Dianna and Garry Consciousness is the KeyUAP Crash Sites & Consciousness: Pasulka & Nolan Reveal All

Diana Pasulka (American Cosmic) and Dr. Garry Nolan (Stanford) explore how consciousness may unlock UAP mysteries. From New Mexico crash sites to Vatican archives, they reveal evidence of non-human intelligence interfacing with human minds.
• Key topics: crash site materials, religious contact protocols, altered states, AI in UAP research, and 2025 disclosure. 
• Pasulka shares historical UAP patterns, Nolan discusses materials analysis.
• Guest Links: Pasulka (dianapasulka.com, @DianaPasulka); Nolan (thesolfoundation.org, @GarryPNolan).
• Chris Lehto, ex-F-16 pilot, hosts UAP and fringe science discussions.
• More UAP insights: Dr. Rodgers’ Q&A on YouTube (bit.ly/LehtoRodgers).
• Follow: @LehtoFiles (X), @lehtofiles (TikTok), LehtoFiles (Facebook, Instagram).
• Support: patreon.com/chrislehto.

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/lehto-files-investigating-uaps--5990774/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Consciousness seems to be an access point for what we
would call non human intelligence, whatever that is. They just
have their own protocols for dealing with this type of contact.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
It's more measurable than I thought it would be, because
we can put together sensor systems that can see things,
but it's harder figuring out what the data actually means.
Perhaps the nature of a phenomenon is faith that you know,

(00:34):
at a certain point, how much do you need to
be shown before you can believe what you see. I
went white because I had samples in there, and I
was sure that they were going to open the thing
down and find this stuff and you know, drag me

(00:54):
off to the penitentiary somewhere.

Speaker 1 (00:59):
I shocked that Gary and Tyler believed it, because they're
so credible and you know, amazingly intelligent. It was beginning
to dawn on me that it was real.

Speaker 2 (01:16):
Sorry, joined a phone call from US.

Speaker 3 (01:19):
Job sure online. Yeah, let's hear it. Chris Lado. Welcome
to Lato files. Welcome to Lado Files. I'm Chris Lado.

(01:40):
Diana Posoka's American Cosmic was one of the first UAP
books that opened my eyes to the academic side of
this field and doctor Gary Nolan has become the go
to scientists for UAP biological effects among other things. So
today I have both of them on the channel. I'm
very excited and I had got a lot of audience questions,

(02:01):
so we'll be bring up those questions as well. Thank
you guys so much for being here. What have you
learned about the phenomenon in the last two years?

Speaker 2 (02:17):
Gary, First, that it's more measurable than I thought it
would be, and that would be say through the efforts
that I've been involved with a skywatcher and that and
some of the materials purely publicly available materials, not secret
stuff that people think I have access to, which I don't.

(02:41):
So it's more measurable because we can put together sensor
systems that can see things. But it's harder in that
figuring out what the data actually means and coming to
the conclusions that people think scientists should be able to

(03:03):
come to is more difficult. So I would say they're
both good from a scientific standpoint. We have access to
more materials, we know that we have analysis approaches that
can approximate them. We're beginning to get reproducibility. But as
is the case always in science, the more data you get,

(03:24):
often the harder it is to come to conclusions, to
create a standardized picture.

Speaker 3 (03:30):
Okay, more data, so that's the problem. That's really interesting.
And what about you, Diana, what have you learned about
the phenomenon in the last two years.

Speaker 1 (03:40):
Sure, that's a great question. So I've continued my work
in historical documents, looking at in a tradition, looking at
what Catholic visionaries had to say about various kinds of
aerial phenomena, and that's been really eye opening because the
work that I did it obviously with American Cosmic was

(04:01):
shocking to me because you know, I saw evidence of
aerial phenomena that was it couldn't really be categorized basically
in the Western tradition, and so I keep looking into
that and the more I look into it, the more
I find. So it just reinforces what I found in
American Cosmic. But again I also have more data, and

(04:25):
you know, it looks it looks a lot more different
then it's portrayed in you know, media films about it.
So it just it looks different. There's a a some
type of consciousness component which a lot of people aren't
aware of. So and you can see this back in

(04:46):
the historical record as well.

Speaker 3 (04:48):
Okay, that's great. You mentioned that there were quite a
few questions from the audience on the consciousness connection, so
we'll definitely get to that. But I guess let's address
the New Mexico site. I understand there's been some recent controversy,
but what happened and what did you guys find at
the New Mexico site. Quick note for the audience, you're

(05:10):
going to hear in this interview from both Gary and
Diana how they use AI and everyone they know actually
uses AI professionally. And even with my own part time assistant,
I'm constantly swapped. So one way to stay ahead is
actually getting tailored professional advice on how to use AI,

(05:31):
even if you don't purchase. I think you'll be interested
in this sponsor. My good friend Jenner Juice Torrance is
a retired F sixteen pilot like me, and now he
helps people and small businesses get the most out of
AI through Frontier Strategies dot AI. So they gather your

(05:52):
company data, they sit down with you for a focused
one hour strategy session, and then they deliver you a
tailored roadmap, knowing exactly how AI can solve your specific problems.
They know what actually works because they also do serious
custom AI development work. So you can get their AI
Audit Strategy session for just two hundred dollars. That's sixty

(06:14):
percent off the normal five hundred dollars price that's at
Frontier Strategies dot Ai. Make sure to use the code
later files at checkout and you get sixty percent off.
This is a great way to just make sure you're
not missing out on the AI revolution and the fastest
way to get up to speed, and supporting sponsors is

(06:35):
a great way to help me directly in the channel,
So please check it out, even if you're just curious.
Back to the video, But what happened and what did
you guys find at the New Mexico site?

Speaker 1 (06:48):
Yeah, so I recorded this in America Cosmic and we,
you know, went to this site. We were both blindfolded
and Tyler D who I keep as pseudonymous, went there
with us. Well, he took us there, and so we
did find what looked like to me, it looked like

(07:09):
kind of like a frog skin type material, and we
took that back and Gary analyzed it. I don't I
know that he he thought it was anomalist at first,
but I actually don't know what his finding is today.
But that's what from my perspective, we.

Speaker 3 (07:26):
Found, well perfect, Well, luckily we have him right here.
What did you find, Gary?

Speaker 2 (07:32):
Right? Well, So there were several different pieces, and you know,
it's interesting. The audience needs to understand that scientists are
accustomed when they talk about their data to people, always
knowing that this is preliminary until I send it out.

