UAP-Congress Bombshells Pt1/3: Crash Retrievals, Exotic Materials, & Hidden Government Programs!

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I think day down a few million objects every year
and I.

Speaker 2 (00:05):
Say, hey, what's up, guys, So thanks for your support.
I was just I want to make some behind the
scenes content and Martin Willis shared this with me, so
I'll watch it together. I'll give my inputs, even if
one in a million is effects of the restaurant origin.
So this is UEP disclosure. Friend. You can see luel

(00:27):
Is onder, there, Tim Gaya dead, and there's Tim Burchett.
Is that representative Luna?

Speaker 1 (00:35):
Okay?

Speaker 2 (00:35):
And now Avis talking.

Speaker 3 (00:37):
It would be the biggest discovery that humanity ever made.

Speaker 1 (00:40):
It would mean that we have a partner.

Speaker 3 (00:44):
We shouldn't assume anything about the neighbor, but it would
be useful to figure out well they are capable of
because we can do better. There are probably more advanced
than we are. They reached our backyard before we reached
their back yard. So we collected data on many, by

(01:07):
now millions of objects. We analyzed it and obviously we
are happy to share the data with whoever is interested.
But also over the past decade, the first objects from
outside the Solar System were discovered for the first time
by astronomers.

Speaker 1 (01:30):
There were three of them.

Speaker 3 (01:33):
The first was identified by US government satellites that are
monitoring the Earth for any ballistic missiles being launched by
alvasarian nations. And in twenty fourteen they noticed an object
that collided with Earth and exploded with a fireball that

(01:53):
released one percent of the Hiroshima atomic bomb energy.

Speaker 1 (01:58):
And it's not human made and therefore it can be
sheld with astronomy community.

Speaker 3 (02:04):
So NASA published a catalog of all these meteors over
the past decade.

Speaker 1 (02:11):
And one of them was this one.

Speaker 3 (02:13):
We looked at the catalog and uncovered it and realized
that it came from outside the Solar System because it.

Speaker 1 (02:19):
Was moving very fast. It was moving.

Speaker 3 (02:21):
Faster than ninety five percent of the stars in the
vicinity of the Sun outside.

Speaker 1 (02:26):
The Solar system.

Speaker 3 (02:27):
So the question is was it a voyager like probe
because it's moving so fast, or.

Speaker 1 (02:36):
Maybe just a rock from another star.

Speaker 3 (02:39):
That was the first one, and then the second one
in twenty seventeen was a much bigger object. The first
one was half a meter in size. The second one
was the size of a football field. It didn't collide
with Earth. It would have been catastrophic if it did,
because it would have killed us all. But it passed

(03:00):
near Earth within a sixth of the Earth Sun separation.
It was observed by a telescope in Hawaii monitoring near
Earth objects. Because we are all afraid of what happened
to the dinosaurs, right, we don't want to have the
same fate. And they realized this object is moving too
fast to be bound by gravity into the Sun, and

(03:23):
they called it Amu, which means a scout in the
Hawaiian language. Now, this object at first was thought to
be a comet, but there was no cometary.

Speaker 1 (03:34):
Tale around it, no gas or dust.

Speaker 3 (03:38):
And then it exhibited an excess push away from the
Sun without any rocket effect of acting on it. And
moreover it was it had a very extreme shape, most
likely flat like a disk based on the reflection of sunlight.
The sunlight reflected from each changed by a factor of

(04:01):
ten every eight hours since it was stumbling, very unusual object,
so it wasn't clear. It's not an asteroid, it's not
a comment what is it? And I suggested, well, maybe
it's a space trash and an empty trash bag from
another civilization. So that was twenty seventeen, and then ooops,

(04:28):
and then there was oops, I'm not true, Okay, then
there was a comment which looked just like the comments
that we are familiar with in twenty nineteen, also came
from outside the soliciting based on its speed, and my
colleagues said, well, this one looks familiar, so doesn't it
convince you that the others are also natural? And I said, well,

(04:51):
if you go down the street and you see a
weird person and after that you see a normal person,
it doesn't make the weird person normal.

Speaker 2 (05:02):
We can't see the slides, it's just filming.

Speaker 3 (05:04):
Over was really strange, most likely flat, and it's not
clear what it was. I suggested, maybe it's a very
thin object pushed by sunlight, reflecting sunlight, And in fact,
a lot of technological debris that we produced is being

(05:25):
pushed by reflecting sunlight. In fact, I'm not sure, okay,
in fact, the space trash that we produce.

Speaker 1 (05:40):
On January second, twenty twenty.

Speaker 3 (05:42):
Five, just this year, an amateur astronomer noticed an object
passing near Earth and it was cataloged as a near
Earth asteroid. Seventeen hours later, it was realized, oh, this
object moves exactly the same way the Tesla roads, the
car that was launched by SpaceX in twenty eighteen, Elon

(06:05):
Musk it is the it is a car, it's not
an asteroid. That removed it from the catalog. And I
actually had a bet with Elon. I am willing to
put one percent of my network against one percent of
his life to search to check if there is any

(06:31):
other space entrepreneur who is more accomplished than he is
since the Big Bang thirteen point eight billion years ago.

Speaker 1 (06:42):
Let's figure it out. It's not a lot of money
for games.

Speaker 3 (06:47):
And then actually in twenty twenty, there was the same
telescope in Hawaii.

Speaker 1 (06:51):
Did that discovered the one discovered.

Speaker 3 (06:54):
Another object that was pushed by reflecting sunlight. And then
after a few weeks the astronomers realized, oh, that's a
rocket booster from a nineteen sixty six launched by NASA.
So we know that some of the objects that are
unusual being pushed by sunlight are human made. The question

(07:17):
is who produced.

Speaker 2 (07:19):
And just think of that that sunlight can push things,
So there's photon pressure. How does sunlight push something?

Speaker 3 (07:34):
And my point is that the next Copernican revolution, remember
Copernicus realized we are not the physical center of the universe.

Speaker 1 (07:42):
I actually visited.

Speaker 3 (07:43):
Poland a year ago, a day after visiting the Munich
Security conference where.

Speaker 1 (07:51):
I spoke as the first class for physicists.

Speaker 3 (07:53):
That ever, by the way, I saw on the roof
of the hotel that the Munich security farmers there were
with the black head covers. They were there to protect
the politicians. I realized, being an astrophysicist is really very fortunate,
but nobody.

Speaker 1 (08:07):
Wants to kill me.

Speaker 3 (08:11):
But the next Copernican revolution is that we are not
at the technological center of the universe.

Speaker 1 (08:24):
We have something to learn.

Speaker 3 (08:26):
From a smarter kid on our cosmic blog, and I
wrote a paper a couple.

Speaker 2 (08:33):
Of months ago where I just remember, all of the
revolutions did not come from tenured PhD scientists like Eavy
Lowe Man. It came from the new people that just
showed up and we're like, hey, are we doing all
this wrong? And they're like shut up.

Speaker 3 (08:49):
I explained that with a space telescope we can actually
go through the million objects roughly meter in size within
the orbit of the author around the Sun that came
from outside the Solar system and figure out whether among them,
among all the rocks, there is space trash from other civilizations.

(09:09):
Because over the past billions of years. They predated us,
and they polluted in the star space. Because we sent
out five probs, Voyager one, Voyager two, Pioneer ten, Pioneer eleven,
and new horizons. They are heading out of the Solar
System towards in the stellar space.

Speaker 1 (09:26):
We did it over fifty years.

Speaker 3 (09:28):
Just think how many more we would produce in the
next billion years. And all of that keeps accumulating like
plastics in the ocean, all of this trash produced by
other civilizations, and we just have to look.

Speaker 1 (09:44):
In our backyard and figure it out.

Speaker 4 (09:46):
Again.

Speaker 1 (09:46):
A billion dollars will go a long way in this correction.

Speaker 3 (09:50):
But right now this subject is outside the mainstream of astronomy. Instead,
the highest priority defined by the decadal Survey is to
spend them more than ten billion dollars in the search
for microbes, for them molecular fingerprints of microbes in the
atmospheres of exoplanets.

Speaker 1 (10:12):
And frankly, I'm.

Speaker 3 (10:14):
Much more excited about finding intelligence than finding microbes for
a simple reason.

Speaker 2 (10:21):
But even then, like they found dimethyl sulfide, right, and
they can just always say that there is some process
that we don't understand, so I agree, like they can
always just discount it We've already found water, we found oxygen,
we found carbon, we found everything. And then now they've

(10:42):
even found dimetal sulfide, which is only made by phytoplankton
on Earth, and yet they just discount it and say, Okay,
it doesn't matter. And so yeah, it's not gonna it's
not gonna seal the deal.

Speaker 3 (10:55):
But we can learn from a higher level of intelligence.
One reason I seek in just an interstellar space is
because I don't often.

Speaker 5 (11:02):
Find it here or not.

Speaker 2 (11:08):
He's used that line so many times, it's like, but
I guess people still laugh, So I guess just keep
saying it. I guess.

Speaker 1 (11:15):
And you may ask where is where.

Speaker 3 (11:17):
Would in Voyager being in the biggion years, it will
be on the opposite side of the Milky Way galaxy.
So if most stars formed because of years before the Sun,
Lenoda for.

Speaker 1 (11:29):
A fact, they had I mean.

Speaker 3 (11:32):
There were civilizations like us out there.

Speaker 1 (11:35):
They had plenty of time for their spacecraft to reach us.

Speaker 2 (11:40):
I mean, think about that. So their argument right now
is he just said, we know that there were stars
billions of years before the Sun, because every heavy element
in our Solar system was created according to our current model,
was created in a supernova, right, So that was in
a giant explosion because and we know there aren't heavy

(12:01):
elements in our current sun, right, so the iron, everything
that's heavier than helium, that's heavier than lithium, right, was
created in a supernova. So that was means that all
of the heavy elements on our solar system were exploded
billions of years before the sun.

Speaker 4 (12:21):
Right.

Speaker 2 (12:21):
And the Sun we say is the same age as
the Earth is four point six billion years, So then
that means that only leaves nine billion years before the beginning,
as they say, the beginning of the entire fucking universe.
And it's just so ridiculous, right if you think about it,
like how big the universes and how tiny we are,

(12:42):
that the universe is only thirteen point nine billion years.
And I tried to make this example because it's just
shows how preposterous it is because red dwarf stars live
for trillions of years, they say trillions of years. So
how is a little red dwarf star going to live
for a trillion years? But somehow aren't the entire observed
universe everything we can possibly see, trillions and trillions of

(13:03):
galaxies are only thirteen point six billion years old. So
they're staring that's the Compartican revolution right there. That we
need is to remove this just idiocy. It's just ridiculous
if you really think about it, thirteen point nine billion years.
Galaxies live for hundreds of billions, probably trillions of years.

