#13 | Prof Simon Holland: Drones, Aliens, SETI, & FTL Communication

Science filmmaker Prof Simon Holland joins me on Hard Truths. We discuss NJ Drones, Aliens, SETI candidate signals, and plasma.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello everybody, and welcome to another episode of Hard Truth Podcast. Today,
my guest is Professor Simon Holland. He is a science filmmaker.
We are going to talk about SETI, aliens, drones and orbs.
Get ready, I'm ready, Simon. Welcome to the show.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
Ashton. It's really nice to have to be back, and
I follow you with great interest. Thanks for having me on.
There's a lot of things going on. What isn't in
our sky right now, whether it's orbs or drones or
we're being attacked by bad actors, who knows, it's certainly
a serious situation.

Speaker 1 (00:40):
Well that's what I want to talk to you about
right off the bat. So if people have been living
under a rock, there's been some kind of grown invasion
on the East coast in New Jersey for like the
last month, and everybody's wondering what it is. So let
me ask you, what do you think's going on? What
have you seen?

Speaker 2 (00:57):
Well? I live in Europe and the drone invasion and
is here too, which is kind of interesting folks. In fact,
long before it was in New Jersey, it was over
specific NATO Minister of Defense RIF bases here in Eastern

(01:18):
in eastern England, not here, I live in France, but
that was deeply worrying because the bases had no idea
how to react. They sent F fifteen's, which aren't exactly
even the most modern plane, because that's what they had
to counter these unknown threats, which probably were drones. And

(01:45):
I had a long chat with ExM od Nick Pope,
who's well known, and we both came to the conclusion
that it was probably Briton's worst encounter with things coming
into a British airspace, you know, since you know, since
the Cold War, you know, when.

Speaker 1 (02:06):
Well, why wouldn't they shoot these things down? Right?

Speaker 2 (02:09):
Like?

Speaker 1 (02:09):
Is that why you assume that it must be us?
It seems so weird that these things will be over
a military basis. And I've heard this a lot, you know,
how what's your explanation for that?

Speaker 2 (02:19):
I I was that would be my first reaction, you know,
I mean literally, you know, a shotgun or even they've
been using birds of prey can take down a drone.
What Nick Pope said, and I think I agree with
Nick on this very much, is they were the drones
or whatever they are, are an unconventional threat and the

(02:42):
military tend to live in the past, so they countered
a DGI hobby drone or something bigger, we don't know,
with an f f N fifteen, it's an inappropriate reaction.
They needed denial of flight EMP devices, which they have,
but supposedly they didn't have them on the perimeter of

(03:04):
the bases that had this encounter, and they were fighting
yesterday's war. And I think that is an enormous clue
for the British airspace violation and I'm quite mad about
it because not only were these drones seen over native bases,
they were also seen over British mod bases. But really weirdly,

(03:29):
and I think a big clue in nastily, they were
seen over the marriage quarters of the RIF flight crew,
in a base that used to be an airport which
was now housing for their wives and children, and the
same kind of drones were seen over there, and I

(03:50):
really think there was a big message being sent. I
think the timing was more than a coincidence that the
United Kingdom had just allowed storm Shadow cruise missiles into
the Ukraine, which have the capability of going into Russia.
Although this is not very well known, I happen to

(04:11):
know this. The storm Shadow cruise missiles were restricted in
their use by the Ukrainians to only go into the
Ukrainian national borders, but of course that includes areas of
the Ukraine that have been occupied, so it still could
be seen by Russia as they are being flown into

(04:34):
Russian controlled you know, land territory. But the drone incursions
in the UK, I think we're a sign to Britain
to you know, we have unconventional weapons, you are vulnerable,
and that's how I sought. But then who is doing it? Yeah,

(04:54):
and how is that pulled off? Because they certainly didn't
fly nearly three thousand, you know, from Moscow to Lake
and Heath. They were smallesh drones. In this case, I
think the New Jersey ones, we will discuss what they
what they might be. But in the British case, they
were definitely drones. People saw them, there's photographs of them.

(05:15):
You know, they're quad copter small astrah.

Speaker 1 (05:18):
So they were quad copter. I was gonna ask about
the morphology of what these things.

Speaker 2 (05:22):
No, the British ones were definitely, I mean there were
some and we should go on to this about a
slightly uh not very informed opinion that people who didn't
know what they were with kind of slightly out of focused,
fuzzy camera phones filming single point light sources in the

(05:44):
sky and not understanding. But there's definite footage. In the
British case, they are not particularly big. They were card
cop to drones. Now, viewers out there, you're all shouting, yeah,
but there were weird stuff. Well, there might have been
weird stuff, but I think in the British case, not
necessarily in the American case, but in the British case,

(06:07):
they seemed to be quite off the shelf, droney things.
And one of the things again that Nick Pope and
I discussed we're old enough to remember they used to
be a phrase useful idiots, and that in the Cold War,
people who align themselves say with Marxism today, which was

(06:28):
a newspaper in an organization in Britain, or CND Civil
Nuclear Defense or specific nationalists say from Scotland, my home country,
would often hand over what they thought was not secrets.
They would hand over information like the movements of US

(06:51):
submarines at Holy Loch to Marxism today or CND headquarters.
But in fact, sadly they were compromised and getting funded
by Russia, and they were in fact handing over you know,
useful material to Roscoe, and Moscow gave them in Russian.

(07:11):
Excuse my lack of Russian. They called them in Russian
useful idiots. And it's quite possible that that that the
same idea of using people for cash, Go fly your
drone at Lake and Eth, I'll give you a thousand pounds,
or coercion a Eastern European immigrant into the UK. We

(07:35):
know who your mum is kind of thing. Go fly
drone over Lake and Ties was a much better explanation
than them flying all over you know, Germany and the
North Sea and ending up in eastern England, which wouldn't
be practical.

Speaker 1 (07:49):
So you think that the European drone encourageon is political
in nature that I think the.

Speaker 2 (07:56):
Timing was was very very evident evidence of that. It
was following the storm Shadow announcement by British MD. And
I think also the drone idea, the concept of drones
as unconventional warfare was a kind of as I said

(08:18):
my film, it was putting the Willie up Britain because
you know, I think that it was unconventional and whoever
did it, whoever it might be, I can't actually say,
but whoever did it, and it was probably humans were
sending a message. I mean the drones were only there

(08:40):
at night. I mean, you know et would be there
during the day. I mean it's only at night. They
were illuminated some of them. Somebody I know who's got
angry astronaut went out there. He drove up. He's American,
but he was living in London and he drove up
to Lake and Heath and he saw one go over
his head and he said, it has almost had a
more led hanging underneath it. Now, the reason they wanted

(09:03):
it to be seen was because it was sending a message.
These are definitely trying to get the point across that
they're flying around perimeter fences to make a point. And
I think I think it's related to the American things,
but I think there's something more going on in the
United States which we should discuss.

Speaker 1 (09:25):
And you mentioned the use of drone warfare, which I
think Elon must mentioned recently and it terrifies me, especially
if you include ai On to it. Have you seen
the videos out of the Ukraine where you're like suicide
drones flying into people and blowing them up, and things
like that. That's alarming to me, and it makes me wonder.
I don't know about that particular incident, but at least

(09:45):
with the one going on in the United States right now,
Like how can you leave these up? Like these things
could have bombs on them, warheads on them, They could
fly into people and blow them up. I mean that
would the message.

Speaker 2 (09:54):
Yeah yeah, I mean what they did in Britain was
just fly around the damn perimeter fen and you know
the reaction was send up the F fifteen. Well that's rubbish.
I mean an F fifteen's minimum air speces, as you
would know, is like maybe one hundred knots, you know,
and the drones like twenty feet above the ground going
at ten miles an hour. Yeah, de fence, you know,

(10:17):
with a bomb. And yeah no, I did a film
and I just did, like you, I researched some Ukrainian
drone footation. I had to be really careful, you know,
to choose what I actually could show, because yeah, no,
they Ukraine are very successful and Russia are also using
them in the Ukrainian conflict very successfully. I mean you

(10:39):
can literally with a three D printer make your own
drone and drop something nasty onto your enemy and that
could happen.

Speaker 1 (10:48):
So what do you think's going on in the United
States version? What have you seen? Have you seen anything
that's compelling to you from a video presided for me
just throwing it out there. Most of what I've seen
looks like airplanes or or misidentified objects. I've will seen
a couple of videos that seem to show some magnification
of something that maybe might have some kind of feel

(11:09):
life from my fuel around it, but it could also
just be a blurry like out of focused star.