(07:54):
And just like, for instance, with the Auto Kamma, when
I first looked at the data with the Auto Kamma mummy,
I didn't quite understand what the sequences meant because there
was a lot of junk. And so when I began
reporting it to my colleague, he who shall go unnamed it,

(08:15):
it was like, well, like ninety percent of it doesn't
seem to fit anything. And so people and you probably
actually are hearing a lot about that kind of same
kind of conclusion with the NASCAR mummies, where people say, oh,
i've it has some genes that we can understand, but
a lot of it doesn't seem to fit anything. Well,

(08:37):
it turns out that the a lot of it that
doesn't fit anything is frankly because at least, but the genetics.
It was old DNA and it gets It's like a
recording that you know, on a tape recorder that gets
all muffled and old and scratchy. DNA gets scratchy, let's say,
in the reading of it. And so it turns out
that there are ways to fix it. And once you

(08:59):
fix it, then souddenly everything comes into clarity. And for us,
for me with the a comma, it then became clear
by bringing in the necessary experts that oh, well, here's
how you fix it. Oh fi llah, the image gets clear.
It's a human child, and here are some potential mutations
that cause it. So with the metals and the materials

(09:23):
that I recall us bringing back one where the so
called what was it the alien honeycomb as it was
called at the time, and I mean it definitely looked strange.
There was another which was kind of this silvery black

(09:46):
covered metal that was slightly friable. And then there were
a few pieces clear pieces of metal that were looked
like aluminum with kind of scratchings and etchings, not etchings
as if somebody was writing hieroglyphics, just kind of a
pattern with a brown substance on them, and there might

(10:07):
have been one or two more that we found. And
in fact, Diana was like a divining rod out there.
Every time she turned around she was finding something. I
was mostly spent my time up on a ridge from
where the object was supposed to have come over and
supposedly hit before it landed on the other side of

(10:32):
the little ravine. It wasn't such a ravine as a
long flat area. Now mind you, we're all wandering around.
It's cold, but yet we've got rubber boots up to
the top of our legs because the area is a
little bit mushy, and supposedly there are rattlesnaks all over
the place, the place we had just stayed at. The

(10:55):
proprietor told us, well, you got to be careful because
we just had somebody here or a few weeks ago
who got bit by rattlesnake and had to be sent
off to a hospital. I remember something about that, okay,
So that backdrop, the the event of me putting my
samples through the metal detector at the airport and the

(11:18):
metal detector shutting down absolutely happened, you know, And as
Diana knows, I went white because I had samples in there,
and I was sure that they were going to open
the thing up, find this stuff, and you know, drag
me off to the penitentiary somewhere whatever whatever that decade's

(11:41):
version of Alligator Alcatraz. And so that all happened. So
when I got back and did some of the measurements,
there looked to be a lot of anomalist isotopes or
metals that that I reported to Diana for sure. And

(12:03):
when I looked more closely though, and again, so this
is the thing that scientists. Scientists like to be right,
but good scienceists note that very often they're wrong, and
when they don't understand something, the best thing to do
is actually go find the real expert on metals for instance,
or how to use a certain instrument, etc. And as

(12:27):
many have remarked on the internet on Twitter, well Gary's
an imminologists, he's not a metologist. So what right does
he have to do anything in this area. Well, I
have the right to ask the question first and then
to go find the expert to make sure that what
I'm doing is right. And that's what I do. And
so they said, there's the thing called diatomics, and diatomics
in mass spectrometry are the atoms might have been individually

(12:50):
separated in the sample, but in the process of activating
the sample turning into ions and then it goes into
little cloud, those individual atoms might come together during the
measurement stick and then when their mass is measured, rather

(13:11):
than being individual atom masses, they are the combined atom mass,
so they look bigger than what they are. So if
silicon were together with silicon, it could be something like
fifty four, which would make it look like chromium I think, etc.
And the only way to discern that is to there's
a few settings on the machine that you could set

(13:32):
that lowers the chance for a diatomic because it would
have a double charge to get there, or you better
separate the objects or lower the concentration. So at first
it looked like the samples were not of this earth

(13:53):
because they had so many mixtures in there that just
didn't seem to be right, Okay, But then when you
when you start asking the expert, they say, here's the
explanation for why that looks this way. So I didn't
figure that out probably until about three years after the

(14:14):
the article was published. But I wasn't going to ever
take the bait that was being put out there in
the press as to, you know, try to start some
kind of consternation between Diana and I. Diana reported what
I told her, and what she reported was what I

(14:37):
thought at the time, and so any mistake was mine.

Speaker 3 (14:43):
Yeah, what's your take on this, Diana? How was the
experience out in the in the high boots, walking out
in the cold desert.

Speaker 1 (14:53):
Yes, So you have to understand that this is the
time period was a while ago. You know, I was
writing this book and I still didn't believe in the
phenomena at all. I was shocked that Gary and Tyler
believed it, because they're so credible and you know, amazingly intelligent.

(15:19):
It was beginning to dawn on me that it was real.
So as I was out there doing this field work,
I recognized that this was, you know, the It's not
just that you had people like Gary how put off
and you know, physicists and then other people that were

(15:40):
well placed in programs like Tyler. It's not just that
they were doing this work. It's also the fact that
I'd spent my entire life looking historically at things that
were considered aerial phenomena back in the day, and that
it fit the pattern, and so there was a pattern match.
So all of this, and that Tyler predicted that Gary

(16:03):
would would get stopped in the airport and that this
would happen, and that everything happened exactly as he said.
I was very concerned about Gary, you know, I mean,
Tyler was was completely fine. He knew exactly what was
going to happen. He knew Gary was going to be
let off, and there's you know, and he described the process.

(16:25):
So he was sitting there having a cup of water,
and I was, you know, had white knubbles. I also
thought something really terrible would happen to Gary, and I thought, wow,
I'm glad I gave this stuff to Gary.

Speaker 2 (16:38):
It's a lot.

Speaker 1 (16:41):
I'm just joking, but I do remember at the time,
I thought, I do not want this stuff. I don't
know what it is, but I don't want it because
first Gary can figure it out. But secondly, I just
had this feeling that, you know, if it was really
what Tyler thought it was, then this would not I

(17:01):
just didn't want to have it. So so there was
a bunch of things going on in my head. To
tell the truth, Chris, So yeah, it was uh, It
was way out of my comfort zone. But now looking back,
I'm really happy that we did that because you know,
there were some colleagues of ours who I asked, and

(17:22):
you know, first, you know, thinking that this person would
want to do this, because I didn't want to go
by myself. I wanted to take an academic with me,
and you know, the colleague was like, Diana, I don't
want to do that. They're so far out of my
comfort zone. So I asked Gary, and Gary was like,
I'll do it.