(13:25):
Just look at the scale, the fact that we think that,
we honestly think that our little planet here is one
third the age of the entire universe. It's just it's preposterous, right,
And they're all going to look like total idiots. Sooner
or later, it's going to have them.

Speaker 1 (13:41):
And we have a pretty check.

Speaker 3 (13:43):
Until the last decade, we didn't really know about the
interstellar objects. So I'm saying this is new exactly.

Speaker 2 (13:49):
We didn't even know about interstellar objects, right, We did
not even know about interstellar objects. Think about that since
a decade ago. We didn't even know about exoplanets twenty
years ago. And yet they so arrogant to say that, yep,
the entire universe is thirteen point six billion years. God,
it's so tameful.

Speaker 3 (14:10):
Meteor, the object that collided with Earth, was interesting because
for a cost of one and a half million dollars
that I received from a dollar, we were able to
go to the Pacific Ocean and search for materials left
over from this industal object. It exploded only twenty kilometers
above the service of the ocean, and that implied it

(14:34):
had material strength tougher than all other hundreds of meteors
in the NASA catalog. So it was unusual in its
material strength, in its speed.

Speaker 1 (14:45):
And the question was could it be a voyager like meteor?
Could it be?

Speaker 3 (14:51):
And Tesla wants the car like meteor because that car
actually will collide with Earth probably several tents of millionsphere,
and my colleagues, if there are, if there are any
astronomers at that time, they might argue, it's a rock
of attack that we've never seen before. So actually, the

(15:13):
US Space Command looked back at the data after I
reached them through the White House, and then they confirmed, yes,
this meteor actually came from outside the Solar system.

Speaker 1 (15:26):
The data was reliable, and.

Speaker 3 (15:29):
They also released the lighter of the explosion that indicated
how much energy was released and.

Speaker 1 (15:37):
At what altitude was the explosion.

Speaker 3 (15:41):
And so I decided to lead an expedition to the
Pacific Ocean. We went there slightly less than two years ago,
and what you see here is the deck of the
ship that was fittingly called Silver Star. We built a
sled with magnets on board sides, and we placed it
on the ocean floor which was a mile deep, and

(16:04):
we surveyed the region that is seven miles in size,
looking for any more than droplets left over from the explosion,
just to figure out was it a natural rock or
maybe a gadget. And I taught my students before I left,
if we find a gudget and it has buttons on it,

(16:26):
should I press the button.

Speaker 1 (16:29):
The opinions were split. Half of the class said please
don't do that.

Speaker 3 (16:35):
He put all of us in a risk, and the
other half said, please do We would like to see
if it's Chat one hundred. So we brought back materials
and it was a two week expedition. I put this

(16:55):
all the materials in this black suitcase and shift them
and shifted by felax to my home and then brought
it to the laboratory of my colleague at the Stein Jacobson,
who is a world renowned geochemist that has the best.

Speaker 1 (17:11):
Instruments in the world.

Speaker 3 (17:13):
And on the other side of me in this photo
is the summer intern Sophie Barret's room who worked with
me that summer, and she discovered eight hundred and fifty
Morten droplets within the materials that we brought back, and
I gave her the honorary titled the sperml Hunter. And

(17:34):
you can see here what these Morten droplets looked like.
They were very distinct relative to the background sand, and
we picked them up with twizzlers and published the results.
And so there was one type of those Morten droplets
about ten percent of the entire reservoir that looked very unusual.

(17:55):
They had a composition, a chemical composition that was very
different than solos. The materials up to a thousand times
higher abundance of beryllium lanthenom urani than you find.

Speaker 1 (18:08):
In source system materials.

Speaker 3 (18:11):
And so that's a possible indication that we found some
material from the original lobject.

Speaker 1 (18:17):
But we want to go back.

Speaker 3 (18:20):
And search for bigger pieces with a robot that we
will put on the ocean floor if it costs.

Speaker 1 (18:25):
Six and a half million dollars. We don't have a
fun the rest of yet. If anyone is interested in
joining us, to let me know.

Speaker 3 (18:32):
This is an image from the last day of the
previous expedition where I was standing on the ship looking
at the sunset. Next to me is an eighty eight
years old Art would have Art right, who was a
commander of a destroyer during the Vietnam War, and I
really liked.

Speaker 1 (18:51):
Him because he wouldn't speak much.

Speaker 3 (18:54):
He would solve problems and everything he said was true.

Speaker 1 (19:01):
And there aren't many people like that these days.

Speaker 3 (19:04):
What you find most often are people that are virtue signaling,
that are trying to impress you. That's partly the culture
of social media. But this mission was a success thanks to.

Speaker 1 (19:20):
Art, and he reminded me of my father. I really
liked you.

Speaker 3 (19:27):
Now this year, in August twenty twenty five, there is
a new observatory in Chile that was funded by the
Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. It's called
the Vera Sea will be observatory and it will serve
in the southern sky every four nights and could find

(19:48):
one more like objects every few months.

Speaker 1 (19:52):
If they are out there, and now we need to
look at them in much greater datail.

Speaker 3 (19:58):
We can use the web the scope to do that
up and this telescope we'll use a camera that is
three point two gigap pixels in resolutions, so a thousand
times more than the number of resolution elements you have in.

Speaker 1 (20:14):
Your cell phone. So I'm very excited about the coming
year or two.

Speaker 3 (20:20):
We will have new results from the observators to the
care of project is belief. We will have potentially a
new expedition where we can look for bigger pieces of
this first in the stellar medium, and the Rubin Observatory.

Speaker 1 (20:32):
Might find more on one more like objects.

Speaker 3 (20:36):
But if we really want to make fast progress, we
need more funds.

Speaker 1 (20:42):
If I had one hundred.

Speaker 3 (20:42):
Million dollars or a billion dollars and exactly what needs
to be done, and we can make we can get
much better understanding of our cosmic neighborhood. As I said before,
the software that we developed would be of great use
with the the PUTS defense.

Speaker 6 (21:02):
Thank you firstly by Admiral Debt.

Speaker 5 (21:13):
You'd let you say a couple of.

Speaker 7 (21:14):
Words, and we're gonna try to make this brief so
we can go ahead and start to getting to some
of the questions.

Speaker 1 (21:20):
Sir believe.

Speaker 5 (21:22):
Thank you very much. It's great to be here.

Speaker 8 (21:24):
As representatives Luna and Rold Perlison and Bridgett appreciate you
giving us all an opportunity to share what we want
to share and say what we want to say about
this important topic of the UAP.

Speaker 4 (21:36):
So I'll be about five minutes here made thee less.
But today I call on the.

Speaker 8 (21:39):
American scientific enterprise to mainstream UAP research and development.

Speaker 5 (21:44):
And to do that, population.

Speaker 8 (21:45):
First begin by assessing the current state of UAP research.

Speaker 4 (21:49):
There are a few brave individuals and organizations conducting.

Speaker 5 (21:52):
Such research, including Professor.

Speaker 8 (21:53):
Bobby Low through the Galileo Project Departar, Professor Diana Fasilica
at uncwor Is Gary Nolan and Peter Scaifish the Sole Foundation,
with Stanford University, Professor Jeffrey Krypol with the Archives of
the Impossible Writs University, and the Scientific Coalition of UAP Studies.
But these are by far the exception for UAP research

(22:16):
and scientific study is shown by the American science.

Speaker 5 (22:18):
Community red large.

Speaker 8 (22:19):
Even with dozens of credible former military witnesses coming forward,
as well as legislative action from Congress in recent years,
the stigma remains too great to jeopardize the reputation, promotion, potential,
and tenure.

Speaker 5 (22:33):
Of those in academia.

Speaker 4 (22:35):
To better understand this resistance, it might.

Speaker 8 (22:36):
Be useful for me to describe the state of climate
science in this country where the complete opposite is occurring.

Speaker 4 (22:43):
As a former.

Speaker 8 (22:44):
Administrator of the National Chiana Atmosphere Administration with a PhD
in oceanography, I have studied the changes occurring in our
verse system, and while they are.

Speaker 4 (22:52):
Indeed significant, nine by no means.

Speaker 8 (22:53):
A climate denier. Climate change is far from the existential
threat the mainstream media is some of the science community
claimant to be a false narrative has been propagated that
global warming, caused by anthropogenetic greenhouse gases, is the cause.

Speaker 4 (23:07):
Of every severe weather event on any given day.

Speaker 5 (23:10):
This has mainly.

Speaker 8 (23:11):
Resolved a large number of scientific studies that employ extreme
and applausible emisiencen aarias. Lacking the expertise to critically evaluate
such studies, the advertists and has readily accepted such misinformation.
Conflating every extreme weather event and climate change is in precise, incomplete,
and incorrect. The most clearing examples come around every hurricane season,

(23:31):
for which satellite data over the fifty years shows there's
been no trend upward or downward of these storms. The
same goes for wildfires, where news coverage always links climate
change to.

Speaker 4 (23:40):
Their occurrence, but wildfire has actually been increasing.

Speaker 5 (23:43):
In this country.

Speaker 8 (23:45):
So even the Internovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been
unable to conclusively detect changes in extreme weather and climate
event frequency and intensity. However, saying that we are not
in fact in a climate crisis is hair received the
mainstream media. In the global science community. This is a
situation with UAP, but in reverse. Ample evidence, even congressional

(24:06):
testimony attests to the scientific validity of UAP, but the
response by members the scientific community has been either a
to bury their heads in the sand or b to
make baseless mockery of the courageous contrarians like Professor Lowe.

Speaker 5 (24:21):
Who seek the truth.

Speaker 1 (24:22):
Why is this so well?

Speaker 4 (24:24):
The reason is partially due.

Speaker 8 (24:26):
To overclassification and of deliberate decades long disinformation campaign by
the US Department of Defense and intelligence community.

Speaker 4 (24:35):
Unlike climate change, UAP.

Speaker 8 (24:37):
And the non human intelligence which control them very well
could be an existential threat, as our moderator of Louel
Assando eloquently described in his book aptly named Imminent, The
scientific community needs to wake up to the raality of UAP,
which represents the most mine male development since the Conferringtan
Revolution to consider the extraordinary report I received this weekend

(24:58):
when a former US needs the SAH sixty Seahawk.

Speaker 4 (25:01):
Helicopter crouchie who was embarked on the carrier USS Dwight D.