Speaker 2 (11:13):
What is your thoughts? I definitely agree, Ashton, I think
that I haven't seen any definite evidence. Somebody pointed me
very pointedly, you know, today, to look at at a
certified pilot's sighting in Oregon with their air traffic control

(11:35):
interaction where he saw a red light and other pilots
saw this as well in the sky. I think probably
quite near Portland, but I'm not sure. And then he
shot some cockpit footage and I'm sorry to say it
was it was an out of focus ORB and it
wasn't an ORB, it was just something out of focus,
So I couldn't say exactly what it is. But here's

(12:00):
I don't think I think we're missing the point. I
think what the drones represent in the United States is
something much more important. F what the drones are. I
think that is not the important thing. The important thing
is that these drones are unknown, and nobody in the

(12:23):
American government are reacting to it very sensibly, and the
public reaction to that is fear. And I think it's
as actually it is an attack, but I think it's
psychological warfare to an extent. It doesn't matter what these
objects are. Some will be quad copters being tested, which

(12:46):
is some will be copycat home DGI drones. Some might
be unknown, but I doubt it somehow, and a lot
will be just a lot of drone sightings. Somebody said
to me, somebody sees the drone over there, and then
somebody sees the same drone and films it from over there.

(13:08):
Suddenly you've got two drones. Well you haven't, necessarily they were,
you know, you've got a perspective on the same light
in the sky. But we are under attack, or the
United States is currently and Britain as well is currently
under attacked. This is psychological. This is having a very
very strong effect. People are frightened, people are worried people

(13:31):
are concerned why their government, specifically in Britain as well,
but very much in the United States. Aren't the FBI
go on TV and go, I don't know what it is. Well,
that's a pathetic answer. You know, we have this problem
and you live in the very state which is the
key to the answer. You had the wonderful FBI officer

(13:58):
who called in I know somebody in Minnesota who's doing
flight training and doesn't want to land, and it was ignored,
it wasn't passed on, and we all know where that went.
And I think I'm seeing as a non American, I'm
seeing a disconnect between agencies. You know, where is Homeland
Security that was set up post nine to eleven to
actually cut the crap and actually go to the FAA.

(14:21):
Look at New York's track on. You know, they have
radar that could track these damn things from take off
the landing. You know, go to all the agencies that
you've got and come to some conclusion. But by going
on CNN and TV and all the news stations and
having clips saying I have no idea, we don't think
it's anything we could worry about. Is just causing mass panic,

(14:45):
and I think whoever's doing it, if it is organized,
is going it's working chaps.

Speaker 1 (14:51):
Yeah, I don't believe for a second that they don't
know exactly what these things are. Now. I do know
the government is inefficient and that these organizations may not
community to one another. I don't really think that the
FBI Homeland Security by themselves would have any inside information
they would need, like satellite footage or some of the
other advanced they Yeah, and that's the thing is so

(15:13):
it seems like, you know, so I would be looking
at the NRO, the NSA, the NNGA, these people that
have that they know what's going on. The question then
is why are they not relaying that information to the
local authorities so that the information can be disseminated to
the public. And to your point, it does seem kind
of like a psychological operation where you know, people are
freaking out. There's mass hysteria going on right now in

(15:34):
the United States. I would even go so far as
to say it's mass formation psychosis once again, where people
now have this idea in their head that there are
these things flying around in the sky. And like you said,
out that a great point, and maybe it doesn't even
matter what they are, you know, is that there's something
up there. And now every single person's going out there
at night and they're filming stuff and they're seeing a
lot of normal stuff and they're misattributed it just we

(15:56):
get this cycle where it just gets crazier and crazier.
And now you've got major influencers that never talk about
the UFO topic and what have you all in on it?

Speaker 2 (16:06):
So do you think you absolutely nailed there? I mean,
that's exactly how as an outsider not living in the US,
as I'm seeing it, the effect of whatever the f
these are is tremendous. It actually is an attack. Is
it internal, is it external? Is it just hysterical reaction?

(16:28):
But it's it's definitely causing a lot of chaos and
people need it needs to be sorted out pretty damn quick.

Speaker 1 (16:37):
Do you think it could be related to the recent
United States election with Donald Trump switching over? Any thoughts
on that?

Speaker 2 (16:45):
Sure? I I it seems like a possibility. I mean,
you know, if you're going to cause real disruption before
the democratic takeover by Donald Trump because he was elected,
you could easily cause an awful lot of disarray to

(17:06):
an incumbent, you know, a person who's about to take
that office by having a hell of a hell of
a flap in your country, which you could then you know,
fix by methods which might be quite draconian. And yeah, no,
I mean I think, I mean, if I had to
put money on it, I think that's actually more likely

(17:28):
than it's the Ruskies or the Chinese or the Uranian Mothership.
I think they're all quite hysterical. But that's part of
the hysteria. And the other thing I'd like to say,
I mean, this is very controversial viewers. Is I think
we're actually seeing us, the so called UFO community, if
that's what we are. I don't know, being slightly used

(17:52):
in this because I don't think we or our community
of people who are invested or are interested in the
abnormal paranormal, are reacting very well. I think we are
actually being a bit hysterical, and I think that's part
of it. Maybe this is a plot. You know, non
critical thinkers who want to believe one thing or another,

(18:14):
who are very set in their ways, manipulate the buckers,
you know.

Speaker 1 (18:20):
Yeah, this is where I would throw some criticism and
shade on the UFO community, where buying into the massive stereia.
Here is how you get yourself discredited as well, because
you know, I think everybody's really desperate for alien disclosure
UFO disclosure in general, and if it turns out to
be a mockery, then this is why people don't take

(18:40):
you seriou, especially if you're just filming like airplanes in
the sky and saying that, oh, the UFOs are morphing
into airplanes because you know, like that kind of stuff,
you know, people, I mean, it's.

Speaker 2 (18:51):
Just it's just full of that. I mean, it's just
message a message. They're copying us, They're you know, is
telling me there are time travelers. You know, they're meta
materials of you know, your igala's telling me all this stuff.
You know, you're probably reading the same emails and you know,
and I'm going now still, I mean, let's be slightly

(19:14):
more objective about this. And at the same time, we've
got this hysteria going on, we've got a lot of
frightened people, and we've got a government that's doing f all.
I mean, get it together, people, Unless it's intentional, do
you think.

Speaker 1 (19:31):
So we were kind of but tap dancing around thing,
which is do you think this is Project Bluebeam, which
is the fake alien invasion or whatever like, because now
I'm starting to wonder this thing's been going on for
so long, and it's so disruptive to all the points
that you made in the last fifteen minutes. It's like,
this seems like it's just to freak people out. It

(19:53):
doesn't matter what they are. And the only explanation I
can come up with who's responsible is my own government,
something related to America, because if there was anything else,
we'd be knocking it out of the sky'd be too dangerous.
So I sit there and I think, yeah, maybe this
is a Project Bluebeam, but they just can't even pull
it off. I don't know, what are your thoughts.

Speaker 2 (20:14):
I have a very did you know about me? Donald
Trump and Project Bluebeam story? Oh god, now's the time
I know.

Speaker 1 (20:28):
No, I don't know tells the story.

Speaker 2 (20:30):
Okay, So, when I was seriously misquoted about imminent alien contact,
it was seen by a lobby group part of no
doubt that Donald Trump organization that I, as a European,

(20:53):
non American, non voting person, was possibly invoking and alien
were coming as this as this whatever it's called Blue something. Yeah,
it was completely rubbish.

Speaker 1 (21:11):
Like he doesn't know what Bluebean is. Everybody, Professor Simon
is the one who's pushing the project blue.

Speaker 2 (21:15):
Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, that's sorry. I don't even know
because it's completely rubbish. But it didn't come. I mean,
somebody spread that as a rumor, and I've got an
awful lot of comments saying, you know that I was
pro Kamela. I don't even know who she is.

Speaker 3 (21:33):
I'm British, I live in French and and and I
was dissing Donald because I was I was evoking the
you know, the story went.