Speaker 2 (17:36):
Tomorrow, but I want to add, you know something about
the matunials analysis. So just because it didn't have a
mixture of practically every element on the table and things
in between, doesn't mean that I figured out what it is.
I mean, the the alien honeycomb. Larry Lemkey and I

(18:00):
and I would say more Larry than me. Larry looked
into the literature and found examples from that era of
aerofoil that exactly matched the honeycomb with the Even the
knot we found is a knot from the early nineteen
hundreds that actually is a fisherman's web, but they had

(18:23):
adapted that exact structure to lay over the honeycomb structure.
That they then poured the resin on and that helped
keep everything in place, but there were still there. I
still have the samples. Just because I can say that
they're made of the elements that are supposed to be
found in this universe doesn't mean that they didn't come
from somewhere else. What was one hundred percent clear was

(18:46):
that the debris field was in the middle of nowhere,
filled with old pots and cans vowels, even like I
think we found like an old tomato can. Remember that
big old tomato can You still see the writing on
the thing crushed and the tomato can was from like

(19:07):
the nineteen thirties, So they used it as a dumping field,
but also mixed in aerospace material in the middle of nowhere,
literally in the middle of nowhere, and so you know,
you're open. It's just like, why would you do this?
So why was I on that rage? Something that I

(19:27):
haven't talked about publicly yet, but I will hear for
the first time. So I think it's interesting. It's unlikely
that I'll have a chance to go back to the site.
So you know, supposedly this thing came down and hit
the ridge, broke, spilled stuff, across the debris field and
then stopped on the other side. We've already spoken about
the debris field being purposefully apparently contaminated, or the object

(19:53):
came down in just the wrong place in the previously
debris field that somebody else had precreated. Across the ridge,
there are all there were all would these cypress trees,
very old cypress trees, probably several hundred years old, because
if you know, the reason why we make wooden fencers
out of cypress is because they're filled with resin and

(20:16):
fungi and bacteria don't decay them, and that's the reason
why they're great, you know, and why there's fewer cypress
trees on the planet than there should be, because we
humans are busy chopping them all down for the utility.
So there's all these old trees along the ridge. And
then exactly where there should have been based on where
the object supposedly crashed and the trajectory, there's a giant

(20:41):
cypress tree that was still partly alive, but which had
been broken over crushed. I mean, like obviously some heavy
object had hit this thing and knocked it over. And
guess which direction it was knocked over? In the direction
of the trajectory. Somebody else can go out there, or

(21:02):
the CIA can go out there tomorrow and dig the
whole thing up and make it look like it wasn't
there in the first place, because it was there when
I saw it. There was evidence of a crash right
in the in the piece of the of the you know,
the cypress tree, which clearly had some stuff starting to
grow over it. But it didn't look like it happened

(21:24):
last year. It could easily happened long ago, and there
was still these these pokes of the cypress tree trying
to revive itself from that time long ago. So you know,
to me, it all that more than anything else said
there was a crash, and then the debris field suggests

(21:48):
that somebody was trying to hide something. Uh, and and
that's about it.

Speaker 3 (21:55):
Well interesting, Yeah, I was a crash safety investigator and
I remember at a base in Spain. We would walk
to lunch every day and there was actually a crash
on the base and they had trees like that, and
a telephone pole was cut right in half. Sorry was
a light pole, you know, like a steel light pole.
But the trees also were cut and you could see

(22:16):
very clearly you can draw it out. You can just
draw the trajectory out of where this would have happened.
And so you don't think it could have been like
a transport aircraft or something carrying tomato cans across the country.

Speaker 2 (22:29):
Well, yeah, I mean all we have are the the
supposed verbal testimonies of the anthropologist, the Harvard anthropologist, who
was somewhere off in the distance looking at I guess
an alien alien sorry, Indian burial grounds or something, or

(22:50):
a cave. And then the farmer and his son who
showed up the day after, and then the sun supposedly
came back later to see the soldiers cleaning up the
area and then burying some of the pieces that they
didn't want to carry back. Yeah, that's.

Speaker 1 (23:13):
History, that's right, that's Those sources are actual sources, and
most people aren't accustomed to looking at them, and you know,
but those are corroborating sources from people who don't know
each other of this. And what's also interesting is that
Tyler had been researching and excavating that site for forty years.

Speaker 2 (23:35):
Well he knew the owners, and so you know, I
have a subsicion that if the place had been cleaned up,
there's still a place where perhaps people didn't think to
clean up. And I'm not going to mention that publicly
because maybe someday I will go back that. Tyler and

(23:56):
I talked about trying to buy the site from the
original owners, and to that end, that day we had
a late afternoon lunch with the owner, who was an
old woman. Oh gosh, how old was that? How old
she was like?

Speaker 1 (24:14):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, she came in with her dog. It
was a really you know, just a really local place,
you know, with a gas station restaurant that had been
there for probably since the forties, maybe even longer. I
don't know, but yeah, so Gary, I was under the
impression that was not they were homesteadying it. Am I wrong?

Speaker 2 (24:33):
Or yeah? Yeah, yeah they Yeah, it's Bureau of Land Management.
They had a lease on it. There was an opportunity
perhaps to acquire it because it was more land than
they needed and maybe they would sell it cheap. But
I don't think we ever followed through on the acquisition.

(24:55):
But what was fascinating was she came in to have
lunch with us, and so here's Diana. I and I
were sitting there and you know, the three city slickers
and the local owner, old woman, and who walks in

(25:16):
but the local sheriff. And I can still see him
coming in because we were right by the door. It was,
you know, old place could have been a movie set.
It probably should be someday. And he looks at her
and looks at us, and I forget her name, but
he says, are you okay, Maggie? Is everything okay? You

(25:39):
know these guys are trying to I don't know, guys hustle,
you hustle something.

Speaker 1 (25:46):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (25:47):
She was like, I'm fine. I can take care of
these three. Don't worry. I might be ninety years old,
but I rustle castle every day, cattle every day. I
can take care of those three.

Speaker 3 (25:57):
And you both mentioned sources having to protect sources. Diana
you had sources for the book, Tyler you kept anonymous,
and Gary you mentioned data. You must have data requirements
for academics. So I had a lot of questions about data,
releasing the evidence. How do you protect sources while still

(26:19):
maintaining transparency?

