all
I'm arguing for.

Speaker 1 (01:57:11):
Yeah, so free energy is real. Teleportations, real orbs that
float around freely are real. And also, by the way, guys,
you can live forever.

Speaker 3 (01:57:19):
So if you need motivation when you say when you
say when you say free energy, you mean coffiicient of
performance over one like a like a heat pump in
a home.

Speaker 1 (01:57:30):
Yeah, but you know, you know how I talk, it's
always going to be free energy and cold fusion and
UFOs to me. So you know, if other people want
to come up with other fancy terms, it's more palatable
for normy out there, that's fine.

Speaker 3 (01:57:41):
But uh, you know, let me ask, let me ask you.
Do you think it's possible to get more energy out
than what you put into a system.

Speaker 1 (01:57:50):
Yeah? I think that they And yes, we will rewrite
the first and second laws, but we're not going to
rewrite them out of necessity. We're going to rewrite them
out of convenience, because it's a matter of once you
have this energy source of our UFOs, that is our
zero point energy field that's all around us, if you
have an external energy source, you can easily get around
the first and second laws. The first law you get

(01:58:11):
around because you're constantly exchanging energy.

Speaker 3 (01:58:15):
Let me if I can leave one last hint, and
this is very well the Miisner effect with superconductors. Nice
people don't realize what they're with. Respect people don't I
don't mean this towards your audience. I mean towards the
mainstream physics world. They don't realize what they're looking at.
When the if you have a liquid nitrogen with a
magnet over a superconductor, and that as long as there's

(01:58:36):
a constant fuel of liquid nitrogen, the magnet stays levitating.
What what does that mean in a thermodynamic sense? A
lot of people, A lot of people don't realize that.

Speaker 2 (01:58:46):
What what what what?

Speaker 3 (01:58:47):
That's already it's violating the second law right there by
the way, And I'm just gonna say it, because fuck it.
But people don't realize that.

Speaker 2 (01:58:54):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:58:54):
I mean when I look at something floating freely, like
I'm looking at over here on the side of the screen.
This is the LK ninety nine, one of the videos
of the debunked superconductor. I mean, I'm looking at something
just levitating freely here. You know, this is a magnet
without it being stuck to anything. It's just not it's
just floating suspended.

Speaker 3 (01:59:12):
Yep. And this is why I love the question I
noticed in the comments here. I think Bob Greenier said
flux pinning. Yeah, right, Bob, flux pinning. But there's a component,
a thermodynamic component to the flux pinning that people don't
realize is interacting with the local vacuum between its critical
state and the just what's just outside of it the
flux there's there's there's a negative entropy component there that

(01:59:34):
people don't realize.

Speaker 1 (01:59:37):
So just to wind it down, uh, sal what would
be your final positive message that you would want to
leave for people? And thank you very much for having
this conversation with me again here today. It's been great.

Speaker 2 (01:59:49):
It's been my pleasure. Brothers Ashton you you coming up
to speed brother like and by the way, hello to
Bob since I heard these over there. So it's like
we finely should have a four sum sometimes you know,
it's like you know what I mean, like a physics
thing these days you have to say it, you know.
But anyway, so look, you you and brother Rossi. It's

(02:00:15):
an absolute pleasure to engage with you on this subject.
I've spoken to brother Rossi a many time not to
use words like negentropy and other things because it rubs
certain people the wrong way. Now, eventually again people will
get used to the terminology and the ideas and so forth,

(02:00:37):
but not right now because they will call us pseudoscientists.
So that's what I see. I understand what Brother Ashon
is saying. F the mother efforts and let's do our thing.
The only problem is it's the mother efforts that are
in proud, are in power, and they're the ones that
give the grants. They're the ones that dispense the favors,
they're the ones that give the promotions. Again, we're all slaves.

(02:01:01):
The problem is the mofos don't recognize they slave them.
Trust me, it'll hit them one day. They will be
absolutely amazed. Anyway, Thanks Brother Ashton, it's been absolutely a pleasure.

Speaker 3 (02:01:14):
Thank you for having me as well. Thank you guys,
it's an honor. Thank you so much.

Speaker 1 (02:01:18):
Yep, and I want to shoot my big thanks to
both Brother sal and Brother Dave for jumping on with
me here today. It really helped ingrain a lot of
the scientific concepts that I've learned over the last year.
I wouldn't have been able to do any of it
without either of these guys that are here. Thank you.
I'm Shrew seventy X for following along. Guys, I had
a great interview. You guys have a great day, and

(02:01:38):
we'll be talking again.

Speaker 2 (02:01:39):
Soon, Bravo, thank you,