Speaker 2 (21:44):
When somebody explained it to me, I asked a friend
in America and who who agreed that I was being
dissed by people in that camp. And they were saying, oh, yeah,
it's the old Verner von Braun deathbed message where alien
invasion will be used as a political influence just before

(22:06):
a large political event. And I was going, it's me.
It was like, it wasn't actually me, but I mean,
so yeah, now I was. And then I read it
in newspapers and things, so it's like, oh, oh, so
but is this one really? Is this? Are the drones
really Bluebeam? I don't know, but Yeah, Ashton, would knowledge

(22:34):
of we're not alone in the universe or definite confirmation
of highly strange UAP or ET presence actually have that effect?
I mean, would would it actually work?

Speaker 1 (22:50):
Yeah, that's a great question, Simon. I don't think that
it would anymore. I don't think it works on me.
I personally don't care about aliens. I think alien can
come knock on my door and you know, it wouldn't matter.
I would still be going to work tomorrow. You're like, hey, whatever,
I like out there summer. It's a big universe. So
I've never thought we're just alone in the universe. But
and I think that a lot of people too now

(23:11):
have just become so disaffected with everything going on, where
it's like you see the meme out there where it's like, Hi,
I'm an alien. It's like, aren't you freaked out? And like, nah,
I got a lot of stuff going on right now.
You know. It's like, and this is where I think
the UFO Commune is kind of fallen behind, where it's
like in the nineties with the X piles and everything,
aliens were this big revelation where we were opening our
minds to not being alone in the universe.

Speaker 2 (23:32):
But now I.

Speaker 1 (23:33):
Feel like it's not even that big a thing. It's
kind of like a speed bump. And so that's why
I look at this and I go, maybe this is
Project blue Beam, and maybe it was like it would
just we've outgrown that and it's not going to have
the same psychological impact anymore. But let me ask you
about the SETI thing, because you brought that up. I
was following that you were making a lot of waves.
You were in a lot of the newspaper articles about that,

(23:57):
So what is the background store four? He's not made
aware of that because we spoke I think right before
a few months before that went down, and we were
talking about fast and like communication things like that, and
I saw that. I was like, oh wow, Professor Simon's
like going viral now because they're saying that you were
like this expert and they always kind of like, you know.

Speaker 2 (24:18):
Oh no, I got cold all kinds of things. Yeah, yeah, filmmaker, Yeah.

Speaker 1 (24:24):
So set the record straight, NASA filmmaker. I remember saying
that set the record straight for us on that, like
how what kind of information came to you? How credible
did you deem it?

Speaker 2 (24:34):
And yeah, there's way thank you yeah, Hi, everybody, let's
set the record straight like that. That's great. No, everything
that I said was actually true, and I think it's
very interesting the reaction against it. And I think that's

(24:54):
the story that people didn't understand. You know, so many
people today are saying, you said to be here next
week and it's been a month, and they're still going, No,
that's the real story. So just give my speel of
how this whole thing came about. So Drake and Sagan

(25:17):
set up SETTI, and they decided that they didn't have
enough money and telescope time to listen to the entire
radio spectrum of the visible universe the listenable universe. So
they just thought that when you turn on a radio telescope,
which I've done many times, you hear hydrogen buzz. It's

(25:39):
a big buzz which you then filter out to listen
to the quiet things that you're trying to find in
the universe. So Drake and Sagan said, as we can't
listen to everything, we assume that aliens will communicate and
say hello on the hydrogen waveband because they would know
that we could hear it. It was a terrible waste

(26:00):
of time, you know, from nineteen sixties right up into
the nineties. The only money that they had Causetti is
a self funded organization with no government money, was to
listen in the hydrogen band force for aliens going hello.
And they never heard anybody, nobody ever. They never heard
a thing. Odd signals were found, like the Wow signal

(26:23):
outside of the hydrogen band. But by the nineteen nineties
the technology to record and on a data base on
a hard drive a wider bandwidth than just the hydrogen
band got around, and they had some bit more money,
and they used Green Bank Rejo telescope and they recorded

(26:45):
wide band everything, not only the hydrogen teeny band but everything.
But then SETI didn't have any way of processing the signal.
They wrote an algorithm that could filter to see if
there was a narrowband signal, if it was a single
point source, and if it was coming from an exoplanet,

(27:06):
and those three things they put into a piece of
software called Seting at Home and you and I and
millions of people downloaded it as a screen saver. And
what they did is sent a little chunk of this
wide signal, which they couldn't process effectively, to everybody at
home and you filtered it through and to see if

(27:26):
there was a candidate, and that word candidate I'll mention
a couple of times. And it was so popular. I
know people who work for people like Texaco, literally I do.
Who was the IT person and it was his It
was up to him to put a screen saver on

(27:46):
a thousand million PCs all around the world, and he
chose to set at Home and set it home became
a victim of its own success, and they didn't want
to let people down, so they sent they re scanned
the sky. That's really important, the same scan sent multiple times.
They actually re scanned the sky and sent it out

(28:07):
to lots more people and the software was open source
and a few candidates were found, but not very many,
but a very smart this is how I heard the story.
A very smart statistician and mathematician in a large central
Italian university. I don't want to say his name, Parish

(28:28):
the open source setty at Home information and found five
candidates that had were narrow banned coming from an exoplanet
and had all the characteristics oh single point source. I mean,
they were definitely they were candidates. So they were called
C for candidates. Along came Uri Milner and set up

(28:49):
an organization called Breaks Through Listen with lots of money
and they bought as much telescope time at Green Bank
in the Northern Hemisphere and places like Parks in the
Southern hemisphere Australia. And they immediately went to the five
candidates and called them b LC breats who were listening
candidate at one to five and BLC one was the

(29:11):
first one they looked at because it's the closest to Earth.
It's in the Alpha century System. It's a planet orbiting
a star which is four point eight light years away,
and it's really important that it's four point eight light
years because it's possible to find a technological signature that's
one hundred thousand light years away. But that means at

(29:31):
the speed of light, the information you're getting is one
hundred thousand years old. And imagine how we've evolved over
that time. So one that's four point eight years old
is relevant and you know, and very interesting. So they
did that one first. Also at the time, back in
the early two thousands, they they had single telescopes. Green

(29:55):
Bank is great, Parks is great, and they're trackable dishes,
sturable dishes, but to we've moved on and that's part
of my story to much bigger networked arrays. But they
looked at b LC one break Through Listening Candidate one
from the SETI information and they found it was a
single point source, and they found that it was a

(30:15):
very narrow band of electromagnetic frequency and unfortunately it was
also very low level LIZ low information zone. So they
published a paper saying, we can't confirm that it's that
it is a technological signature. I also have to say
what that is. So we're not looking anymore for aliens

(30:36):
going who We're looking for the buzz of an alien
civilization that might be using electromagnetic frequency to do everyday
things if they are, and it's a good place to look.
They're also looking for lasers, they are also looking for
structures even and they're very very much and have found

(30:58):
this is very important to know biological signatures by looking
through the atmosphere of a planet exoplanet that is transiting
its star and you can now look in the narrow
slit of its atmosphere and analyze it, and bio signatures
have been found now over a year ago by a
group doing a spectral analysis of an exoplanet's atmosphere, not

(31:23):
the same one as BLC one, but another proof that
there's some kind of non human life forms out there.
I mean, that's all we really need. BLC one they
published saying we can't confirm it, and that's what everybody
quotes back at me, saying it was interferes But hang on,

(31:44):
let me explain something. So you've got the let me
make it all.

Speaker 1 (31:49):
So just to clarify real quick. So you're saying that
your information is coming from related to BLC one or
is it separate from BLC one, No, it was.

Speaker 2 (31:58):
It was very much about LC one from my source
who said that BLC one is a genuine signal.

Speaker 1 (32:06):
That was in twenty nineteen, right.