Speaker 2 (26:22):
That first from a purely scientific standpoint, because I think
it relates to how Diana will think about it as well.
I mean, first of all, sources of confidence, and you know,
if you want to remain credible in the field, you
keep confidences, whether it's related to a secret clearance or not.
If somebody asks you and you agree to receive information

(26:46):
and you say that you're not going to give the
information out except under some sort of feeble constrain, then
you just don't do it. And anybody suggesting otherwise to
just go take a high, because I don't break conferences
and confidences, and I know that Diana doesn't either. But second,
you know, the mistake of releasing unfiltered are on, let's say,

(27:12):
unstudied data where you don't pre define and pre find
the mistakes that can be made, gives open opportunity and
open field for amateurs to make egregious mistakes and find
things that aren't in the data. But once they start

(27:32):
an internet storm on Twitter, you can't get the truth
out no matter what you do, because they're too busy
laughing about the obvious mistake that this moron from Stanford made. Well, no,
the more on from Stanford didn't make a mistake, and
more on from Stanford me just isn't going to release

(27:54):
data until he knows that he's cleaned it up and
found the obvious consistencies and explain them away before I
dare make any speculations about what the data means. So
that's just how science works. So part of this, and
I think, you know, hopefully people will watch this or
it will filter to a few individuals, is that there's

(28:17):
a method to science and the way that you do it.
I mean, just like Diana does with her translations of
old works, that she has to filter it, double check it,
make sure that the providence is right and her assumptions
are right. And you know, Diana, let you talk to you.
But that's at least how a scientist work. And I

(28:38):
don't think that's frankly, any different than how a historian operates.

Speaker 1 (28:43):
Yeah, that's right. So we have a coded ethics in
my field when we do what's called ethnography, where we
learn from people and learn about their stories and so forth.
So when I, you know, when I started American Cosmic,
I went through this internal review board, which is the

(29:03):
review board at my university that make protects human subjects
basically from bad researchers. And so I'm obligated, but also
it goes beyond a professional obligation. I wouldn't if somebody,
you know, asks me to keep there whatever it is,
you know, in confidence. I wouldn't break that. And even

(29:28):
prior to the release, even prior to the publication of
American Cosmic, when it was impressed, I had people from
all over the world, but especially journalists here in the
United States, from very well known I guess you'd call
it news sources, basically asking me to reveal Gary's name.

(29:51):
I like, get Gary revealed his own name and you
know other people and you know where the site was
and things like that. First I didn't know where the
cycle is. But secondly I wasn't going to do that.
And I still have that pressure. I had it publicly
just a month ago or so when I was speaking
to a journalist who said, you know, tell us who

(30:11):
this is and not not of American Cosmic. But you
know now, I've continued my research with those people who
are the physicists and scientists who Gary knows, you know,
the invisible college people. And yeah, so that's you know,
on an ethics level, on a moral level, I wouldn't
do that. But also we are bound by professional ethics,

(30:32):
and it is true when we do translations, we have
to first do literal translations, but then we do a
lot of excavation, like what you know, was this term
used in this time period in other places? What did
it mean then? And then we do we you know,
scholars don't work alone. They actually have friends who are
experts at the same thing that they are, and so

(30:53):
they call them in and they say, what do you
think this is? And so it's done like that. It's
called peer review research, and it's basically a slow way
to do the creation of knowledge. But at least when
you get that knowledge, you know that it's the best
conclusion at the time. That doesn't mean it's not going
to change. It's just the best conclusion according to what

(31:14):
we know now.

Speaker 2 (31:15):
And that's exactly I mean, that's beautifully said. You know
the you know, I've been sort of summarizing it with
scientists are right today, but they're right tomorrow, and you know,
we we we expect to be wrong tomorrow looking back
at what we thought we thought yesterday. If that wasn't

(31:38):
the case, then progress would stop in anything. I think
that this will all this will be helpful with Diana's
work in the future. I mean, for me, artificial intelligence
is enabling my day job as well as my work

(31:58):
in in this area uapology or whatever we want to
call it today, because now suddenly I have access to
larger data sets than I ever could through the Internet
and through analysis of the Internet and all of the
data that's there that AI enables. I mean, of course, yeah,
there's the hallucination problem, et cetera, but I think that's

(32:21):
being fixed. But I think the counter to that is
some of my best students hallucinate and often for me,
because hallucination in a way is a form of creativity.

Speaker 3 (32:33):
Well, Diana, you mentioned you'll bounce ideas off other experts,
and that's actually how I use AI, to be honest,
I use three different AIS. I'll get a result from one,
and I'll feed all the data into another one, and
I will pair the two results against each other. So
I think you can do the same with AI.

Speaker 1 (32:54):
Absolutely. I don't know any of the best scholars in
my field who are not doing using AI right now.
We're all using it and various types and in super
interesting ways.

Speaker 3 (33:07):
And you mentioned that you're working on a book. I
don't know if you're ready to publicly declare it based
on AI. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (33:15):
Yeah, So it's a book that discusses AI but also
discusses it connections to UAP, and of course my own work,
which is Catholic visionary literature and it's called super Terrestrial.

Speaker 3 (33:30):
Interesting. So do you both think AI could push us
to understand what the phenomena is?

Speaker 2 (33:38):
Well, I know a couple of researchers who so let's
take a step back, people like our good friend Neil
de Grasse Tyson, I've had interesting things to say about
over the years, says there's no evidence. Well, I mean,
that's just a misunderstanding, frankly of the science process. There's,

(34:02):
as we all know, enormous amounts of data, rooms full
of it, zetabytes of it, plenty of it. Data is
meaningless in the absence of context. Scientists bring a hypothesis
to the data and try to contextualize it. Does the
data match some hypothesis at a certain point. There's a

(34:27):
statistical regime that you can bring in that says even
a thousand anecdotes might not be enough, but ten thousand
anecdotes reach is a credibility factor that you can't ignore.
And so I think what as I was explaining to
you at the beginning of the thing before Diana came on,
I've reduced the size of my lab from thirty to

(34:48):
ten because we were in the process of over a
decade producing enormous amounts of data. But data is not
meaning And so suddenly, having backed myself into this corner,
AI pops up, which now enables me to look at
all of this data with truly superhuman capability and contextualize

(35:10):
the data. Fly So I actually now have on my
shoulder both the Devil and the Angel of AI that
can whisper in my ear and help me understand what
the data means. But they are the same as colleague
extra colleagues, YT Institute Z or Alpha, who I have

(35:32):
to listen to what they are telling me and I
try to put it all together into a picture that
makes sense. But now I don't have to make those
phone calls or be friends with that person on the
other side of the planet who's the expert in this,
because the expert now is the AI. And it's just
getting better. We fast that last year I wouldn't even
imagine what it is I'm able to do today.