Speaker 8 (25:06):
Eisenhower in twenty twenty one, described to me as recording
on poor looking infrared video of a metallic sphere at
an altitude a few hundred feet above the ship, traveling
along a linear trajectory horizontal ze service before it accelerated
into the horizon at incredible speed disappeared completely upon landing.

(25:28):
He discussed this with some of the pilots and the
other air crew before transferring the flir footage to the
carrier's intelligence officer. Moreover, this was not an isolated event
for the Eisenhower Strike Group. During that deployment saw many
many instances of UAP, primarily F eighteens, frequently encountering them
at high altitude, and this topic was widely discussed by

(25:54):
the air wing during the entire deployment, and later fellow
air crew members of this screw sheet from another squadron
deployed on board the USS Gerald R Ford and.

Speaker 4 (26:04):
Shared similar experiences.

Speaker 8 (26:07):
The cruising also informed me that the secret laptops in
their reading room provided access to a share drive where
numerous VP sidings on Flair were arcut. They stored these
videos on a folder name Range Followers. He'd liked that
Bryan and his commanding officer and saviety officer were aware
of these instances, but there was an unspoken understanding not

(26:28):
to discuss them openly in the reading room.

Speaker 4 (26:31):
I have spoken to others state there's still.

Speaker 8 (26:33):
In active duty and their siting as UNP have become
so numerous that they are.

Speaker 4 (26:36):
Desensitized to the phenomenon.

Speaker 8 (26:38):
My point being that the Navy possesses a trope of
video evidence and data regard to UAP, and I see
no reason.

Speaker 4 (26:45):
Why flirt footage of UAP and Navy training.

Speaker 8 (26:47):
Ranges could not be declassified and shared for the scientific community.

Speaker 4 (26:51):
With open access to.

Speaker 8 (26:52):
More data like this, we could transform every institution of
higher education by establishing a Galileo project within their astronomy
and astrophysics departments, a sole foundation within their biomedicine and
humanities programs, and archived with the Impossible and their religious
studies and philosophy curricula. To close, I point out that
last month at the endless Frontiers conference in Austin. The

(27:14):
President Science Advisor Michael Prasio's committed the Trump administration to
creating a Golden Age and American innovation. I am convinced
that UAP research cannot only support this, but accelerate in
ways beyond our imagination. The time to destroy the stigma
associated with UAP is now. I asked the House Oversight

(27:34):
Committee and other members of Congress to demand.

Speaker 4 (27:36):
The good DoD DHS.

Speaker 8 (27:39):
And NASA least more UAP data for open science, and
I call the White House to include UAP research is
twenty twenty five RD Priorities memo, Thank you Los.

Speaker 2 (27:55):
Sand hearing my fibl emo, so I thought that that
was awesome. He's talking about so many videos out there, Yeah,
like the tiktac, the recent video I shared. I didn't
really like his climate science discussion. Yeah, but I was
looking up Aviy Love basically his let's just read, I

(28:18):
can share it here. So this is from chat TBT
on what they Avi Love's twenty twenty three deep sea
hunt for spirals. So let's look, there's three broad camps
for im one. This is the reaction from science essentially enthusiastic,
open minded the chemistry really is odd. Let's keep looking.

(28:41):
So lab Zone team and collaborators such as geochemist Stein Jacobson.
That must be who he was talking about. Who in
early twenty twenty four reported that ten percent of the
beads have extreme barium LA. I don't remember what LA is.
I should know what that is, uranium enrichments. That's interesting,
unlike any Solar system materials. So that's what Avi Lobe

(29:02):
was talking about. Let's look at the skeptical interesting claim,
but at standard extraordinary claims and the extraordinary evidence. The
newsweekly Science headlined the claim meets see of doubt and
quoted meteoriticist Peter Brown, the US Space Command data low
relies on our opaque and error prone. That is kind
of difficult right to pinpoint where a meteor hits based

(29:24):
off of like radar data from Space Command. Nature's March
twenty twenty four news story likewise frame the debate as
an alien meteor row and then strongly critical the beads
are almost certainly ordinary micro meteorites or pollution. I remember
reading this to planetary scientists. Steve Desh and Allen Jackson

(29:45):
posted a forty page technical rebuttal detailing fatal flaws and
showing iron isotopes point to a solar system origin. Sismologist
Benjamin Fernando reanalyzed the Manus Island signal that guided the
search and found it matched a passing tru look. His
team concludes the expedition looked in the wrong place. Astrophysicist
Ethan Siegel called the episode another embarrassment and big I

(30:08):
think I did see that. Hmm. Where things stand? Peer
reviews still in progress. Loans Loop's main compositional paper clear
technical review, but accompanying critiques are also under review, so
we'll see follow up cruise. That's what he was talking about.
What do you need like six and a half million dollars?

(30:29):
Why don't they just go right off the west coast?
You know, Tim Galliadet is there, go and look off
San Clemente Island and Guadaloupe, right, I mean those will
go look down there. I mean, doesn't use the robot
over there. Don't spend six and a half million dollars,
spend one million and go off the west coast, all right?

(30:55):
And I thought Galadat his speech was pretty good. Yeah,
I talked, I think you should just well, I touched
on climate science is such a difficult topic. You know,
my buddy was visiting and there's no salmon in Alaska,
like they can't hunt salmon anymore. So something's definitely happening.
And yeah, so I don't know, I don't see the relationship. Yeah,

(31:23):
like weren't climate scientists always held down in the past
based on fossil fuel bs. So I don't know.

Speaker 7 (31:34):
To get to our first question here, and it is
not scripted, and it is to my former colleagen doctor
Derek Davis, And you heard her how I asked.

Speaker 1 (31:48):
This specific question.

Speaker 5 (31:51):
Well, mister Gold, just see if that's always dark. I
I know your background, and I know your work, UH
in our former.

Speaker 7 (32:04):
Program, the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.

Speaker 5 (32:08):
I also know to some degrees in the history at
first hand experience you have in UAP.

Speaker 7 (32:14):
I believe that this committee UH and the the student
members of Congress and the American.

Speaker 5 (32:20):
Public would love to hear to the degree you're able
to discuss it.

Speaker 7 (32:26):
The direct access you had for those who don't know,
doctor Davis was and I'll let him.

Speaker 5 (32:31):
Answer this was and it was submitted into into into.

Speaker 7 (32:35):
The matter of record for Congress a couple of years
ago the Wilson Davis know, uh, it was alleged that
he was.

Speaker 1 (32:42):
The author of it.

Speaker 2 (32:42):
Yep, what happened to that?

Speaker 5 (32:44):
And if you don't know what that is, I encourage
you to look it up.

Speaker 4 (32:46):
It has to paid and entered it as a.

Speaker 1 (32:48):
Matter of public record, give the congressional.

Speaker 7 (32:50):
Record, and it is extremely significant. This is the man
I won't say he did or he didn't.

Speaker 5 (32:58):
I let him tell you.

Speaker 2 (33:01):
Do after that, potentially and further more intentionally, I know
has had it involved in.

Speaker 7 (33:06):
The EUA program specifically from a crash retrieval perspective. Now
maybe mindful of your doctor Davis preb airflows and security classification.

Speaker 5 (33:13):
But do you might share to the degree or comfortable
with your.

Speaker 7 (33:16):
Involvement with information related crash reprievals and and your experienceship.

Speaker 1 (33:24):
That's another good quot.

Speaker 4 (33:28):
And you I've been I'm an astrophysicist.

Speaker 9 (33:33):
And also what we worked on the SITT now said
I call it you bring through propulsion businesses worked to
break in propulsion together from nineteen ninety six to two
thousand and two, and then we continued after that to
develop a book that we published with the AI. Don't
impressed in two thousand and nine for Cheers of Propulsion Science.
So my background is in advanced the space intersto space flight, mostly.

Speaker 4 (33:55):
Beastroom might compulsion or the use of generativity.

Speaker 9 (33:58):
Theory and quantum field theory, as well as advanced in
clear propulsional like nuclear fission and nuclear fusion and being
dinnership propulsion, which I've worked on as a principal investigator
for the Air Force research.

Speaker 4 (34:09):
Laverage of words Erco Space. So I've got client aground
background and i began my.

Speaker 5 (34:13):
Work UFO was or up started away to ninety.

Speaker 4 (34:18):
Six, Robert Bigeble hired me a worker in.

Speaker 9 (34:20):
As his director of Girls Space Physics and Astrophysics at
the National Institute for Discovery Science. And that was a
that was a cretzy transformative job for you because as
a physical science as I'm.

Speaker 4 (34:32):
Seeing for the first time, I'm phenomena.

Speaker 9 (34:34):
I'm investigating it, using for science techniques in the field,
interviewing what was collecting data. And I have a routeam
of colleagues on the staff that I work with alcole
PhDs and we had a little class Science Advisory Board
which my former boss in Austin helped off was on.

Speaker 4 (34:53):
This was on the board of group.

Speaker 9 (34:55):
It was on that Science Advisory Board. It was the
last year of that board. Actually, we also had Pollow
fourteen astronaut, hadventual one for a short time Apollow seventeen.

Speaker 4 (35:05):
Astronaut Jack Schmidt.

Speaker 9 (35:07):
And we had many academicians and former CIA national intelligence officers,
social psychologists, psychologists, medical doctors and nuclear engineers and the
list goes on.

Speaker 4 (35:22):
We had Chocolding.

Speaker 5 (35:23):
Primarily as well.

Speaker 2 (35:25):
So it was a really.

Speaker 9 (35:26):
Transformative because I grew up in the sixties and seventies
and I became familier.

Speaker 4 (35:33):
With Carl Sagan. Carl Sagan and strongly.

Speaker 9 (35:35):
Important Page co authored a book called UBFOS, a Scientific Debate,
which was published.

Speaker 4 (35:40):
By the Triple As Press.

Speaker 9 (35:43):
The Triple As is the Europan Association for the Investment
of Science and Science is their prestigious journal that they published,
and so that was.

Speaker 4 (35:52):
A prestigious publication.

Speaker 9 (35:54):
Every chapter was authored by experts in the field in
academia who have studied UFOs and some love it from
a scientific data standpoint. Data that was collected, data that
was analyzed, and so they presented it and published a
book for a desire reason. In the nineteen eighties, Carl
Sagan had this wonderful astronomy show called Cosmos and be

(36:16):
comparing a book for that, and once I arrived, is
that he changed one hundred and eighty degrees. He all
of a sudden went from being UFOs. We have in
this book that I are co edited with Norton page
all of this wonderful data that's been collected that is
not explainable due to conventional astronomical weather or man made

(36:40):
explanations or events or objects. I'm now calling it pseudoscience.
It's French science. People are mistaken. Pilots have poor vision.
Military pilots especially, and I've heard that from Leonard David,
who is aerospace engineering aviations based exploration writer and people

(37:01):
like him have said that our military pilots, especially the
ones at the USS Dimits during its encounter of the
Ticula be back in November two thousand and four.