Speaker 2 (32:09):
Yeah, yeah, exactly, And well the signal existed beforehand. It
was a candidate from SETI Rachel listen. I spoke to
Andrew Simeon doct trans sim who's the principal investigator breakserre
listening to. I mean, he told me this BLC one
is still a candidate. And but the unlikeliness of it

(32:33):
being human interference is this. There's the telescope, and there's
the there's the the exoplanet, and it's if you turn
the telescope away, the signal goes. If you point it
at my finger, it's there. If you turn it away,
it goes. So it's coming from a single point source
and it's narrow. Well, what they're saying is there is

(32:56):
something man made between the telescope and the extra planet
that's in lockstep with the extra planet, and it's transmitting
a very strange, non obvious electromagnetic spectrum. Okay, so what's
between Earth Parks and Alpha century. There isn't anything. I mean,

(33:19):
so saying it's a human signal, you could immediately say, oh,
it's a Russian Cosmo satellite. Well there isn't one, and
it tracks in the same way. It's following the extra planet.
And that was the end of their report. But what
happened next is the clincher. What they found with the

(33:39):
signal is that the signal is Doppler shifted. That means
they managed to track with Parks for as long as
the extra planet. Now that's not it, my finger is
the extra planet. As long as the extra planet orbited,
they followed it and then it went and then they
were in Australia and it went around the Earth, and
then they picked it up again, and in that time

(34:00):
that they could track it, they found that the electromagnetic
spectrum from this single point source was either if it
was like blue or red, shifted or Doppler shifted up
or down as you can know. And the Doppler shift
of the signal is the same speed as the rotation
of the planets. So if it isn't coming from that planet,

(34:24):
it's coming from something in space that's lined up with
Australia that's using very strange frequencies that humans don't normally use,
and it's rotating at the same speed as the planet.
I mean, the question I, as an investigator, immediately said
when people said rubbish to me was why are they lying?

(34:46):
I mean, what is it that they Why are they
wanting not to say that they found a very good signal,
because by saying that it could be human interference but
not having any source, they're covering something up. And so
I went back to my contact who told me about
this story originally and said, why are they lying? And

(35:08):
he said, oh, you need to know who Peter Schenkle is.
I'd never heard of that name. He is an advisor
to SETI, and he told SETI whose whose mission statement
is tell the world, not to tell the world. He
advised them that if SETI or Brits are listener who
probably going along with the same protocol, find a weak, unconfirmed,

(35:32):
but very good candidate they did, don't say anything because
immediately and I proved this, My viewers proved this. Immediately
you say, I think you found we found a technological signature.
Everybody says, what do they look like? What are they saying?

(35:52):
You're well, stop stop. You know, we found a buzz coming.
It might be rocks rubbing together, but we found a
bars of a technological signature. You know, are they blue?
Is a stupid question, but that's what Schenkor told SETI.
If you are at least three steps ahead of the
general public, what will happen is that SETI will be

(36:13):
thrown out with the bathwater, and they'll get they'll get
Gypsy rose Lee to answer the stupid questions, and the
science will be blown away. So, b if you find
a signal, shut up, you can start telling governments. And
they have told governments, and they've told the Vatican and

(36:33):
the British government. I read a report that they've published.
Have got now an advisory of what how they would exploit,
which is very typical British. The confirmation of ET and
their exploitation was building better telescopes. And that's the real story.
The signal is real, but somebody doesn't want it to

(36:58):
be published. And then since BLC one and Parks Europe
and EU Horizon Fund, which is the largest science fund
the on the planet, you know, a bit like National
Science Foundation, but even bigger, have done this networked idea.
We can now network the Square Kilometer Array, a big

(37:20):
radio telescope in South Africa, and all the lo Far
and Jadrabank telescopes which are already networked in Europe to
make an ear the size of our planet. And since
then an organization called astron who also are keeping quite quiet,
are finding evidence of technological signatures. We have the tools

(37:44):
in twenty twenty four to prove that we're not alone
in the universe. We have the biological signature and we
have very good confirmation. Personally, as a pundit, I think
the public should know this, but I now I understand
why it was immediately blocked and nobody would. I was

(38:06):
very alone. I was very friendly with people like Jill Tatter,
who's used to be the head of SETI. I worked
with Jill and she wouldn't return my phone call and
the press person from SETI and I'm sure I'm not
on the break Shore listen Christmas card list anymore.

Speaker 1 (38:26):
Well, so let me jump in here because I have
a lot of questions. You gave us a lot of
really good information.

Speaker 2 (38:31):
Yeah, no, I asked details. Good.

Speaker 1 (38:34):
Yeah, because for me, I think the biggest thing was
and this isn't something I didn't I didn't realize because
it's getting misreported in the news that oh, we've got
some you know, we're we received some message from the aliens.
Like that's basically how it was being reported. But the
way you just described it is, no, we're seeing something
that appears to be a techno signs. You're a buzz, like,
you know, a buzz that we're seeing out there. That's

(38:55):
a big difference, but it's also very important. And then,
like you said, everybody just wants answers out there. To me,
this is very similar to the detection of seasonal methane
on Mars, where I could seasonal methane on Mars, which
is a biosignature. It doesn't mean that there's little, little
green men on Mars. But it could mean there's bacteria,

(39:18):
which would be huge, right, and it doesn't get reported
on it just because I don't know if people just
don't want to accept it or they they I think
the standard of evidence for proof is like so high,
you know, as opposed to like, hey, here's this pretty
incredible information and this data point that would indicate there
might be something more going on there. And I think

(39:38):
James web right now as well, is actually, like you said,
scanning on what is it for the various chemicals that
we see when the planet go in front of the
stars and you can actually get a spectrum analysis there
and if you see organics or things that are consistent,
like methane's one of those things that might indicate their

(40:01):
stuff there. So the big thing, though you said, is
that this is coming from Alpha you know, Alpha Centauri
or you know, what are our closest stars that we have.
If we find some type of techno signature that close,
that would indicate life's got to be everywhere, right.

Speaker 2 (40:19):
Yeah, I mean, it's just they be LC one was
the closest because they had it was it was a
better signal and it was also not very old. But yeah, right,
life is going to be everywhere, but it doesn't have
to be. It doesn't have to be, uh, people in
flying sauces. I mean, look at our planet. I live

(40:42):
at a fum. You know, I've just gone out five
minutes ago and fed my goats. I mean there are
life forum. They are an intelligent species, but they don't
drive teslas. I don't hope not. And you know they
they hang on no, no, no no, But aliens are

(41:02):
going to be in the chap val A phrase highly strange.
I mean they're not or in the star Trege phrase
it's life gym, but not as we know it. I mean,
I think it's amazing. I think the technological signature is
really interesting because it implies that that they they are

(41:25):
using electromagnetic frequencies, which is a bit odd really, because
we as a planet are moving away from EM. I mean,
it's em if you start off with kind of radio teleft.
You know, radio and Marconi were now mainly fiber optic
and and we're not actually transmitting signals through the ether

(41:49):
or whatever you know anymore. So it might be a
bubble of a technological race who uses electromagnetic spectrum. Although
we still kind of like to use it for things
like radar and satellite communication. Makes sense. Well, so the
the other thing that brakes through Listen said to me,

(42:10):
I'm sorry to interrupt, it's just a really great fact.
He said that there's James Webb can find spectral technical
technological signatures. I said, I don't understand. He said, not
only could you find methane or evidence of respiratory and

(42:31):
life and other chemicals which are normally associated with creatures.
You might find fluorocarbines. You might find a chemical in
their atmosphere which could which isn't a natural molecule, it's
something that had to be constructed, and that would be
a technological spectral signature. Sorry.

Speaker 1 (42:53):
Wow, Yeah. And so the alien thing is really interesting
because I was like you a couple of years ago.
I thought they're gonna be way different than us, and
I still think that aliens would be way different that
we can't really even it's not necessarily going to be
like humanoids. But then I think there's also the other
side of the spectrum, which what if they are exactly
like us, Like what if we are the aliens that

(43:14):
somebody drops us off here and we've forgotten our history
or something too like. Honestly, both options seem plausible to me.
But the point you brought up what I really want
to dig into is the method of communication, which is okay,
like the em thing like you that was a great
point you bring up, is like, isn't it kind of
weird that we would detect an electromagnetic signature? If we're

(43:35):
moving away from that And this is the part where
I think human hubris comes into play, where we think, oh,
we've advanced everything there is. I remember watching a show
like over a decade ago where they were going through
SETI and these signatures, and we hadn't had a lot
of luck in finding stuff, and somebody comes in points out, well,
what if we're looking we're not looking for the right thing,

(43:56):
We're not looking at the right bandwidth, or you know,
we're not looking for the right message. These aliens or
whatever they are, are using a different method of communication.
And the thing that I've researched in the last year
that has really blown me away is gravity waves. You
were mentioning the thing about the ether before, which you know,
if people google hal Pudoff's patent, you're gonna find out

(44:17):
he's got something called communication system, and in it it
is a communication method with no electromagnetic signature and instead
it uses force free Correct me if I'm wrong here,
or people can fact check me. But it's like force
free communication, beaming it basically through the ether, right, And

(44:40):
to me, that is a it's a scaler U communication system,
or I would call it a gravity communication system. I
think that in order to not ruffle people's feathers, they
call it like a quantum communication system.