Speaker 3 (35:56):
And we've had a few questions. Gary, We'm asked, what
is the best data that you've come across, What is
the best evidence for NHI that you've come across.

Speaker 2 (36:10):
So well, the certainty claim has been misunderstood, but it
didn't stop it from going worldwide. You know, Stanford scientist
is one hundred percent sure of this x Y ORZI,
which I hadn't actually said that. If you if you
look back at what I said, it was basically, what
do you think the chance that it is here? I said,
if I were to make a bet, it would be

(36:32):
one hundred percent. Yeah, you know, it's kind of at
the end of the day when placing a bet on
the table on Rolett, you're going to place it somewhere
and one hundred percent certain it's going to be that
when you do it, or you go home having lost
all your money. So, oh, there's a beautiful I mean,
but right it's up and they're looking at me. So

(36:54):
the best evidence, I would say, some of well, I
mean there's a lot of the best evidence, but stuff
that I've been involved with with Skywatcher, where we make
this supposed call and then things show up within a
timeframe posted and then I've got pictures of things like

(37:15):
right next to the helicopter that showed up, or just
coincidence of this on one of our separate events when
objects were seen, and we have pictures of the stuff
flying by rapidly. I mean, because this movie is so
gosh down fast that all you see is it across

(37:35):
perhaps two or three frames of a rapid camera moving
and it's not a bug. So I don't care if
anybody says so. It's those kinds of things that convince
me further that at least not being the government, we
can collect that data. But otherwise, the best fallback I

(37:58):
have is that the ten thousand or so or one
hundred thousand anecdotes put together. I'm actually trying to work
with some statisticians to say, how do I use this
to make a scientific claim of some veracity? And what's

(38:19):
the percentage chance I can assign to that short of
one hundred percent? You know, maybe beyond a certain point
you make a decision about your life. I'm pretty sure
that this is how I should go. And evolution does
that every day, and the winners or who we see
around us today in the natural world, and so the

(38:42):
same thing has to be with this. And perhaps perhaps
the nature and this is more to Diana's point or
Diana's realm, perhaps the nature of a phenomenon is faith
that you know at a certain point, how much do
you need to be shown before you can believe what
you see?

Speaker 3 (39:03):
It was actually eight months ago I finished Diana's most
recent book, Encounters, and that focused on exactly that. If
I'm not mistaken on the interactions with the people and
the phenomenon, I was amazed by the similarities. What's your
take on that, Diana. Do you think it can be
used for science, these witness accounts.

Speaker 1 (39:26):
Yes, so witness accounts. A colleague of ours did a
presentation at the conference that we were at in April,
the Archives of the Impossible Conference, and he was identifying
the history of the credibility of meteors. And you'd think,
you know, now, it's a no brainer. There are meteors,

(39:47):
they fall to Earth, we know what they are, we
study them. But like in the seventeen hundreds and the
eighteen hundreds, if you saw a meteor and reported it,
you were considered a loon, You're considered crazy, and you
were still So what happened was that there became a
scientists wouldn't study them at all. But what happened was
there were enough observer reports to get this critical mass,

(40:10):
which is what Gary's talking about, where it's improbable that
all of these people, very credible people are reporting these
hot rocks coming down and landing on earth and fiery, right,
and so meteors became a thing that people started to study.
And now, of course we have a whole discipline focused
on studying meteors. Right, Okay, so this, I think the

(40:32):
same thing can be applied here to UAP. We absolutely
have all the reports that we need in order to
you know, what we have. And this is what convinced
me partially, well, I'm very convinced, but let's just say this.
This convinced me on a personal level that when there
were so many people who had these experiences, said I

(40:53):
had an experience of a UFO, it contacted me. I
was afraid. But then, you know, the air base would
have something on radar which wasn't theirs, right, and they
didn't know what it was, so there would be corroborations,
you know, that of this thing on radar, of these
people having these experiences, and there were so many of them.

(41:17):
My own father who had a story that he told
us he's passed away, but a story that I used
to tell us he was in the Coastcard and he
was a radar man and he was on this ship
and they were out looking for submarines. This was in
the sixties or no, I'm sorry, this was in the fifties.
They were out looking for submarines. And what happened was

(41:38):
they came across this giant thing underwater that stopped their
boat and took all the electricities, stopped it in the ship.
And this is something that he would talk about when
I was a child, and I always thought that it happened.
Of course, because my father was an attorney, he was
a scientist. You know, he was like a very rational man, had.

Speaker 2 (42:00):
A few words.

Speaker 1 (42:01):
So for him to talk about this, and then for
then meeting Tim Galadett and you know, hearing his stories
and all the people that have come out and talked
about being at sea and seeing these things and so forth,
you know, this just reinforces that that these are real
and people see them. People like Gary are now studying

(42:24):
them openly, and that's great.

Speaker 2 (42:27):
And that's what's nice. And I'm sure dianasies it the
same way in her field. Is that the last five
years especially and perhaps because of the proliferation of places
like Soul or you know, the several groups, scu et cetera.
I'm suddenly finding scientists who wouldn't otherwise even be interested

(42:51):
in it, stepping forward and saying can I help you know?
And that as of three years ago, I knew nothing
about it, but then I found his paper and then
can you send me any more information on simple more information?
They go, oh, no, I didn't really, I didn't know this,
And so there's an ease of being able to talk

(43:12):
about this even this year that I didn't see last
year or two years ago. And I just look what's
happening on Capitol Hill. I mean you literally had Telca
Gabbard come out and say, I think there's there might
be aliens. I mean, just in the last week on
the news, you have Marco Rubio from a good ten

(43:34):
to fifteen minutes in Dan Farraw's show, Should he ever
get it out there? I was at the premiere, I mean,
waxing eloquently about the matter and not negatively. So you know,
I think there's a there's a sea change. You know,

(43:55):
these things come and go. Evan flow, will we get
distracted and bore because we're a clickbait based culture, and
you know, I'm sure, Diana gets us too. A part
of your first question was you know, where's the transparency?
Give us the data? Now? Well, no, you know, maybe

(44:19):
you should do your own work. I'm not I'm not
your servant. I would perhaps use a different word in
a bar to me, But you know, I don't answer
to you. I answer to me and I answer to truth.
And how truth is is revealed is a matter of

(44:42):
data scrubbing and not data hiding. But you know, checking
and double checking yourself before you allow other people to
make the claim or put the words in your mouth
that they want to hear.