Speaker 4 (37:11):
Oh, yes, those pilots have poor vision.

Speaker 9 (37:15):
They're flying what twenty million dollars fighter aircraft and they
have poor vision. How did they get through the naval
aviation program and to go to school with poor vision?

Speaker 7 (37:26):
Doctor Davis, you could you elaborate a little bit on
your again to the degree that your.

Speaker 9 (37:31):
Doctor, Oh, I can't wait it. So it was a
transformative issue for me or poor a job. It transformed
my worldview. It opened up my worldview to a lot
more possibilities than when I was used to thinking as
a trained PhD physicist. I earned my doctor in answer
physics at the University of Rosig in ninety one, and
so I worked on three space missions in graduate school,

(37:55):
the iOS, which is the A grade astronomical satellite program,
and the two missions to the Galatime.

Speaker 4 (38:01):
So is pertaining to the topic that loom wants been
talking about. I'm not trying to loom late up there.
It is a sensitive subject. So it's due to.

Speaker 9 (38:14):
Astronaut Ed Mitchell, doctor Ed Mitchell, Captain US and retired
because of him, and I won't go into a long story.

Speaker 4 (38:21):
But it's because of him that I got on the
trail looking for the so.

Speaker 9 (38:26):
Called legend within the UFO Committee of the Retrieval of
crash or landed up.

Speaker 5 (38:33):
Craft or UITHO craft.

Speaker 9 (38:34):
Has anything known back in those days, and by the way,
up the term unidentified aero phenomenon goes back.

Speaker 4 (38:40):
To the nineteen forties.

Speaker 5 (38:41):
Even so.

Speaker 9 (38:44):
I followed this trail and I ended up over the
course of the following two and a half.

Speaker 4 (38:50):
Decades, working for Big Leaf, working for the Air Force
Research Lab, working for Help and Off at er Tech.

Speaker 9 (38:56):
International, Incorporated, and then and then working at the Old
Space Corporation. So we're working in a combination of industry
and classified programs after we were contracted to do after
for the Defense Intelligence Agency and for the Pentagon agencies
that Low worked up and the UAP task force that

(39:18):
chased Stratton led at the.

Speaker 4 (39:20):
Office of Naval Intelligence.

Speaker 9 (39:21):
And so a long story short is that I came
into contact with industry leads, technical scientists built active duty
and later retired, as well as intelligence officers, generals, animals, kernels,
people who directed intelligence or human intelligence collection and analysis
directorates at the DIA and the Central Intelligence Agency who

(39:45):
reached out to me to have me do some foreign
UAP intelligence analysis and assessment. And so I had been
exposed to so much in the classified rome that I
can tell you definitively that they're is that they're there
the human race. Basically, the world's biggest governments like the

(40:07):
United States, our adversary, China and Russia, at least as
far as I know, have had the occasion to recover
craft that have either landed or crashed or vote in
their territory or even outside of their territories, and have
taken those back to the most sensitive in their programs
that they've ever had. These programs are even more sensitive

(40:29):
and more well hidden than managifadet place or the modern
of their weapons industry and the US military and the
Department of Energy programs to maintain and upgrade and modernize.

Speaker 2 (40:42):
Our Nebrot weapons are sen So that's just amazing. Man Like,
think about what he just said. That's unbelievable. He just
said it so casually. He's like, yeah, of course, we
have captured craft landed or crashed, and then they take
it back super secret.

Speaker 9 (41:00):
And so this is one of the This is one
of the most well hidden programs. It is hidden from
progressional oversight and always has been, and it was hidden
by the action of the President Eisenhower, who instituted Presidential
Emergency Action Directives during his administration. These directives are not
shared in Congress. They were classified, and when the Freedom

(41:22):
and Information Act was instituted in the seventies, it is
not subject those are not subjective to the Freedom and
Information Act request these directives provide cover for actions that
are associated with the with the retrieval of these vehicles
and the scientific and engineering study of them, and that

(41:43):
takes place within the industry. What happens is the Department
of Defense offices CIA offices, they create show companies.

Speaker 4 (41:52):
They give a sole source contract to the.

Speaker 9 (41:55):
Shell company, who passes the money to a selected group
of defense into three firms, and.

Speaker 4 (42:01):
Those firms who take that contract money and turn them
around and use that as internal finning.

Speaker 9 (42:07):
It's called internal research and helping advice, which they give
to their own people and Cipher comes to their own
plays to do the reverse engineering analysis and study of
these recovered funerals.

Speaker 2 (42:19):
Okay, so that's just amazing. So we just laid it
out there. So soul source contract. What that means is
you've already decided who's going to get the deal. And
I want to say, this is like not legal or
there's really stringent requirements on a soul source contract because
you're basically just saying, hey, we're giving you the deal.

(42:41):
Otherwise it goes out for a bid, and so you
put an open bid out there, and then that allows
many companies to actually bid on it. And this I
think is what maybe they're fighting so hard against is
like all the companies are saying, hey, you know Lockheed
martin or a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin's probably like helicopter operations.
That's what I'm guessing. It's helicopter support operations. Look at

(43:04):
that one like they're just getting a soul source contract.
And so it's basically just given their buddies in the know,
people like Jake Barber his company just saying hey, go
pick this thing up, don't talk about it.

Speaker 9 (43:20):
And so this avoids all congressional oversight and avoids the
game maybe, and it's one of the most clever techniques
use to hide it. And as far as I know,
only went four star general and one did three start
Adamue and grade will locate these programs.

Speaker 4 (43:36):
And that's about as much as I can say.

Speaker 9 (43:39):
They located the programs and they uncovered them. One got
a lot of resistance and hostile reception and was told
that he found who he was looking for, where they
were they were suspected of being yesterday were a unbo
eap platfrash retreat in reversing Jake program.

Speaker 4 (43:58):
The other one, I had a lot more political power
behind him because of his statue.

Speaker 9 (44:02):
He was a four star general and he was able
to get into the program and use his authority.

Speaker 5 (44:07):
And his access.

Speaker 1 (44:09):
I think they call that a.

Speaker 9 (44:12):
Super user, the superuser access to all. He made as
much speciality of access programs, so he had his capability
to deal with the end of that molement. I was
fortunately to meet Dave dresh at the behest of Jay Stratton.
Dave was a mrodaison officer to the UAP toaskores and
Dave was working for his boss at the NRO, which
was situated in the second Force gifts of the Eurospace

(44:36):
Corporation building in Colorado Springs.

Speaker 4 (44:38):
And I was assigned to work at the Eurospace.

Speaker 9 (44:40):
Corporation facility in Houstville out of many because I was
supporting assets Space New Greer.

Speaker 4 (44:44):
Promulsion Program office. So Dave and Dave's boss and.

Speaker 9 (44:51):
I'm together and I briefed them for two and a
half days, just a week before code instruct and day
took all of my classified and proprietary information of all
the investigations I did it.

Speaker 4 (45:03):
It's AFRO and working.

Speaker 9 (45:04):
For helping up at Airtech, and he took that data
around with it and what you now know the actor
of now that that was his classified missile work complained
to the IG of the IC and so there isn't
there there. We have had this program going on in
various guys as various code names. Code names changed roughly
every three years. They often shipped around to the major

(45:28):
office in programmat the Organizations for Presidential Administration of Presidential administration,
and maybe every five to ten years.

Speaker 4 (45:36):
In some case.

Speaker 9 (45:37):
And so these things are very old. It's been coming,
they've gone, but they're still around. And the glade that's
been involved, I would say since the beginning in nineteen
forty four, with the first recovery of Italy of the
US arms recovery of the craft that crashed in Italy
back in nineteen thirty three. The United States aren't even
in bated Italy and pushed the third breakout.

Speaker 4 (46:00):
They were able to cover that graft. We bring it
back to Right Airfield, and all of the crash retrieals
that are taking place generally on landed going to Right Airfield.

Speaker 9 (46:08):
The majority of the crash refriels or recoveries of whatever
situation it was take place in the New York Times
or whatever. And I'm not sure where that is going on.
I think they're probably also.

Speaker 4 (46:18):
Wondering what were in those days right airfield.

Speaker 5 (46:20):
I don't know where they're doing today though.

Speaker 9 (46:22):
Because I've only worked on the legacy history of this
department up until about the early twenty tens and ever
since the end of the onset and the age to
I don't know where that those operations are going on
these days.

Speaker 2 (46:38):
It's interesting, he said, most of its maritime. I thought
that was interesting. I also didn't know they changed the
program names every three years or so. It seems like
a lot of changeover, but I guess, I guess it
makes sense. And he said he talked about two four
stars there because a you know, Admiral Tim Galladett, he's
the highest gen speaking out and he's a one star

(47:02):
admiral and he wasn't a you know, in combat. He
was an oceanographer essentially. That's why I think they kind
of looked down on him. But he's only a one
star and he's the highest ranking. I mean, it's just ridiculous.
Wellhy Mo aren't talking out, so.

Speaker 5 (47:22):
I think that's about it.

Speaker 9 (47:23):
Little, I think was the question I would always ask,
and I'll just say, this is really easy.

Speaker 4 (47:33):
Less the King and Ralph Boumendal asked me this for
an interview I gave him In July and twenty twenty
for the New York Times artile.

Speaker 5 (47:40):
That they published.

Speaker 9 (47:40):
They interviewed lou and Senate with for percent majority year
Harry Reid. I think Harry was already retired day, wasn't he? Yeah?

Speaker 4 (47:49):
Okay, so I said, basically, my interface with the leadership.

Speaker 9 (47:54):
In the industry, which for a number of individuals is Bob.
They propped him to recover.

Speaker 4 (48:00):
Are not in the serve. They're not made by human beams.
They are not for this planet. They're not they are
a ali.

Speaker 9 (48:08):
Of technology whatever the word amen means. Are the extra
trust for We don't know. We don't know what motives
do they have?

Speaker 4 (48:16):
Well, we need.

Speaker 9 (48:16):
Anthropologists and social psychologists and philosophers to figure that out
because they haven't communicated that to us.

Speaker 4 (48:22):
Yeah, so this is just like me and Abby. We
cannot answer questions like motive. We just need to take data.

Speaker 9 (48:29):
We call it measurements and signals, intelligence and intelligence industries.
And Abby I support one thousand or sent because we
need him to do what he needs to do. U
EIGHTPX is an other group from the University of Bovini
and you I'll be or they're doing that as well.
And there are other groups out there building up their
own sensor speeds to try and scam this guide full

(48:49):
time twenty four seven, to look for something that's side
and definitely not whether they're definitely.