Speaker 2 (44:52):
Oh, the badly misused word.

Speaker 1 (44:54):
Yeah, yeah, it's exactly. But that's how they get the
people to not like say, oh, this is pseudoscience basically,
but what do you think about that idea? And could
something like that because Robert M. L. Baker was a
Lockheed Martin engineer and he wrote over a dozen papers
on high frequency gravitational waves and using them for communication

(45:15):
as one of the methods that they could be used for.
And I think, oh, well, doesn't that make way more sense?
Is that they're using something that we are not using
right now conventionally, that we aren't even looking for out there,
and that if we have a high frequency gravitational wave detector,
maybe we start seeing these things everywhere out in the universe.
And I'm curious your thoughts on that. And then the

(45:37):
other thing I'm curious is on is do you think
that something like that could actually communicate faster than the
speed of light? Uh?

Speaker 2 (45:44):
Yeah, it does. Oh that's a big statement. Yeah, yeah,
that's I hadn't considered gravity waves. But very interestingly, Ashton
that a number of new lego instruments have been built. Certainly,

(46:06):
gravity waves are being looked at and investigated by all
over the world right now. The sensitivity of the original
system has been incredibly increased. I was thinking of doing
a film about it, so I was researching it. But
there's now gravity wave detectives all over the world, certainly

(46:27):
in China and in Europe, as well as the one
out in probably Oregon. I think it is the original one.
I think it's near Hartford.

Speaker 1 (46:37):
And but.

Speaker 2 (46:41):
How put off so onto something as well. He's an
interesting person to follow. But I got told about this
guy called Gunter Nimitz, right, So, Gunter is a now
in his late eighties nineties. He isn't available on social media.

(47:06):
He is a retired very senior physicist at Cologne University
and he experimented the early two thousands with what he
called quantum tunnel communication. And what he'd discovered with an
experiment which is reproducible in your bedroom, and he did

(47:29):
it with undergraduate students in a laboratory, is he can
send a microwave source. But it interestingly, it doesn't have
to be microwaves. It could be any it could be light,
but anything he can send. But in his case it
was my caroreerve through a device and then have an

(47:49):
air gap of a few meters to a receiver. And
what he discovered is that he knows the time the
signal would take from the source to the receiver, and
of course it would transit that time and there would
be a distinct speed of light communication. But he found
that by putting it into this this tunnel transmitter, that

(48:12):
when it exited the tunnel transmitter, it entered the tunnel
receiver instantaneously. The gap between the transmitter and the receiver
was non existent. And as he moved them further apart,
the signal I mean there was a slight delay of

(48:33):
it going in and the slight delay of it coming out,
but the bit between which could be a meter or
could be one hundred million light years. That's its point
was instantaneous. When the signal transited space. It was like
somebody told me this. The person who told me this,

(48:54):
It's like you're pushing on a rod. You push this
end and the other end is moving. There is a
direct connection. It isn't a wave, it's not an energy
with a time base. It is just a connection. And
that connection makes a lot of sense. I'm gonna have
to use the word quantum in the quantum world or

(49:15):
the sub atomic world, where we have a world which
is not like the far field world that we live in,
but we have a world where everything is We know
that everything is connected. So is it connected in a
way where you can put a signal in and receive
it out without a delay. And he demonstrates this. He

(49:38):
immediately gave that idea to a group that I'm associated
with or know of in Europe as a receiver on
radio telescopes. He said, put one on the radio telescope.
Sorry he's not Scottish, but put one on our radio
telescope and see if Thellans are using my form of

(50:02):
instant communication, because they would be really smart if they did.
And so strapped on the side of a whole bunch
and I know where they are. And I'm not saying
readie telescopes just a part of a network in Europe
are gunter Nimitz's receivers.

Speaker 1 (50:19):
And really yeah you know that for a fact.

Speaker 2 (50:23):
Yeah, you can read the funding for it, I mean.
And there was a there was a conference in Colone
where the radio telescope administrators from EU went to see
the demonstration. They were very skeptical. The head of SETI
from the US was there and he had a conniption.
Supposedly he absolutely hated it and stormed out and is

(50:47):
dissing what guntern Imits is doing. But some people there,
he's a very famous person, John Michael Goodyear had him
on and he's really full of himself. But one of
the people there, I can't remember his name. One of
the people there at the meeting is my contact, and
he said, we're interested. Can you make one and we'll

(51:10):
strap it nicely on one of our European telescopes. And
what have they heard?

Speaker 1 (51:17):
They're not saying, So do you have reason to believe
that something any type of communication there's been some success
with that.

Speaker 2 (51:26):
I have no reason to believe that. No. All I
know is that they it's another tool which they are using. Obviously,
my contact, who's very excited and was part of the
project to putting these retrofitting these telescopes with this device, said,

(51:46):
if we ever did find a signal, and I'm not
at liberty to say anything more, it would then open
the opportunity to speak back. But then we talked of
the phone in a long time about the difficulty of communication.
I mean, how do you communicate with somebody who has

(52:07):
no references to you? So the actual technology, technological signa
way of communicating might be crackable, but then how do
you take it to the next level if we ever find,
if we ever heard a signal that was using this,
but it would be it would make so much sense.
That's an advanced race and maybe we humans are slowly

(52:30):
getting into that level.

Speaker 1 (52:32):
Yeah, would let me ask a couple quick questions, real quick,
you don't mind, because first of all, what you just
say right there is huge, is that how do we
even communicate? You know, It's like, Okay, it's one thing
to say that we get a signature, but like it's
not like they're speaking English to us, you know, like
are we gonna speak in Morse code or almost like
the movie contacts. You know, it's like, what are they

(52:53):
gonna send us, like prime numbers or what are they
gonna do?

Speaker 2 (52:56):
Yeah, prime numbers, even that would be impossible. I mean
I think the movie Arrival was better at that. I mean,
you know, I think I think we don't have the
ability to talk to squids, so you know, and they
you know, we eat them unfortunately. But I mean they're
very highly evolved and very highly intelligent, being on this planet,

(53:16):
our Earth, for longer than humans, and we can't bloody
talk to them. How pathetic is that? So how are
we going to talk to the aliens? And you know,
and as you say, do they talk? Do they? Is
there a concept of of color? I mean, we are
so human in the way that we our tiny spectrum them,

(53:37):
that we our eyes see and our ears can hear,
and our feeling in touch and our gravity. You know,
we're people of Earth. So we can't even assume that
they would know what a ball is. You know, if
you speak to a child in a different language, you
could show them a ball and they would immediately know
it was round and they could bounce it or play

(53:59):
with it, even if they didn't know the language to
talk to you in, you know, from a foreign country,
but an alien might not even know what a round
thing is. You know, it would be very It would
be incredibly challenging and fantastic. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (54:14):
The part that really also is like people don't realize
why would we think aliens would have the same concept
of time that we do as well? That might they
might even have the same concept as time. Like it's
like the movie Lord of the Rings with the nts,
the tree people or whatever they like, their concept of
time is different, moves much slower than our concept of time.
Can you imagine how difficult it would be to communicate
with a species where our concepts of time are different?

(54:36):
Or like in the movie Arrival where they like somehow
kind of see the future in the past all the Yeah,
exactly like a circle.

Speaker 2 (54:44):
I know.

Speaker 1 (54:44):
This is where like, I think the UFO community specifically
really needs to update some of their narratives because a
lot of it's like, oh, all the aliens are telepathic.
It's like, okay, well, I mean maybe, but you know,
I think the bigger issue is like, do they even
have the same concepts of morality, consciousness?

Speaker 2 (55:02):
Time?

Speaker 1 (55:03):
These things? Right, Like, those are huge differences that could
make it very difficult to have any type of formal communication, right.