Speaker 3 (44:55):
And Diana, you've also been to the Vatican. Speaking of
data banks, you are one of the few people that's
gone down into one of the oldest data banks in
the world. What surprised you most about Nhi in that
data bank?

Speaker 1 (45:13):
Yeah? So, actually I took Tyler with me to go
because I've at that point I had figured that if
we were going to look it through a lot of
these old documents and manuscripts, I would describe what I
saw to him and see what he thought, right, because
at that point I knew that he was probably one
of the most informed persons that I would ever meet

(45:36):
about this topic, and so it was an incredible experience.
So we looked at a lot of manuscripts that had
to do with levitating Saints Joseph of Copertino, Maria of Agrida.
And we also went to the Vatican Observatory, which has
their own archive on space. So that's an archive that

(45:58):
the Vatican owns that's just dead kidd to space and
space research. When we went there, the European Space Agency
group was there. There were about forty young scientists and
brother Guy Consolomanio is the director, and you'd call him
a colleague of mine. He likes to stay away from

(46:21):
this topic, and I understand why, but but he introduced
us to the group and they knew who Tayler was,
and and that really further, you know, that that made
me understand that the United States doesn't know a lot
about our space program or our space research or what
we do, and and but they do, you know, European

(46:41):
Space Agency was knowledgeable about it. So yeah, so what
did I find? I found a lot very interesting, you know,
I would say that we found geographical areas around the
Earth that could be hot spots. And so after that,
I spoke with a few people from Galileo Project and

(47:05):
obviously worked with you know, Gary, can you know, uh,
but but those kinds of things, you know, are are
things that people are doing research on. Now you know
that that type of thing maybe there are places that
where a lot of this activity happens.

Speaker 3 (47:26):
It's great you brought up consciousness at the beginning and
for both of you, do you think that consciousness could
be the key to the phenomenon?

Speaker 1 (47:36):
Yeah, so this is really interesting. So both with my
work ethnographic work for American Cosmic and my historical work,
it appears that there is a consciousness like consciousness seems
to be an access point for what we would call
and you know, non human intelligence, whatever that is. It

(47:57):
seems that consciousness is is a place where it interfaces
with humans. And this has been something that you can
see in the writings of the various different religions. The
religions have their own protocols for dealing with this type
of contact, and generally they're you know, they vary obviously

(48:21):
per religious tradition, but a lot of times the protocols
suggest it has to be a very controlled interface. And
so I know Tyler also understood that this was a
consciousness based interface as well, which were then that has
I haven't followed up with him about that, but that

(48:43):
has a lot of repercussions. And I think that Gary's
work here with the psionics is you know, looking into
that as well. I don't know quite I know about
it with respect to the historical protocols in place to
deal with this, but I'm not doing any kind of
work in contemporary interfaces or protocols. But Garius, I believe.

Speaker 2 (49:08):
Yeah, I think you know. And these follow on what
Diana said about religious traditions. The majority of the receiver
aspects of human interaction with these whatever they are alleged
joy imagined entities involve meditative states or frankly, psychedelic drugs

(49:32):
that change how your brain functions. And you know, the skeptic,
the real skeptic, not the ones that tweet NonStop, would say, oh,
that's because they're hallucinating their own drugs, or the scientists
would say, it allows you to access alternative states of consciousness. Now,

(49:56):
alternative states of consciousness doesn't mean magic, you know, but
it's now well understood that one half of your brain
talks to the other half of your brain via the
alpha data alphabata, gamma delta waves. You know, the frequency
that goes on over here is actually heard by what's

(50:17):
going on over here, and it has nothing to do
with the neurons in between. So there's transmitters and receivers
on both sides of your brain, and they are coordinating
across the brain via what would otherwise be thought of
as psychic power.

Speaker 3 (50:32):
And that's from a recent study, if I'm not mistaken, right,
where the brain was actually not connected physically, but it
could communicate.

Speaker 2 (50:42):
Right, was cut and yet there's still connection. So but
now you can start to get into other let's say,
more fringe, but I mean that in a negative way,
because fringe fringe is where progress happens, to be honest.
And so now you have the likes of the orc
O r uh. You know studies of hammer Off and Penrose,

(51:07):
where you know, they believe that consciousness might actually be
let's say, partially localized in the tubulent interfaces uh and
the tire scene boundaries in the subunits, and then that's
where consciousness is computed. So you know, we also know

(51:27):
about non locality, which is is pure physics and it
drives the physicists absolutely baddy because they're used to a
world where a leaks needs to be and you have
this magic world where a behind the scenes somehow is
connected to be through things like you know, quantum interactions.

(51:49):
So it doesn't surprise me that a technology might exist
or a capability of using your own brain might exist
that creates a connection elsewhere, right, because we simply don't
understand enough. And if we think we do, then to
say that we think we fully understand what is is

(52:11):
the most purely ignorant statement one scientist could make to
another and shows that person's lack of understanding of what
science is really for.

Speaker 3 (52:24):
Do you think that the materialist paradigm that has driven
our science for the last several decades could be failing us?

Speaker 2 (52:33):
But I think it fails us only in so far
as believing that what you know now is not what
you will know tomorrow. You know, materialist works. You want
to reduce it to a material understanding, right, even if
it's just an equation. I mean, all the equations that
we have that explain how the universe operates are just equations.

(52:54):
There's somebody's abstract understanding. They are not necessarily reality. A
nice math that seems to explain how object AY can
move to object B to place.

Speaker 3 (53:06):
Be, and it seems like it always changes. If we
look back into history, our paradigms always changed. Like Diana said,
we didn't understand what meteors were, and we didn't understand
how the brain works, and we still don't. You can
see we have different brain states that directly correspond to

(53:28):
our brain waves, right if you're a sleeper awake.

Speaker 2 (53:32):
Well, and the drugs that the shamans or religious practices
use to enter these altered states actually all seem to
be interestingly centered on something called the default mode network,
which is just a made up term, but it really
means there's sort of a central controller, which is the

(53:53):
who you think you are, that once you turn off
who you think you are, his ability to control the
rest of the brain, certainly all these other kid abilities
or functions arise. And so you know, the evolution of
the default mode network was important to drive let's say,

(54:13):
progress and focus. But that doesn't mean that the other
functions that existed before that collineator evolved weren't doing something
important in the first place. What we call our subconscious
I mean ninety nine percent of who we are is
our subconscious the one percent of who we think we

(54:35):
are is only because it's a it's a it's it's observed.
It's a Really it's the most extreme form of observer bias.
The observer sees who they think they are, but they
don't realize who's behind them, which is all your subconscious processes.