Speaker 4 (48:54):
Not in aircraft and definitely not.

Speaker 2 (48:56):
But if you look like Sadisco brothers seem have gotten
the most data just two dudes in a van and
then Skywatcher, right, I mean, what is Galileo project produced?

Speaker 1 (49:08):
Really?

Speaker 4 (49:10):
Kids blew back cock?

Speaker 5 (49:14):
Well, thank you, doctor Davis.

Speaker 7 (49:16):
My recommendation would be, at some point here as you
get ruin classified setting like some of the rest of us,
i'd you've already done that before and have a friend
conversation with some of the representatives who I think would
be very interested to hear the other part of that conversation,
which I'm.

Speaker 5 (49:31):
Aware of been part of. With that said, before we
go on, I wanted to think real quick, Repnick for.

Speaker 1 (49:41):
Pat do you prnginate?

Speaker 5 (49:42):
Sorry Paul.

Speaker 7 (49:44):
Okay for giving me baggage. Rep Nick baggage. We'll arrived
here just a not too long ago, So thank you.

Speaker 4 (49:51):
Sir very much.

Speaker 5 (49:53):
From Alabama, from Alabama.

Speaker 10 (50:00):
So my hubando, thank you sir for being here.

Speaker 1 (50:10):
And also a scene.

Speaker 5 (50:13):
As far as the next questionroom that it loves who
has directed to Adam God. So of the sea form.

Speaker 10 (50:22):
Has been mapped in high resolution. In fact, some have
stipulated that we have known even what about the service
of our own moon than the depths of our ownocos.

Speaker 11 (50:34):
One of the concrete mapping campaigns atomics whiders, deep sea
sunars or cable observatories research the best chance of detecting
under sea UAP activity.

Speaker 5 (50:48):
Up to this point, we've been discussing about the stuff.

Speaker 7 (50:52):
We've seen in our skies and possibly space, but the
one thing we've neglected are those observations.

Speaker 5 (50:58):
Of UAP that are under order. And this kind of
goes to the whole trained medium and characteristic that we're
seeing that some of the QUAP can display. Particularly as
a former Navy man and member of Noah. What what
advice would you do want for there?

Speaker 1 (51:15):
Thanks Ley.

Speaker 8 (51:16):
That's a great question, and in fact I would advise
us to continue what we started in Trump's first administration,
and what we did is we got him to sign
the President and Financial Memorandum on Mapping the u S
occlusive economic zone and that directed the establishment of a
strategy of plan, the National Strategy, a plan and a
council and are acy Council to contribute.

Speaker 5 (51:37):
To the effort.

Speaker 8 (51:38):
And so in the we did this in twenty twenty
and in the five years since we've been able to
go from having forty percent of our easy map to
fifty percent.

Speaker 4 (51:48):
And it involves not only using ships from sonar, but
also exploring the water column with deep diving, remotely operated vehicles,
swarms of drums.

Speaker 5 (51:56):
Underwater drums eased to one hundred.

Speaker 8 (51:58):
And twenty in the Navy, and that fleet's growing, and
Noah has a pretty sizable.

Speaker 5 (52:03):
Fleet of underwater and surface drones and the partner with.

Speaker 8 (52:07):
The private sector that has a vast capability as well.
So I'd say we really want to expand the work
that's already occurring within the government and the private sector
and target it because most of it is targeted towards
ocean science, and that's great, but if we open the
apicture a bit and include UAP as a research target,
I think we'll learn a lot more about the phenomenon

(52:29):
as well.

Speaker 1 (52:29):
As the ocean.

Speaker 5 (52:32):
Thank you very much. The next question we have is
geared towards.

Speaker 7 (52:38):
Doctor Ablow here and my question for you, sir, is
what is your recommendation for the new generation of scientists who.

Speaker 5 (52:48):
Want to enter into this field of study but don't
know exact thing where to begin.

Speaker 3 (52:54):
Yes, I actually gave off them the senior members and
our community, where I have great hope that the young
generation will approach it without any bias, because science is
all about evidence.

Speaker 1 (53:08):
And curiosity, and we lose that when we become the
adults in the room. So for the young people.

Speaker 3 (53:15):
In fact, I was asked to establish a Galilos Authority
in stem cells campus that will be built in Indiana,
and I'm very excited about that because those high high
school students and pleasuring scientists would be unbiased. They would
look at the data and try to figure it out.

(53:37):
That's the way signs should be done. And very often
if you assume something, if you say there is nothing
out there and you are not looking the obviously, that's
a self fulfilling prophecy. So I very much hope that
the young generation will approach these subjects without any stigma,
without any prejudice, without any bias, because it's of great

(53:58):
interest to national purity. And even if it has nothing
to do with what lies outside the solar system, we
need to figure it out.

Speaker 1 (54:09):
Maybe other nations have technologies that.

Speaker 4 (54:11):
We are not aware of.

Speaker 3 (54:15):
And if we do find something from outside the solar system,
it's the biggest discovery ever made in science.

Speaker 1 (54:22):
It will change our perception and our place in the universe.

Speaker 4 (54:27):
I had a group of.

Speaker 1 (54:31):
Religious people that came and.

Speaker 3 (54:35):
They belong to Christianity today an organization, and they asked
me what to be the implications to religion And I said, well,
I have two daughters, and when the second one was born,
I didn't lose any of my love to the first one.
So imagine that God can only attend to one civilization.

Speaker 1 (54:51):
It's very limited. And I think, in fact, you know,
it would be enriching to realize that we have siblings.

Speaker 3 (55:00):
We might be jealous if they are more advanced than
we are, maybe they get more attention, but you know
that's exciting. We may get inspiration from finding something better
than us. So why is it that academia the mainstream
is shining away from this? Partly because the public cares

(55:20):
so much about it, and you know, there are lots
of statements that are not correct that being made by
people who have no evidence, But that should not be
a reason to avoid this subject. We should study it,
and young people, I think have the ability to figure
it out.

Speaker 1 (55:41):
If we have the resources are located to the research,
we figure it out. We have that women. It's much
more exciting than figuring out what dark matter is.

Speaker 3 (55:51):
Whether there are microbes on exo planets, which probably exists
in any warm water environment similar to Earth.

Speaker 1 (56:00):
I'm willing to bet there micros, but that I really
want to find better than us.

Speaker 2 (56:10):
Yeah, but at the same point, why not look at
the consciousness aspect of it. If so many people are
already saying they can communicate telepathically, you have all these channelers,
you have telepathy. You could easily do science experiments with telepathy.
You don't need six point five million dollars to go

(56:31):
look for, you know, larger spherials. When your first your
first expedition didn't really produce any real viable results, right,
I mean, yeah, he's got he's one leg in both, right,
he's it's great, he's speaking out and he's great, he's

(56:53):
in the community. But man, he is still just in
the mindset of the state academia. What about looking out
at Yeah, what about the consciousness aspect?

Speaker 1 (57:07):
So we can get better.

Speaker 3 (57:08):
We can improve ourselves, and the young generations hopefully will
do it for us if we only allocate the resources,
if we don't block them, because the gate keepers, you know,
to use this technique of not funding such research.

Speaker 1 (57:24):
Ridiculing it.

Speaker 3 (57:26):
And even when I went on the expedition, people said, oh,
he will not find anything.

Speaker 1 (57:32):
Oh he went to the wrong place.

Speaker 3 (57:35):
We don't believe Vegas government data from Lego Space Command.

Speaker 1 (57:40):
And my suggestion is just to even more the nasiers
because they are boring.

Speaker 5 (57:53):
All right, thank you, Right, that's a little industry quick.

Speaker 10 (57:57):
One of the representations a very short of Challenger's a
question we want to ask in perprises.

Speaker 5 (58:01):
The question is who doctors or days.

Speaker 10 (58:05):
We have discussions at length in certain settings in the
formal addicial setting.

Speaker 5 (58:09):
You know, depart of or exotic material. I think it
might be very helpful to the degree you can if
you please explain that.

Speaker 7 (58:18):
Is what makes exotic material that has been recovered from
the US government exotic? What makes it different from atomically
and chemically.

Speaker 9 (58:29):
It's actually a very simple answer. It's the way it's fabricated.
It's the way it's fabricated. That's what makes it exotic.
It's not a new element that's never been discovered and
placed on the periodic table of elements. But the materials
are in the periodic tables. There are either radioactivized the hoopes.

Speaker 4 (58:48):
That we already know or there or any of the
other non radio act non activiied elements on the table.
It's just the combination of the.

Speaker 9 (58:55):
Materials as unusual. It could be that you can say
that that's exact, but it's the composition. It's how you
build the craft, the materials that formed the craft and
everything inside the craft. It's quite exciting because one of
the company's leadership was a young material scientist when he
graduated with his doctorate the material science from at one

(59:18):
of the university, one of the universities in Alumni back
in nineteen seventy and he was hired by Ben.

Speaker 4 (59:24):
Rich who worked with him and a team at Scope
Books that was the Advanced Projects Agent Development Agency.

Speaker 5 (59:31):
I think is what blocking aircraft if he called it.

Speaker 4 (59:33):
Back in those days. So basically this is what he
was telling me.

Speaker 9 (59:39):
He's an advanced majeral scientist and he said, well, we
didn't use the best diagnostic equipment we had back in
those days, which was sixties, seventies, eighties and nineties, and
we could see the elements through mascatrop masspetroscopy that composed
these structures.

Speaker 4 (01:00:00):
But when we look at how.

Speaker 9 (01:00:00):
You're composed in structured, it's like nothing we've been able
to fabricate it, or we'd never been able to reproduce
so and we have no extrapolated engineering or physics.

Speaker 4 (01:00:12):
Technology to tell us or inform us on how it
can possibly even how to vapricate this nary.

Speaker 2 (01:00:18):
So this reminds me.

Speaker 1 (01:00:20):
I have this.