Speaker 2 (55:11):
Totally, totally, totally agree. I couldn't. I mean, yeah, I've
done films about what I call time base, and all
you have to do is f with the time base,
and suddenly we've had this in science fiction, you know,
fiction where something is moving so fast that you don't
see it because because we can't scan it, and it
appears like a buzz. Episodes of Star Trek and things

(55:35):
where the thing was moving so fast they couldn't see
it until they got into their time base, or things
that move so incredibly slowly that we think it's a rock,
but in fact the rock is moving, but we it
moves over ten thousand years. So yeah, no, you're right.
And then in the subatomic world, the concept of time

(55:56):
is very different. One of the things that have been
fascinating me in a film that I just published today
is about remote viewing and how by tapping into probably
how our brain has a quantum aspect to how it works.

(56:20):
You know, we are fundamentally quantum inside our atoms, but
we're far field you know, beings. But we have a
connection to a spiritual connection, to the to a timeless
connected universe, we call it God, we call it religion.
But one of the explanations of remote viewing is are

(56:43):
these microtubule ideas that we have in our brain, which
are physical objects in our brain that Dr Roger Penrose
is talking about and the caesiologist to talking about. It's
fantastic and it's possible that remote viewing people who have
that way of looking into the near future as we
all do, but some of them are better at it

(57:05):
than us, could tap into a timeless realm. So time
doesn't the future, the present, and the past doesn't exist.
So speaking to Russell Tarak and how put off about

(57:26):
remote viewing literally yesterday Ashton, it seems to me that
the way that remote viewing works was very much tapping
into some type of timeless realm, and that the remote viewers,
through an emotional connection in the future, it had to
be an emotional connection, could recall the future in the past.

(57:49):
So that's how they made it work. It wasn't It
wasn't looking at an underground secret laboratory in Russia at
a distance. It was about saying your.

Speaker 1 (58:01):
Time, it's retro causality, right, retro causality, it's a and
there's an experiment that actually supports the notion of retro causality,
called the delayed choice quantum eraser, where they exactly I
looked at that experiment and I saw people trying to
debunk in what have you? And my interpretation was that
it's clearly sending information from the future to the present,

(58:22):
which is you know, time travel. And now to me,
it's just a matter of what can you do with that?
And I think it's directly I thought all these concepts
you've beenalk about for the last five minutes, I think
I related Gunter Nimitz and maaster and light device. I mean,
if you look at that and the idea of quantum tunneling,
it's like it's jumping the gap between these regions. And

(58:44):
how do you explain that, you know, I think the
only way to explain it is the same way that
you explain remote viewing. And it's quantum entanglement, right, it's
quantum entanglement that all points in space and time must
have some connection, right exactly a distance. So do you
think that there's.

Speaker 2 (59:01):
An a gravity? Yeah?

Speaker 1 (59:05):
So do you think that there is like then like
an ether or whatever of like you know, what has
been talked about since the time of Tesla is that
how what is your views on how to rationalize how
that could be possible.

Speaker 2 (59:17):
I think that's such a great question because I think
I think we as scientists and science and investigators, and
I think what physics does is look at the observable
effects of the universe and name it. And I think
the term ether describes was ahead of its time. And
I think that as we discover the near field and

(59:40):
far field and sub atomic world is a is a
giant connected universe which is timeless, gravity less, and spaceless,
it suddenly is closer to the name ether that we
coined in the nineteenth century. And in fact, although that

(01:00:00):
name was dropped and we started talking about transmission by
radio over through our kind of big, big field space,
I think as we discovered quantum physics in the nineteen twenties,
that term should come back because I think there is

(01:00:24):
an ether. I think the ether is inside us all.
I think it's internal to our atomic structure. And I
think as people as beings or objects, and I don't
think humans are unique. I think humans we have a
consciousness because we're conscious of the ether, or we're conscious

(01:00:45):
of the quantum state. Now I think that anything that
is forefield, which is big stuff, might be aware or
could well have a system that is aware of a
larger connectivity. Birds example, are very high end quantum brains.

(01:01:05):
They can do calculations of navigation and direction finding and
other things. And in mythology, birds are seen as this
higher life forum than humans because they have they possibly
have a way of being much more connected to our
connected quantum ether.

Speaker 1 (01:01:27):
Interesting, it's just my opinion.

Speaker 2 (01:01:29):
No, it's not my opinion, and people are doing the research.

Speaker 1 (01:01:33):
Yeah, And I to me, if there is an ether
and maybe like energy is coming from this and things
all points in space and time are really connected, then
to me, it really does broach the idea, well, where's
consciousness coming from? Is it coming from this ether? Is
there direct connection that we have to it?

Speaker 2 (01:01:49):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (01:01:50):
This is why I think the people that throw out
how Pudoff's research in the seventies because they go, oh,
remote viewings, psychic blah blah blah. Like I think that's
a little bit naive to do that, because that the
basis to that is that we think we understand everything
there is, but we have all these experiments like the
guns or nimens experiment that seem to counter indicate or

(01:02:11):
counteract or contradict our understanding. And I looked in the
Gunter nimts and in two thousand and five I think
he was he was supposed to do some type of
demonstration and he just never showed up. And it wasn't
until I think twenty nineteen that two I don't know
if they were students recreated the experiment and people have

(01:02:32):
tested it and some people say, well, the distance is
so short that would basically be instantaneous, but we have
detectors that can detect even you know, short distances like that,
even at the speed of light, and they tested it
and it was way too fast to be explained away
as some sort of anomaly in the measurement apparatus. So
what I think recently you did some kind of deep

(01:02:55):
dive as well. Did you come to a similar conclusion
that you know that that was actually his experiments it
is was legit.

Speaker 2 (01:03:01):
Yeah, I did, And I know somebody who was at
the conference where gun turn limits turned up. He didn't
want to go on stage that day, and he actually
sent postgraduate students. He desperately wanted to communicate with European

(01:03:22):
Readie telescope people, and the story that he didn't turn
up is not true, and that is just literally not true.
People did meet him that day, but he either it's
badly reported or he didn't go on stage, or there's
some confusion over that. And that was it was very

(01:03:44):
much used against him. And it supposedly the bloke I
know knows Guntu quite well and he was there, he
just wasn't very public supposedly or I don't know really
what happened. And through the postgraduate students that Cologne did

(01:04:05):
demonstrate it. And the the one thing that Gunta Nimmitz
really peed off the science community by saying faster than
the speed of light FTL, and that really pissed people
off because so much science is anchored on Einsteinian physics
that the speed of light is a barrier and he

(01:04:29):
was really wrong in saying that, and what he should
have said, and what I'm going to say now is
mind boggling. Okay, okay, So faster than the speed of
light isn't possible in a framework of relativity of relativity.
I mean, you can you can actually possibly go faster

(01:04:51):
than you can appear to be going faster than the
speed of light in a relative sense. No, I'm talking shite.
Let me say a different way. What guntern Limits did
with his with his with his quantum communication, and that
word is also misused, is he found that it wasn't
faster than the speed of light. It's instantaneous. There is

(01:05:15):
no speed. That's what he should have said. That's what
my contact said. As soon as he said FDL, he
got laughed at because it still implies a speed. But
in fact what he found was it enters an exit simultaneously.
He described it like I said, like pushing on the

(01:05:35):
end of a rod. Or I used a demonstration which
obviously isn't the same, but it's a good demonstration of
those Newton's balls where you pull one out and it
hits and the one at the end flies out and it
goes like that. Now there is a shock wave of
gravity on Earth making that happen, and it's just very
fast and we don't see it. But it's a good

(01:05:58):
analogy to what good To actually is demonstrating you put
the signal in and it comes out the other end
at the same time. There isn't a weekly bit in
the middle quantum entanglement.

Speaker 1 (01:06:12):
That's the only explanation I can come up with for.

Speaker 2 (01:06:14):
That connectivity entanglement, Yeah, quantum entanglement, two good words. But
we you know, science and physicists is continually redefining how
we describe what we're observing. And as you said, what
Russell targ and how put Off we're doing through it

(01:06:34):
with SRI and remote viewing was an application of quantum entanglement.
But at the time, you know they were doing it
as an application for the CIA, I mean because it
was a way of exploiting a looking into the future,
never looking remotely, but remotely into the future. And so

(01:06:58):
at the time, is that fully understood of what this
how it really worked. I don't think it was. I think,
well put Offs pretty smart, so touric, but I think
only now are we understanding the quantum mechanics of the
near field that they exploited. And I think that's what

(01:07:21):
you I everybody who's ever had an anesthetic is it
is being demonstrated. Anestesiology is a way of dampening consciousness.
And the thing that the way that anesthetics work are
really strange, and there's a link between how our brain

(01:07:43):
works under anesthesia and how what structures in our brain
might be in touch with the near field quantum world.
Now if we when we unpick that mystery and it's
going on right now, we've unlocked a way of communication,
time travel, traveling faster than we want instantaneously maybe, and

(01:08:09):
incredible distance communication. And I think in twenty twenty four
we are living in an interesting time. We definitely have
confirmation of ET although SETI and Brits are listening to
other groups are shy of saying it because they don't
want to be ridiculed. That's what I hear, and I
think that we're also there's large investments right now into ether,

(01:08:34):
quantum communication and time time manipulation.