Speaker 3 (54:52):
I thought, Bernardo Castro, I don't know if you've if
you've heard of him or follow him, is a researcher.
I thought it was very interesting when he talked about consciousness.
He looks into this as well, that these psychoactive compounds
drugs actually limit your brain activity, you know, to where
it rather than increased brain activity like we thought in

(55:13):
the past. You know, this is your brain on drugs,
you know, and I guess frying it was actually the
reverse where the drugs were limiting activity. So did you
have you seen, Diana in all your religious studies? Is
that a common use to do most religions use some
sort of psychoactive drug.

Speaker 1 (55:32):
I wouldn't say so. I would say that you know,
some do. But you could achieve these brain states naturally,
but you have to have a certain lifestyle in order
to do that, which a lot of people don't want so,
you know, drugs are like the fast way to do that.
But you know, people that are geniuses in the past,

(55:53):
like remonog On, the mathematician self taught mathematical genius who
you know, grew up in an early twentieth century or
even before that, grows up in you know, this whole
town in India, and then Beco goes to Cambridge, you know,
becomes like this, this person who has math, understands math

(56:16):
at a level that we still can't understand. There's a
journal dedicated to his mathematical equations. He believed that Lakshmia goddess,
the local goddess, would whisper these equations in his ear,
and he he didn't take credit for any of it,
which I think is interesting because I started to do
this type of study in the creativity because of Tyler.

(56:38):
I thought, how does he get these ideas? You know,
he says they just pop into his head. And actually
the philosopher Plato talks about that also, that you know,
once you believe that you don't know anything or what
you know, once you get to that understanding that you
know nothing, that's when knowledge starts. And so that's why
Plato was thought to be the smartest man in the

(56:59):
world the time was because he didn't I mean, I'm sorry, Socrates,
he thought he didn't know anything. Looking at geniuses in
history shows us that when they get into these states,
which often are states associated with religious protocols, what happens
is that they identify an external agent as being responsible

(57:21):
for their genius idea. They don't take credit for it,
but it came through them. Okay, So that part of
the brain. So people today who study creativity identify that
that part of the brain, the frontal cortext is, is
shut down. It's quiet, and that's the brain that Gary said,
you know, we think we are. But when that's quiet,
that's when the genius happens. That's when these creative ideas happen.

(57:44):
And because we feel like it didn't originate with us,
we generally identify, Okay, it had to be an alien,
or it had to be a goddess, or it had
to be God, or it had to be an angel
or you know, something like that. So we have all
these names for this process, which actually could just be
the creative process of human beings.

Speaker 2 (58:06):
It could come when I used to go around to
you know, schools and giving talks, and i'd be you know,
I asked to go sit and have lunch with the
graduate students and post as. Often the question comes up
is you know, how are you so creative? And you know,
I say, well, I sort of imagine I have a
bunch of little l's running around in my subconscious that
are doing all the work for me. To basically Diana's point,

(58:30):
but it is always in that moment of quiet when
and I think she just hit on something that I
hadn't thought of of. When I'm in that quiet moment
where I turn off my ego. That's and that ego
is the who you are, who you think you are.
Suddenly answers come. You know, if you if you say

(58:52):
it's Diana just did that, I don't know nothing, so
tell me. Suddenly answers come, and I'm I had those
kinds of downloads that just come out of nowhere. Yeah,
I'd love to say it was the Angels. And you know,
Father Delaney from my Catholic school way back would love
me to say that, you know, or Syster Mary Carmeline,
she was my math teacher. I remember them all. They'd

(59:17):
love it if I said it was God. I don't.
But these weird ideas come from somewhere. Often I can't trace.
I can't trace the one plus one plus one path
to how even my subconscious could have gotten to the idea.

Speaker 3 (59:37):
And like the come and saying sleep on it. A
lot of times I'll wake up and I'll have so
much clarity on a subject. It's like you're working while
you're asleep or something.

Speaker 2 (59:49):
Well, actually, it's often like what I think Hal put
Off and others during the Stargate project called the overlay
of remote viewing. That it's the instantane understanding and view
that you get in the remote viewing event, and you
need to write that down as soon as possible and
not overlay your personal bias and contexts, which is interpretation.

Speaker 1 (01:00:14):
That's right.

Speaker 3 (01:00:16):
There's a lot of angst in the community over disclosure.
You know, it was overly optimistic in the past. I
have video saying disclosure is right around the corner, it'll
be here any day, and then it continues to drag
on what do you both think about the disclosure timeline?
And a lot of people asked how should they prepare?

Speaker 1 (01:00:37):
Okay? So as so, I have a position that has
always been parallel to the government's understanding promotion suppression of
the topic, and it appears that this is an ongoing venture.
To me, I think that it's been disclosed.

Speaker 2 (01:01:00):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:01:00):
So we've got a lot of people in the government,
incredibly good people, basically saying there's zero doubt, like to
quote one of them, that there's a presence. We don't
know quite a lot about it, but we do know
that it's real.

Speaker 2 (01:01:17):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:01:17):
So there's that that's the government disclosing. And then you
have another section of the government that's basically saying that
that's not true, okay. And so my position is, as
a professor of religious studies doing this type of work,
my job is not to propose or advocate for disclosure.

(01:01:39):
My position is to write about what I know with
the data that I know, and present that to the
audience as best I can, as honestly as I can,
and as transparently as I can. With respect to the government,
that's the government's business. In my opinion. My opinion is
is that it looks since twenty one, it looks like

(01:02:01):
it's disclosed.

Speaker 2 (01:02:05):
Well, I think the other way to look at it, Chris,
is to say it previously was the government's proprietary capability
to do the measurements. But as science advances and capabilities
censor and other things better cameras, et cetera proliferate, that

(01:02:30):
proprietary advantage starts to the road. And that's what I
know is personally happening from the various groups that I
work with, and they're publicly open group Skywatchers, Scalileo Project,
the Tedesco Brothers, Beatrice's recent beautiful paper where you know,

(01:02:52):
using data and data analysis techniques shows that hey, we're
are approaching kind of an apogy of capabilities where we
can do our own analysis and disclosure. I mean, look,
if Biden had come out in the last administration has

(01:03:14):
said it's real, half the country would have called it
fake news. If Trump is the disclosure president, and I
think frankly, we're closer with Trump than we are with
any of the prior administrations. You know, a whole bunch
of them would say, oh, it's just because he's trying
to distract us from some other scandal. So you're always

(01:03:34):
going to have the human need to dismiss or agree
with the position they want to have. And I think,
just like religion, it's as much a personal thing of
can you look at the data yourself and use your
supposed intelligence and not rely on the opinions of others.