Speaker 2 (01:00:22):
Crazy scientist that kept emailing me and texting me and everything.
He lived in Japan, and basically he said he could
create a metal material right where he would print it.
He's basically three D printing it molecule by molecule. And
so this material, this metal material, and I can't remember

(01:00:46):
if it was titanium or what it made up of,
could go up to eight thousand degrees celsius, so what
he said, and or even higher. So what that means
is then engine thrust is all based on temperature in
and temperature out. It's inlet temperature versus outlet temperature. If
you're talking about thrust, and so the hotter you can

(01:01:09):
get the actual internal temperature, the more thrust you get.
That's why the F twenty two had such amazing engines,
is because they actually grew the turbines right, the turbine blades.
They would grow them as one crystal, so it would
actually grow and it could take just amazing temperatures. So

(01:01:30):
then they could just instead of melting the engine, now
you could just dial up the pressure and the temperature
to just amazing levels and you get amazing thrust, right
outstanding thrust. So this dude said that he could actually
print molecule by molecules, So if you could three D
print these these molecules, he said, he said, our material

(01:01:50):
science is way more advanced than what's led on and
that was one of the what he argued was the
UAP technology was how to manufactured these things and these
kind of crazy materials. He also said he had a
drone that could go like mock twenty or something, and
he was talking to Israel. I don't know why he's

(01:02:12):
a patron. Now he's gonna come after me. But that
made me think of that, because how do you know
that we're just not so advanced that that's the thing.
Like you could say this material is alien tech, but
now the CIA and all of them can just say,
oh no, this is just really advanced US manufacturing techniques.

(01:02:36):
And they can always come up with a backstory for
how they created it, right like night nights and all right,
the bendable metal. So I guess that tells us it's
an exotic material.

Speaker 4 (01:02:49):
But they understood that the combination of the elements was
very unusual. He was covering to but it's the.

Speaker 9 (01:02:59):
Way the materials are fabricated. That's what Basic offer exactly excellent.
Thank you very much, sir.

Speaker 4 (01:03:06):
Next question is gonna go hi.

Speaker 1 (01:03:09):
Yeah, so thank you for you guys for coming today.

Speaker 12 (01:03:11):
I have to get going, but I am charging for
a listening for Chet to be here and continue on
while I am not here, I will say that I
mean the stuff that you guys have all told us
today mind blowing. And I think you know going on
record is even more important. So we're gonna invite you
back to also type to fight at some point. So

(01:03:32):
I do have to head up to thank you so
much for your time.

Speaker 10 (01:03:34):
To send your step and we'll be bout that.

Speaker 2 (01:03:35):
Thank you.

Speaker 10 (01:03:39):
Thanks so the next question is going into uh, I
haven't got your net.

Speaker 5 (01:03:47):
I've got a long list of question for obviously I'm
gonna get to them all. We have to try to
stay out the tracks.

Speaker 7 (01:03:51):
Was probably gonna be my last question for this and
maybe go on all day when we've got two other
handles we got.

Speaker 5 (01:03:56):
To get through and there's gonna be some new information.

Speaker 7 (01:03:59):
Or last question before the brain Adam Gaydet, I know
that you were pretty to the incidents in the regarding
the USS Roosevelt.

Speaker 5 (01:04:09):
In fact, there's.

Speaker 7 (01:04:09):
Another distinguished guests we have with us here today, Ryan Grace,
who was a pilot who has been very.

Speaker 5 (01:04:15):
Helpful in forming Congress about some of the air safety
issues because he himself was upcome, up close and personal
with one of these objects, whatever they are.

Speaker 7 (01:04:24):
Could you please provide a brief synopsis on your experience
and more important than what was the reaction by.

Speaker 5 (01:04:32):
Certain elements within the Department of Defense.

Speaker 7 (01:04:35):
And some of your frustration that you experienced regarding that
reporting that type of reporting.

Speaker 5 (01:04:40):
Thanks Levy. Yes, I'd be glad too.

Speaker 4 (01:04:42):
Is that at the time of the Roosevelt UA Key sidings.

Speaker 1 (01:04:45):
I was the one star around once like all the.

Speaker 8 (01:04:47):
Navy neurologists and notionographers, and I had aerocover's mates on
the ship doing the weather forecast. And as the chief
neurologist the Navy, my responsibility was safety applied, one of
my main responsibilities. And at the time I received an
email Navy's classified system Secret system. It was addressed to
every subordinate under a command called Fleet Forces Command, the

(01:05:08):
four Star command that I reported to, and that the
commander of the Theore Roosevelt Strike Group reported to, as
well as several other units. And attached to the email
was the Go Fast video that everybody's seen now and
has been declassified and released to the public.

Speaker 4 (01:05:24):
And the email the title was Urgent Safety Apply.

Speaker 8 (01:05:27):
Issue and all capital letters, and it came from the
Operations Officer of Flee Force's Command asking if any of
the recipients of the email knew what these were these
UAP because they were having numerous near mid air collisions
as Ryan Grads saw firsthand his Fit Squadron MAS and
and then the next day that email was wiped from

(01:05:47):
my computer and no one talked about it in any
subsequent meetings of Flee Forces Command. And this was very
unusual because the primary job of Fleet Forces Command is
to prepare Navy units to deploy like the Theodore Roosevelt
Strip and that exercise was a critical pre deployment requirement
to get pilot certified to land on the plantat and
so not talking about emergent safety apply to issue. For example,

(01:06:11):
the UAP.

Speaker 5 (01:06:11):
That split a section of aircraft.

Speaker 8 (01:06:13):
You don't want anything to get within a mile of
an F eighteen when it's operating, so that they didn't
talk about it, that was covered up didn't sit well
with me. And that's the reason I have come out
today or really for the past few years to talk
about this and make sure we support all these reasons
to acknowledge and be more transparent about.

Speaker 5 (01:06:35):
UAP activity and data.

Speaker 1 (01:06:37):
And that's why I'm on.

Speaker 4 (01:06:38):
The advisory board of Bryan's Americans for.

Speaker 8 (01:06:40):
State Aerospace and we've been advocating for the FAA to
institute a system of reporting with standards to get more
information out there to support safety.

Speaker 4 (01:06:49):
Apply and science.

Speaker 2 (01:06:54):
That's a great point because why didn't they just if
it was nothing then why didn't they just say it
was nothing, like Okay, yeah, we figured it out that
we had just weather balloons in the in the local area,
you know, the fact that it was just straight covered up. Yeah,

(01:07:14):
it seems super sketchy to me. And I've already made
the point, you know, for go fast where they say
it's debunked using the math. And again, I would love
any of these people to go and ask a technical
expert in the in the Hornet, you know, any of
the weapons officers, people that have gone to top Gun.

(01:07:35):
Asked one of those guys as a safety officer even
and asked them, where did that range come from? And
can you confirm that that object is where they say
in the debunk video because it just miraculously shows up
halfway between the jet and the ground. You know, that's
exactly what like your manual bombing is an estimate. It's

(01:07:56):
going to just estimate based on a model, based what
inside the software programming of the aircraft. So if it
doesn't have range, it's going to throw something out there?
Is it going to though? My hunch is that it is.
It's just going to throw an estimate there on where
it thinks it is until it's updated with better data.
But I don't know. There's little intricacies in the Hornet

(01:08:18):
different aircraft, but I know it didn't get layser ranging
and it didn't say radar ranging on there. So what
happened after? You know, if they're in an exercise, they
saw the thing, they had it, they must have been
visual to it looking outside too. They have helmets so
they can look down and see where that thing is.
Did they intercept it? You know, did they go and
look at it and see what it is? Or did

(01:08:38):
they were they held at twenty five thousand feet for
some reason and couldn't go down there. I'd love to
talk to those pilots either way. They don't mention gimbal
at all, Like, what about gimbal? It's ridiculous.

Speaker 5 (01:08:50):
I'm okay, you have a question by representative girls and
go ask air forcers.

Speaker 13 (01:08:54):
Yeah, thank you, mister Davis. I wanted to ask where
this pants over? What are bullsome threads here? The what
is your understanding of the physics or the likely propulsion technology?
What is your assessment of what the capabilities are and

(01:09:16):
how it's being achieved?

Speaker 4 (01:09:19):
And then also be put that we'll ask about materials
and energy as well. We can only speculate.

Speaker 9 (01:09:27):
These things are so far in advanced we can only
speculate the best speculation I could come up with this.

Speaker 4 (01:09:34):
General relativity does a great job for you.

Speaker 9 (01:09:36):
Can give something like a warp humble uap do exhibit
the phenomenon of sub light, or lessons like speed for bubbles.

Speaker 4 (01:09:45):
However, that's becomes a challenge when we talk.

Speaker 9 (01:09:48):
About who may be that times into the ocean and
climb up out of the froment in the ocean and.

Speaker 4 (01:09:53):
Up in the air.

Speaker 13 (01:09:55):
So work.

Speaker 4 (01:09:56):
So it's not warm being space time. It's a work
in space time. But that I describe that.

Speaker 2 (01:10:02):
Yeah, okay, and again, and I've talked about this and
the cobernikin revolution, that heavy lobe talked about it's staring
us right in the face. The problem is they just
accept space and time as the fundamental givens. Right, So
everyone when you go to do a physics problem or

(01:10:24):
a math problem in science, there was always assumptions and
you have given assumptions that you're going to answer the
problem with. Right, and so the given assumption that we
start with is that space time is fundamental. So when
they say you're warping space time, the question is what
is space time?

Speaker 5 (01:10:41):
Right?

Speaker 2 (01:10:42):
They don't know, Like they don't know is it is
a given? It's a given? And so that's why you're
you're never going to break space time down further than C,
which is the speed of light that's in everything. What
does that mean? And each is planks constant, right, those

(01:11:02):
two things, and if you think about it, planks constant
is related to time. So the speed of light is
basically saying this distance in this amount of time, that
sets your space and time boundaries. Right, So those are
your givens. You're givens in space time as C and H,
which is just assumed. So when we say when people

(01:11:26):
like Eric Davis or probably our smartest scientists, when they
say it's warping space time, like that doesn't mean anything.
It doesn't. It's not warping space time. You can't warp
space time. Space time is just a model, you know.
So what I really think is going on is there's

(01:11:48):
we don't understand electromagnetism, we don't understand the true nature
of matter, and so what is happening is it's it's
warping somehow the actual light. It's warping light and matter.
That's what it's warping. It's not warping space time. Space
time is not a thing, right, Light and matter is

(01:12:10):
a thing. If we don't understand space time is not
a thing. So it is warping matter, right, that's what
it's doing. It's warping the interaction between the outside world
and inside that bubble whatever it is. And that's how
it is able to not have a sonic boom, and
that's how they're able to go underwater. So this where

(01:12:34):
they say it's warping space time is it's just like,
I don't know. It's like saying fire is burning, you know,
how does It's exactly what they're saying is how does
fire work?

Speaker 5 (01:12:46):
And it burns?