Speaker 1 (01:08:42):
Wow. Yeh, that's really interesting and I want to kind
of change gears a little bit. But that that was
an awesome discussion and I'm really happy to hear it.
I'm happy to hear the thing about gun or Nimits
because I just read Wikipedia that said that he didn't
show up, and that goes a show you probably shouldn't
read believe Wikipedia. Sure, but one last question on that

(01:09:03):
from and I want to talk about one last topic.
Why do you think he hasn't been more outspoken? I mean,
it's twenty twenty four, Like that's such a breakthrough thing,
and I think it was like two thousand and five,
as almost twenty years ago.

Speaker 2 (01:09:15):
Yeah, it's a good question. I don't know. I've reached
out to him and his family, and he's late eighties,
early nineties and doesn't want to talk about it. I
think the universe. Oh, if you go to Cologne and
you go to his physics department, there's people there who
will talk about it. In German, we feel free to
go and talk to them. That there is in that

(01:09:38):
university in the hallway. Is the good tournament's original kit?
Really very Yeah, they're very proud of it. This is
you know, we are still Heathens. We still ignore people
who talk French or German. I mean, get a life,
people use Google Translate. I mean, honestly, I mean so

(01:10:00):
much science has been limited over the years by language.
And I think that there's quite a good reason that
I can't actually tell you about what the outcome of
putting the nimits receivers on the telescopes. And I think
that is also connected with with SETI and Britz are listen,

(01:10:25):
not wanting to spill the beans quite yet. Although I
think we're a in a stage politically where humans are ready.
I think you with these drones. I think, if it's et,
if we definitely confirm u AP are real, we know
you are p are real all over the world. I
think we are now smart enough not to be war

(01:10:49):
of the world's panicked. And I think we should start
hearing these things, and I think people should be open
to the idea.

Speaker 1 (01:11:00):
Well, so let me ask you this, what is your
favorite non human intelligence hypothesis? Presumably you're familiar with all
different options. I'll throw a few out there. Some people
said stuff like future humans, demons, angels. Of course, extraterrestrials
is an option. Ultraterrestrials. You know, there's a lot of
different options out there AI things like that. What is

(01:11:22):
your favorite theory?

Speaker 2 (01:11:26):
Well, I've got quite a few, really, I mean, I
think I'm open to all of them. I'm not particularly closed.
I mean I start thinking that even you know, as
you say, demons and angels and things, might be a
way of interpreting things that people you know, to put
them in more human terms. I think there's life in

(01:11:49):
our universe. It's so unlikely that there isn't salient life
out there or biological life of some type or very
different life. I think that it is quite unlikely that
living extraterrestrials necessarily need to visit planets Earth in our atmosphere.

(01:12:12):
I think it's quite likely more likely that they would
send if they're interested in US, and I think we
might be vaguely interesting that they would send a mechanical
probe that would circle the Sun for power, communicate between
stars to make a network, or beyond the rings of

(01:12:33):
Saturn or the Moon, or maybe a couple of objects
have been put in the ocean. Why not drop a
couple in the Pacific. But they're not flying around. But
what are you ap? I mean, uap are real? There's
country's you know. I'm always shouting this, you know. The

(01:12:53):
Britain officially said u ap are real in two thousand
with a Condact report, and for and Brazil have said
the same. It's only the US are still debating it.
You know, get a life. Although on the other hand,
it's the US who came up with the six observables,
five observables and the sixth of human injury, which is interesting,

(01:13:17):
and those observables were were coined by US defense contractors,
so they know U apr real. It's just that it's
not quite reached Washington yet. And the public in Britain,
everybody knows you apr real. I mean in France you
can go. I can literally tell my local police officer

(01:13:41):
and he would file a report with the French government
that would go on a database and they're not going,
you're mad, you know, you saw something crazy? You know,
they would just say, yeah, where do you see it? Yeah,
it's and they would assess it and they would look
at other sightings. So oh yeah, we there's things in

(01:14:02):
the sky, there's things visiting us. I think it's unlikely
to be living creatures. I think it's more likely to
be either multi dimensional things that can go very fast.
I think I think, oh do you know the whole
blue shift?

Speaker 1 (01:14:21):
Yeah? How put Off mentioned that in a video I
was watching that. Yes, way, I think it's like the
way they're manipulating like space time causes a blue shift
effect which can push you, like the magnetic waves into
the visible frequency range, or it can push it to
the ultra violet where it might give you burns. Is
that where you're getting at.

Speaker 2 (01:14:39):
Or higher into even more dangerous frictions? Is Yes, that
very that very talk that you gave, which is very interesting.
It turns out that what he's saying isn't speculative. If
you do a warp drive, the frequencies counter intuitively blue

(01:15:00):
shifts when an object is departing rather than red shift,
which you would expect when it was going away. And
there's definite huh evidence of people who have been injured
by frequencies that have suddenly gone up. I mean, sunburn
is a classic thing. I mean, we saw that in movies,
but movies often have very good science advisors. And some

(01:15:25):
of the injuries at Rendalstrom Forest were from high frequencies,
and those high frequencies could easily been produced by something
departing and going out of the visible spectrum into the
UV or even beyond that to the point where they
become you know, ionizing frequencies.

Speaker 1 (01:15:45):
And so yeah, yeah, that takes me to the last
kind of topic that I wanted to talk to you about,
which is more people related to help you off. I
don't know how everybody out there's relayed him, but he
also worked with the guy at SRI named Ken Shoulders
in the late in the late eighties. Ken Shoulders discovered
exotic vacuum objects, which he said were balls of plasma
that were self organizing into a sphere and self sustaining,

(01:16:09):
and he called them exotic vacuum objects because he thought
they were cohering energy directly from the vacuum. And then
another guy named Eric W. Davis, who is actually hal
Pudoff's number two guide chief science officer at EarthTech right now,
wrote a paper in two thousand and four called Ball
Lightning Study, which was something I had never understood, but

(01:16:30):
when you read it, you realize he's talking about balls
of plasma and ways you can use them to extract energy.
Now I look at this whole drone situation that we
were talking about at the beginning of the interview, and
I kind of wonder, like, are we using the word
drone in to be kind of a little bit misleading,
Because now if I piece things together, I go, well,

(01:16:51):
we've got this guy Ken Shoulders who said we can
make these balls of plasma. You've got Eric Davis going
and explaining how we can stabilize them using for enny.
And then you've got how putoff was a communication pattern
that is like a gravity communication pat device that can
go through plasma. It says right in the abstract goes
through plasma. I go, huh, could we make a plasma

(01:17:12):
drone that we could just float around out there? What
are your thoughts on that? And then the other question
is great, do you think plasma, if it is like
this thing that can float freely and doesn't break apart,
do you think something like that could be conscious? Could
it be a life form?

Speaker 2 (01:17:28):
Ah? Yes, plasma is conscious. Plasma, the fourth stage of
matter is the most common state of matter in our universe.
The results of many UAP studies, and I think Havy
Lobe and the content and report certainly will the content

(01:17:51):
report confirmed it. And I think eventually AFI will have
observatories that will observe plasma because that's what people see.
But what plasma and is plasma a conscious being? Well,
I heard that plasma has will do a lot of
people who've come across ball lightning, which is a natural

(01:18:14):
form of plasma that is formed by high energy electrostatic
forces here on Earth. I found that if you approach
a natural form of ball lightning, it will take evasive action. Now,
the evasive action protocol is a form of higher consciousness.

(01:18:35):
So does plasma have a way of tapping into the
quantum world where everything is connected. It seems that it
could be. I can't think that we as humans are
the only conscious beings. I think plasma itself seems to

(01:18:57):
demonstrate in the way that we see it moving and
taking you know, you go up. Pilots have come to
have approached plasma things and they seem to move away,
not through gravity or way or wind or any thing,
but I mean, actually it seems to take avasive action.