(01:03:55):
You have to have that kind of confidence or you know.
I mean, look, there's still people who think that worth
is flat. So what am I supposed to do about that?
You know? So I really don't care about some impatient
individuals sitting in a row waiting for somebody else to

(01:04:16):
do their dirty work for them. I'm sorry, Get out
there and do it yourself, you know, or go outside
in garden your avault road network and maybe allow a
download or two.

Speaker 3 (01:04:33):
And then final question I asked most guests. This is
from UAP societies, Justin and Ali. I'm really curious on
your answer to this question because Gary, you have so
much knowledge and experience on the human system, and then
Diana you have such a deep understanding of the religious
nature of humanity. So the question is what do you

(01:04:57):
see as the future hope of humanity? What does it
mean to be human in your eyes?

Speaker 1 (01:05:07):
Wow, that's a huge question outside of my purview, but
I'll answer me. So, my hope is that people will
use their basically think critically about things and have hope
and treat others nicely. I think that would go a

(01:05:28):
long way if we just did that, that would go
a long way in making you know, this experience here
better for everyone.

Speaker 3 (01:05:37):
And looking back on the religious practices, you know, I
grew up atheist, as a hardcore atheist until I got
into this topic. And now I'm not one hundred percent sure,
but I seem fairly convinced that there is an afterlife
and there's more to life than just bill your balls
hitting other protons, et cetera. Do you see a common

(01:06:00):
thread through the religious practices.

Speaker 1 (01:06:05):
Yeah, So we're at a point now in globalization where
we can look at the religious traditions of the past
and we can, you know, look at them all together
and say, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Let's like what was good here in these religious traditions
and what will keep us safe? And so part of

(01:06:26):
what I've learned is that, you know, part of the
psionics of what we're looking at now, you know, the
psionics suggests that we have a some senses that we
don't know about. So we have these spiritual senses or
whatever you want to call them, and most religious traditions
are aware of that they've done a pretty bad job
of passing that information down to their parishioners, but they're

(01:06:49):
aware of it. At least if you go back like
five hundred years ago, they're talking about the interior life
and how to cultivate it and what is good about it.
And there are a lot of what we enjoy about
life comes from the cultivation of people in the past,
cultivating their spiritual interior lives. And so each of the

(01:07:11):
religious traditions, the major lens I'm talking about, have ways
of doing that, and I think, you know, and science
is now here to tell us why that's important. So
Harvard does studies of nuns who pray and monks who meditate,
you know, Buddhist monks who meditate, and they're basically saying
it's increasing their brain matter in waves that make them

(01:07:32):
smarter and nicer, and you know, just upgrades their life
in so many ways. So we're utilizing science to basically
look back at these religious traditions and say, wow, they
had some wisdom. Maybe we should keep that and progress forward.
So we're at a really interesting point in time in
the field of religious studies in that sense.

Speaker 2 (01:07:55):
Sorry, do you want a phone call from us child.

Speaker 3 (01:08:00):
S sure online, Yeah, let's hear it.

Speaker 2 (01:08:07):
Oh that's nobody, nobody there. Maybe they're letting me know
something was that was weird. So I sort of see
three paths. Uh, you know. One, we continue along the
path we are, which is essentially stone age. We're barely

(01:08:29):
out of the Stone Age, and we don't do any
attempt to upgrade our thinking processes, and we just you know,
meander along and probably go off a cliff, apocalyptic or otherwise.
And so, you know, I think that would be the

(01:08:50):
bad path. I think that that's that's the that's the
path of of just continuing bad things. But humans have
an amazing ability to not imagine too far into the future,
but to not fully appreciate how far we've come, even
though it's been three thousand years. For let's say, five

(01:09:11):
thousand years. I was just in Pompeii a few couple
of weeks ago, and it was remarkable how two thousand
years ago they were still It could have looked like
a small city somewhere that we would think of today,
and we weren't that different. But things are going so
fast that human capability is not a human emotional maturity

(01:09:36):
is not keeping up with what it is that the
technology is enabling us for. So then there's the likes
of Elon Musk and others who come in with perhaps
interfaces to allow us to let's say more seamlessly interact
where they are because they plunged directly into our brains,
and that, you know, there's all kinds of problems there.
But then there's the third path I think that Diana

(01:09:58):
just outlined, which is taking stock of where we are,
taking stock of what human capabilities are, and seeing if
we can, like you know, going to the gym, train
our brains or train people to use their brains in
the most effective way, so that from the earliest you

(01:10:21):
learn what the full potential might be. But then on
top of that, you know, fourteen billion years has already
happened to get us to the point of where we are,
there's still another ten hundred thousand years in front of
us of evolution that might take us along the path

(01:10:42):
of a form of enlightenment or capability that we can't
even imagine today. So you know, it's I think we
have to get over ourselves and that we're some sort
of you know, again use the word apogee of creation.
There's a lot more to go, and you know, maybe
Elon Musk's idea of getting off the planet and getting

(01:11:04):
out of this environment and this ecology and this niche
will allow us to expand the capabilities that we couldn't
before because we're hemmed in where we are.

Speaker 3 (01:11:14):
To say, and fantastic. I knew you guys would deliver.
That was so interesting. Thank you so much for all
the work you do and that you've done all. The
link to both of your work is in the description,
so audience members please check it out. So thanks again
for your time and have a great rest of your day.

Speaker 2 (01:11:34):
Yeah, thanks to you. Thanks Diana, It's always good seeing you.

Speaker 1 (01:11:39):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:11:40):
I hope you enjoyed that amazing discussion with Dina Posoka
and Gary Nolan. They are true professionals and absolute experts
in their field. They bring such varied knowledge and experience
to this topic. I'm so happy and blessed that I
got a chance to interview them. I hope you enjoyed
it as well. Please hit the like button if you

(01:12:01):
did like this video and share it and subscribe. It
really helps the channel. If you want to support further,
then go to Patreon dot com. Forward slash Chris Lado
or become a YouTube member here. It really helps and
I can't do it without your support, so thanks again,
have a great rest of your day, peace,