Speaker 2 (01:12:48):
Fire burn stuff? Just like Aristotle, you know Earth, there
fire and water. It lasted for two thousand years. It
was a great model. What did it say? It says
fire burns? Why because it's hot? That's it. It doesn't
actually answer the question, right, And what the actual question
of why fire burns is that it chemically alters through

(01:13:11):
a combustion process. Right. But you have to understand, you
have to have a new model that there are atoms
and that things are made up of different little tiny particles, right,
And that gets you a lot further. It gets you
a lot further, right, it gets you another few hundred years.
But it's not going to get you to where these
ueps are. It's not going to get you to bending

(01:13:35):
space time because you know what, the fire is not
just is burning. It's not just because fire is hot,
right in the Earth, air fire and water. In that model,
it's a given that fire burns. And in our current model,
it is a given that space time warps. And that
is ridiculous. So that's what they're missing. Let's see what

(01:13:56):
he says, space time warps, right, and he says it
so confidently, like we know what we're talking about. And
based on general relativity. General relativity has two ways you
can look at it. That space time is actually bends
right and light travels straight. That's what they say. They
say that the space time itself bends and light is
traveling straight. So that's why they say speed of light

(01:14:19):
is constant. But the math works exactly the same is
if you say, and no, actually, space time whatever the
fuck that is is straight is flat. It's just there
and light bends and matter bends. The math works exactly
the same both ways. But they've just gone to so
many courses and they've talked to themselves, they've taught so

(01:14:41):
many thousands and thousands of students and they've written so
many papers that it's just staring at them right in
the face and they just can't figure it out. And
by the way, young students are not going to figure
it out. They could, but what's going to figure it
out very quickly is going to be AI. It's coming
so fast and it is going to solve it. It's

(01:15:02):
gonna it's gonna solve that.

Speaker 4 (01:15:03):
Watch it doesn't gravity wars space time gravity.

Speaker 2 (01:15:08):
So that's right, What the fuck is gravity? They don't know? Man,
they have no gravity wards based on it. That's correct,
That is correct sor And he's like, this is our
smartest guys, We're gonna listen, what the fuck is gravity?
Explain to me what gravity is? And you can say, oh,
it's an interaction between two things. Okay, that's the same

(01:15:32):
thing that you're saying. What is air? And you're like,
air blows, you know, or what is fire? Fire? Fire
burns things, doesn't it. Yes, that's correct, sir, Fire does
burn things.

Speaker 1 (01:15:43):
Great.

Speaker 2 (01:15:43):
I'm glad we figured this out and we got to
the bottom of it. That's exactly what they're saying. Like again,
gravity is just a given. When you figure out what
inertia is inertia is just a given in our current
space time model. Look it up, Look look where inertia
comes from.

Speaker 4 (01:15:59):
Are changing space time around?

Speaker 9 (01:16:02):
Yeah, they you know, have a thinshell of energy, and
the type of energy that has to be would have
to be negative energy density. It would be consistent with
the type of energy density that you've been not create
and warm vacuum and examples of.

Speaker 4 (01:16:16):
That of the past.

Speaker 9 (01:16:17):
Your calcu that has a little vacuum region that's bound
by the two plates of the cavity. There's also squeeze lights,
squeeze states of light where that's a laser being where
you're going to take some part of the canonical noise fluctuations,
form power that part of being you're not interested in, and.

Speaker 4 (01:16:37):
Pilot up elsewhere in the face space. And that's getting
really technical, so.

Speaker 5 (01:16:44):
I'll just kind of keep it this way.

Speaker 2 (01:16:46):
That's the thing, right, It gets to where you just
you can't understand. It's too complicated. Right, the space time
warps the space time and the gravity is warping the
space time because of the gravity. All right, But if
you go back be as circular arguments, right, the math,
The math works to describe how things are moving. The

(01:17:07):
same thing talked about with Professor Simon is we know
exactly how an aircraft will behave we know if you
travel this fast then it will lift into the air, right,
it will create lyft? But why does it create lyft?
And that has literally changed since I learned it in aeronautics.
They changed, right, The model changed now it's based on

(01:17:29):
conservation of momentum. Right when I was doing it was
based on Bernoulli's principle. And so they don't know why.
It doesn't explain why. It just explains how. So space
time describes how things move, right, but they don't know
what the things are. They don't know what space time is.
And we're just going to keep going around in circles

(01:17:51):
till they figure it out that it's that they're looking
at from the wrong perspective.

Speaker 9 (01:17:56):
You're going to take the plumb back and fluctuation that
we know is plum the way world shot waves and
laser feature and are pialytic somewhere else in an area
you're not.

Speaker 4 (01:18:04):
Interested measure, and you all want to measure the amplitude
of that being.

Speaker 9 (01:18:07):
And at that point, when you take the puantum pact
of fluctuations out of that amplitude. That energy density goes negative.
And the energy density is the square of the amplitude,
so that goes negative, and that's an example of negative energy.
The mass of the EU creates space time furnature. Oh
I was gonna say, So that spacetime currententry, which we

(01:18:28):
feel is the point of dragging on the surface of
your drags down plantum vacuum fluctuations of the pointum fields
that are out in.

Speaker 4 (01:18:36):
Space near the Earth, in the facility of the Earth,
and that energy does it have to be negative?

Speaker 9 (01:18:42):
And so this is an example of theoretically predative astronomical
sources of negative energy as well as plamatory sources negative orientgy.

Speaker 2 (01:18:51):
So again you can just say a bunch of bs.
It comes down to that is what we feel as gravity.
So again he's describing space time again, where what is inertia?
Where does inertia come from? Why does mass have inertia?
Why does mass have inertia? And that is not answered
in space time, It's not answered in any of our physics.

(01:19:11):
And that was the whole thing that they were looking for.
The Higgs boson, right, and the way you know, our
understanding of it is total bs is. Look at the results.
You get zero results quantum computers, zero actual results.

Speaker 4 (01:19:25):
Right?

Speaker 2 (01:19:25):
How long have quantum computers supposedly been around? If they were,
if they were actually doing anything legitimate or correct, then
where are the results? Right? There's no results because they
went from a theoretical perspective to try and make these
quantum computers, when if you look at our regular computers,
it was built up from an engineering perspective. Same thing

(01:19:47):
with fusion. Why have we had no actual fusion results
because our understanding of plasma is incorrect, Our understanding of
plasma space time is totally incorrect. As soon as you
get a correct understanding, then all of a sudden, now
you can have the breakthroughs. And that's what they're at

(01:20:08):
the demistic on this summer. That is the big argument
is that our understanding of how the sun actually creates
what it's made out of is that it's a liquid sun,
and that'll change our whole understanding of fusion. From there,
you will be able to get room temperature fusion. So
just what are the results all these things? He's saying.
It sounds great, and it sounds awesome, and he's extremely intelligent,

(01:20:32):
super smart, he knows all of the mauth but where
are the results? Right, if you could really access the
quantum vacuum as he's talking about and create negative energy,
where are the results? And it's definitely not in the
civil world. And if they're keep him being hidden, that
would be amazing and miraculous, And it could be the case,

(01:20:52):
but I guarantee it's related to our incorrect understanding of
current physics.

Speaker 9 (01:20:58):
You need to go work and that's what you need
to build a constructive show.

Speaker 1 (01:21:04):
Just a brief comment clarification.

Speaker 3 (01:21:06):
We have two Pilar's model visits quantum mechanics and Instein's.

Speaker 1 (01:21:12):
Der Grouty, which is characters FaceTime. We don't have a
reliable theory that on miners that.

Speaker 2 (01:21:21):
Yes, this is totally true. You actually don't need gravity
in the whole quantum mechanics model, right, They don't have it.
They don't even have gravity in there, and they just say, well,
it doesn't play a factor. That's it. And then quantum
mechanics doesn't fit into general relativity because there's no place

(01:21:43):
for quantum mechanics into general relativity. They can't find it,
even though Plank's constant obviously relates directly into atomic nuclears,
the atomic nucleus. So yeah, there's they're they're totally separate.
Think about that. There's a there's a delete misunderstanding of
our current science.

Speaker 3 (01:22:04):
We're hearing is speculation. We don't have the knowledge figure
out if you can create spacetime out of negative eagins
because we have never mustered.

Speaker 1 (01:22:19):
But we don't have an understanding of that.

Speaker 3 (01:22:21):
So it's possible that you know, a millennium from now,
we'll have those quantum gravity engineers.

Speaker 1 (01:22:27):
You know, that's possible. Currently we just you know, we're
just like privatly technologically to figure it out.

Speaker 2 (01:22:35):
Yes, exactly, we're not going to have quantum gravity engineers
because quantum gravity is bullshit. It's like saying the caveman
saying in the future, we're going to have fire wielders.
You know, that's what they're saying that our understanding is
not correct. Obviously they can go faster than light. Obviously

(01:22:59):
they can connect from the surrounding atmosphere and not have
supersonic booms. Right, Obviously they can go extremely fast. It's
something related to electromagnetics. It has to be something to
related at least what we understand of electromagnetics. So instead
of billions and millions of dollars, we just need to

(01:23:19):
go back to simple experiments. I mean, look at that dude,
Chris Taiba. He basically how much did his little experiment
costs that proved that. I believe he proved it. We'll
see if anyone else bothers to do a secondary experiment.
He basically proved that you can generate electricity from the
spin of the Earth. Right, that shouldn't have been possible

(01:23:41):
based on our current theoretical assumptions. So basically, what we
basically we need more science experiments. That was my daughter
to see what's going on. Going back to the basics, right,

(01:24:05):
we don't need ten billion dollar colliders looking for something
in our theoretics. Obviously our theoretical models are not correct.
What we need is basic experiments to then actually show
that something works. Like Faraday he did through basic experiments, right,
probably one of the greatest scientists ever. He wasn't a
theoretical physicist.

Speaker 4 (01:24:25):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:24:25):
This whole idea of these theoretical physicists is just ridiculous.
And then they don't go back to the fundamentals, you know.
So that's what we need is basic in this In
this case, Avy is spot on man. He's totally correct.
We are caveman and he does understand that. But then
you'll see him step into this academia scientist right where

(01:24:47):
we know all this stuff.

Speaker 3 (01:24:49):
The question is is there something imposition of government the
scientists should look into. And you know, I would love
to help God and figure it out because they may
guide us about if you have floe.

Speaker 1 (01:25:03):
The more because it's easily net.

Speaker 9 (01:25:04):
Yeah, so we have to addis about these base and
we can speculate that on what the best approach to
take just on the work bubble or the show make
the energy that will create a termist form how truly
shorts that use based one through the two distant things.

Speaker 4 (01:25:19):
But we have we have grafted or possession. There are
no physicists where we working in those programs are.

Speaker 9 (01:25:27):
Basically mechanical aerodynamics, aerospace, thermal control engineers, electronic electrical engineers,
and material scientists.

Speaker 4 (01:25:34):
And material science is a part.