(01:19:18):
The interesting thing about plasma which really fascinates me is
what is plasma and how does plasma stay in an
ionized state in our atmosphere? And I think the most
interesting thing about plasma, and it is my plasma demonstration,
is the center of a ball of plasma is just

(01:19:41):
deionized normal say atmosphere in our atmosphere, and it's desperate
to re join and not be ionized and get backed
into its stable forum. But there's so much energy in
the ball of plasma that when it changes back near
the edges the periphery of the energy field, it has

(01:20:01):
to throw away the energy in the electrons to rejoin
the protons, and that is light. So plasma has this
luminosity around its circumference of a sphere, and that light,
of course, can be manipulated by the different types of
plasma you ulbeke, so you can make different things to

(01:20:21):
different color. And I think plasma is very, very studied
and very interesting. I think the other thing about plasma is,
imagine a laser pointer. You can direct a plasma weapon
there and there, and so some of the effects that

(01:20:43):
we've seen from UAPs that seem to do fast or
very fast maneuvering could be in fact a plasma effect.

Speaker 1 (01:20:53):
The bubble explanation you gave there is almost exactly what
Ken's Shoulders would describe is a permitivity transition where you're
making a bubble in spacetime, and that's why they don't escape,
that's why it stays coherent. And it actually, you know,
it will give off light as well exactly, but it
may not look exactly like a light bulb because of
it may like I think that there was a yeah, yeah,

(01:21:18):
there's the UFO hearing where they mentioned too that somewhat
people were noticing these balls of energy had almost like
a dull light to them, like a roiling of the sun.
I think was how it was described. It kind of
made me think about that where it's like maybe it's
a luminous thing, but not exactly luminous like we would
see you with like a light bulb. And it was

(01:21:40):
Jacket Champion nineteen ninety two paper Force Free Time Harmonic
Plasmoids as well that said that you can manipulate the
pointing vector and what this will do is basically keep
it self contained so that there is an energy radiating outward,
which I just thought was amazing because between Eric Davis,
Jacknet Champion and these papers are Air Force research Lab papers.

(01:22:03):
This is like, you know, random scientists that are out there.
So the government was taking it seriously. And the last
thing I'll say on it before I get feedback is
that I was reading this book by Lynn McTaggart and
she mentions ken shoulders and help putoff working on these
balls of plasma, and she says that the governments actually

(01:22:23):
gave it one of the highest priorities for research. One
year it was like the third highest priority, next to
like D two bombers and things like that, and then
the next year they upgraded it to the second highest
priority of all the research things, which is essentially trying
to figure out how these balls of plasma worked and
if we could extract energy from them, pretty incredible.

Speaker 2 (01:22:43):
And that's precisely what the physics community, through the Defense
Department in Europe have been doing ever since the mot
Content report actually recognized that plasma ionized effects could could
be the source of UAP. The report goes on to say,

(01:23:03):
we need to open up vast areas of research into
utilizing plasma effects. The other amazing thing about plasma is
because you've stripped apart normal atoms and you've now got
a negatively charged and a positively charged piece of the
sub atomic particle which is stripped apart, it's magnetic, so

(01:23:23):
you can then manipulate it with magnetism, so you can
steer it like a beam in a cathedral TV. You
can do lots of things with plasma. You can change
its shape, you can draw it, you can draw lines
with it, you can send it in volumetric space, and
you can also change its color. And certainly we've seen

(01:23:47):
applications of that for countermeasures for aircraft, the concept of
the loyal wingman or the ghost plane. So now you
can project a fleet of of aircraft only one is
real and you've got these these appear totally solid other aircraft,

(01:24:09):
which could be very good. They also have the heat
signature and the radar signature of your real aircraft, so
they can be a countermeasure to air to air or
surface to air missiles. And the technology to make that
happen was all to do came very much out of

(01:24:30):
the plasma research and very very much. You're gonna like
this session, and there's no way you can do that
unless you have an incredible power source to actually produce
an ionized plasma effects. Because plasma in our atmosphere, you know,
it loses its power very quickly, so you need to

(01:24:52):
have some very strong condensed power power sources. What the
power you you just go or what the power source
is for that and how they built it, and you
unlock a lot of secrets.

Speaker 1 (01:25:05):
Yeah, that's my favorite question to ask, is what is
the power source for this UFO flying around in the sky?
How's that thing floating?

Speaker 2 (01:25:13):
For you?

Speaker 1 (01:25:13):
Just that question, Yeah, that's a question everybody should be
asking out there. That's the one that breaks through all
the misinformation what have you, because it's such an important
question for us to understand how the physics of these
things is working out there and to your point, and.

Speaker 2 (01:25:29):
It is physics. That's the other thing I'd like to say. Sorry,
I'm really shouting. Oh so so many people say, you know,
it breaks the laws of fucking physics. No it doesn't,
it doesn't. These are these are known physics that are
being exploited in interesting ways and it doesn't break any laws.
And as you say, we need a power source, you know,

(01:25:49):
find the effing power source. How do you condense that
much energy into something small enough to be deployable in
a pod under an airplane, or or or as a
em weapon on the in the field, in a container
or on the back of a truck. Yeah, no, look
into power sources, folks.

Speaker 1 (01:26:09):
Yeah. And Salvatar pais actually on interview he did with
Tim Ventura specifically said you should be thinking in the
terms of cold plasmas, and how do we make cold plasma?
He goes, uh, femtosecond Ato second lasers and you go
and realize. Oh. In twenty twenty three, the Nobel Prize
winner in physics was for Ato second lasers. This is

(01:26:32):
important because the faster your pulsive laser, the higher the energy.
So you could imagine that you could use something like
that to strip the electrons off of your molecules and
then do what you were talking about, separate it out,
and plasma can achieve energy densities that are far superior
to any.

Speaker 2 (01:26:51):
Retain them and keep them. They can be they can
be a battery as well.

Speaker 1 (01:26:55):
I mean so yeah, it's basically a floating battery that's
going around. They're very highly And this is where you know,
we don't need to get into this in this conversation,
but maybe we can do a follow up some time.
Is that you start to wonder when you think about
these huge charge densities in these plasmas, you go, well,
how close are we getting here to like unlimited energy
access right like this? What is that power source? If

(01:27:17):
there is an external input like ether, for example, then
that would be far superior to solar power or wind
power because it's ours there.

Speaker 2 (01:27:28):
Yeah, yeah, no, I completely agree, And I think the
other if you the biggest what's the yeah, good question,
what's the biggest department in the Pentagon. I'll just tell
you the biggest department in the Pentagon is the people
who organize the fuel to go and fight wars. You know,
if they have to plan five years ahead to put

(01:27:48):
in super tankers and pipelines to put you know, gasoline
for humvies. But imagine if you could have a deployable
in a foreign country that you're fighting a war that
doesn't use fossil fuel. And that's amazingly being developed right

(01:28:11):
now is the wireless transmission of power. And it's not
what you think. It's much more exotic, and you know,
it needs to be secure. It can't be hacked, it
can't be switched off. And there's an awful lot of
research into that.

Speaker 1 (01:28:26):
Wow. Yeah, and I think people should also wonder why
is that the Department of Energy in the United States
is the top dog when it comes to the UFO phenomenon.
That's pretty odd, right, because it all comes back to
what you said, the energy. To me, that's the real
crown jewel of the UFO phenomenon, although Aliens is of

(01:28:47):
course intriguing, but the energy source, exotic energy source to
change everything on this planet. So, Professor Simon, this has
been an awesome conversation. Go ahead and tell people where
they can find you.

Speaker 2 (01:29:01):
Oh, just on YouTube. You just type my name in
Simon Holland, Professor Simon, whatever you want to call me.
And I continue I have a whole bunch of new subscribers,
up to one hundred and thirty six thousands because they
all hate me, which is great because you're watching my videos. No, no, no,

(01:29:21):
I love it. I'm really enjoying it. It's been an
honor and a pleasure. And I really enjoy talking to
you Ashton anyway about things. We're on various same groups
and I know you and I keep up with what's
going on. So good. That was a very good conversation today.
Thank you very much.

Speaker 1 (01:29:39):
Well, thank you, and have a great day. Guys. Follow
Professor Simon Holland on YouTube. I'll put a link in
the description. Appreciate you guys. Have a great day.