Speaker 9 (01:25:35):
Of engineering offers usually kind of overlaps chemistry as well.

Speaker 4 (01:25:39):
And they've never had a physicist like him or I.

Speaker 9 (01:25:42):
They've never had an applied physicist or an experimental physicist.

Speaker 4 (01:25:46):
And so they are really lacking in the ability to
understand how the states flow.

Speaker 5 (01:25:51):
Yes, certain the legacy programs are very insulated and insular.

Speaker 7 (01:25:54):
So unfortunately it's it's it's a bit of a figured
my approach, a bit a bit of an ancestor community.
There's not a whole lot of outside involvement because it
is so highly classified, and that's been some of the
frustration and I think challenges technologically speed because we haven't
been able to recently apply new talent, us new theories

(01:26:15):
to what maybe what the US carbon may be in
possession of what about the energy?

Speaker 9 (01:26:22):
Attention the energy is a question of kind of sus
we're seeing, right, Yeah, I haven't been able to access.

Speaker 10 (01:26:30):
That, doctor Davis, An you talk for a moment, sorry
about the NIA midsense and the calculations for the object
to go from eighty thousand feet within less than a
second and fifty feet over the water.

Speaker 5 (01:26:40):
What type of energy we talking about?

Speaker 9 (01:26:42):
The hundreds of times the total wintric energy produced in
the United.

Speaker 2 (01:26:47):
States added, Yeah, and again this is all based on kinematics,
So Kevin connected that, right, and that's based off the
radar returns from the Princeton. They basically said eight thousand
feet twenty thousand feet and then twenty thousand feet or
maybe twenty eight thousand feet down to surface level. And
so I saw all the the maths one on that,

(01:27:10):
and it's based on again kinematics where you take mass,
you know, mass times acceleration, and that's how you're going
to move things. But that's not how electrics work, and
that's not how our current understanding of quantum mechanics work.
You know, it's well, they do have angular momentum, but

(01:27:32):
it's not your simple mass times acceleration. So yeah, that
shows alone is that's not the energy. That's the energy
if we were going to do it, if we were
going to with our current understanding of the universe and
space time. Right, they see when he says you're going
to you're gonna take two points in space time and

(01:27:53):
you're going to connect them, Like, what the fuck is
space time again?

Speaker 4 (01:27:56):
What is it?

Speaker 2 (01:27:57):
Define it for me? And you can't use the word
space time in the definition, but they have to. That's
my whole point is in order to define space time,
you have to say space time. All they're saying is
space time is space time. That's it. That is our
current understanding of physics, and so this should highlight that

(01:28:18):
our model is incorrect. That's what it should be highlighting.
Like analyzing UEP showed me without a doubt that our
current model is incorrect. And that's why I've go nuts
and all down these deep rabbit holes for the last
four years. And I found a lot of stuff. By
the way, is that our current model is incorrect. That's
what should change. But people cannot change their brains, like

(01:28:43):
it takes a new experiment, and a new experiment was
just done by Chris Taiba, and yet no one's talking
about it. I haven't even seen it in the headlines
or anything, right, and so it I guess you just
need time, like people to die, and then the young
people grow up and say maybe that is possible. And
the point in dark matter was so wrong. On dark matter,

(01:29:04):
it's obviously our model. It's obviously the model, like it's
always been the model.

Speaker 1 (01:29:10):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:29:12):
I just feel like I'm taking crazy pills. And that's
the kind of nod that have taken.

Speaker 9 (01:29:19):
Other representative of the observed features and performances of UAP craft,
especially the ship tap dep the this encountering number of two.

Speaker 4 (01:29:27):
Thousand four and sods and hundreds of times with the
the United States.

Speaker 14 (01:29:33):
Produces annual life every annually, and so that that accurs
really well with its still a spacecraft definite travel relativistic
world cultural relativistic, cultural relativist to.

Speaker 9 (01:29:46):
Be anywhere from ninety ninety nine percent speed, Like the
energy is disastronomically huge.

Speaker 4 (01:29:52):
So these craft I have not been I.

Speaker 9 (01:29:57):
Don't have the security clearances I need to know to
get access to the technical details that I made to
understand that the craft are consistent in size with the
tic TAC even double one size of the tic tack
that would be able to dot one hundred feet long
by fifty feet diameter of that type of boomera and
shaped craft.

Speaker 4 (01:30:17):
Aerow shaped craft trying to do a shape craft and
so forth.

Speaker 9 (01:30:20):
Uh, the biggest ones that had been observed, especially that
being investigated at means in nineteen ninety nine.

Speaker 4 (01:30:25):
Involving sky in four space that.

Speaker 9 (01:30:27):
One was the six hundred foot long craft and it
was about perfetly one hundred feet tall. And so they
don't have possess shape craft like that. I've never been
told that it's usually.

Speaker 4 (01:30:38):
The more man scale something they couldn't move. Yeah, so
we might be like, yeah, so we we can only speculate.

Speaker 9 (01:30:47):
I know Jimmy Caaski wrote in his book, I argue
with the title of it, but anyway.

Speaker 4 (01:30:53):
It was go out called the Califron. If I'm working
with that did and Georgian Now.

Speaker 9 (01:30:58):
Okay only has TV and wotstaus and so Jim mentioned
and Jim was the program manager for the aasam as.

Speaker 4 (01:31:08):
WVAP it was. And so basically he described his book
somebody I don't know if it was him, because he
never I think he said it was him when.

Speaker 9 (01:31:19):
Inside one of these craft that he got access to
and they couldn't recognize any propulsion or how devices or
systems inside the craft.

Speaker 4 (01:31:28):
It was completely usual tras.

Speaker 2 (01:31:30):
J Yeah, of course, right, how are you going to
get a six hundred and seventy foot by one hundred
foot tall object using our current understanding? Right, you're not.
It's like you remember Spaceballs at the beginning, and they
had the just giant ship and it just keeps going
and keeps going and keeps going, and then they have

(01:31:51):
like the thrusters at the end. Right that this is
our understanding, right, this is what we think spacecraft are
going to be like and it's it's obviously not going
to be like that, right, It's going to be like Dune,
where they can just somehow they understand how the universe
actually works and they can manipulate it in ways that

(01:32:11):
we can't currently understand because our models of the universe
are incorrect, and they've always been incorrect looking back in
the history. So the Compernican revolution that we need is
the understanding that there is going to be a Compertican revolution,
like the idea should be our current model is incorrect, right,
that is the that is what we need. If you

(01:32:34):
look back, that was the Coperticin revelation, and before that
there was already a revolution before that, So that's what
we need. Obviously, you're not going to get a giant
craft from flying in like spaceballs, so it's using some
other technology. And when you go inside of a craft

(01:32:55):
and where's the where's the urban you know, where do
they put in the gas? Like that's that's what we're
literally saying, like they're not putting in the gas, Like
if they're real, then I think that's why they're afraid
to share any of this information, is it's going to
up end everything and show that they don't know what
the f they're talking about, so they better not tell anybody.

Speaker 9 (01:33:18):
And I expected maybe that possibly they're teleporm the energy
from remote distant location where the energy is produced.

Speaker 4 (01:33:24):
Is still afforded to the craft.

Speaker 2 (01:33:26):
Yeah, they're shipping, they're shipping the gas. They have a pipeline,
supersonic pipeline, and they can ship the gas right to
the ship.

Speaker 3 (01:33:38):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:33:39):
Yeah, that's it can't be our understanding of space time
tell the.

Speaker 9 (01:33:44):
Craft can move around about how to be carried from
telling or rocket in general, or an advanced work drive
in general.

Speaker 1 (01:33:51):
That's one possibly.

Speaker 4 (01:33:52):
When speculated on the material.

Speaker 5 (01:33:55):
So what do you have is these carbon can take
multiple soon?

Speaker 9 (01:34:00):
Right?

Speaker 5 (01:34:01):
Are you saying that that is the same with other
material other elements.

Speaker 4 (01:34:06):
The way in which what we found is different forms.

Speaker 5 (01:34:10):
Of these elements that need it would be.

Speaker 9 (01:34:12):
Different always, It would be different combinations of the element
ratios as well.

Speaker 4 (01:34:17):
Correct.

Speaker 9 (01:34:18):
Yeah, so you're you're you're going to have a variety
of whatever structural part of this that came off from
UNP And I don't know because I wasn't. I didn't
have this uh way that acknowledge sapisis I don't only
have T S s C I. So at the s
CI level, I was informed that there would be combinations
of elements from the periodic table, combinations of their isotopes,

(01:34:39):
so the variety of elements as a naturally pur or
some isotopes, so they're mixed together in a certain way,
and then they're structurally built in a very unusual way
that even today.

Speaker 4 (01:34:49):
We have no equivalent or end off too.

Speaker 9 (01:34:53):
So these were these This is at about as much
as I was giving information an s CI W.

Speaker 2 (01:34:57):
Yeah, basically like saying we take earth, air, water, we
mix it around. That's what we're talking. Like, no one
has said our understanding of physics is incorrect. I mean
the abvi's come the closest I guess, So I guess
he did say that he did, But then his the
methods that he is using is still just using our

(01:35:21):
current physics. So it's I love what he says, but
then his actions are just really strange. I don't know.

Speaker 5 (01:35:32):
And do you have or can you comments on whatever
species have been.

Speaker 4 (01:35:39):
And these crafts and how are they large?

Speaker 5 (01:35:45):
Are they are they multiple species?

Speaker 3 (01:35:47):
Are they are?

Speaker 9 (01:35:49):
Like?

Speaker 5 (01:35:49):
What was their size?

Speaker 4 (01:35:50):
And how they are Usually on a craft they're typically
the multiple species people through really degrades and words.

Speaker 9 (01:35:57):
People were talking about utilities and said to it's not
that they're reptilian or insectuary, it's that they are presentable
uh to the precipiment of reptile or an insect type
human world because they have this I headed forelombs and.

Speaker 4 (01:36:12):
Uh torso so large small uh ghiman science humans.

Speaker 1 (01:36:18):
Game and are there having your crew?

Speaker 9 (01:36:21):
Well the well the grays unfamiliar with from uh investigating
the crash of Corona, which is miss misnade the the
crash and ross wall.

Speaker 5 (01:36:31):
It's not the crashing roswel it's the fashion thartia in Mexico.

Speaker 9 (01:36:34):
Uh, those were praisals, were books with tall and the
Nordics are typically.

Speaker 4 (01:36:39):
Hun in size uh properly I from five.

Speaker 9 (01:36:42):
Six feet taller And same with the people who miss
miss label reptilian and insect work.

Speaker 4 (01:36:49):
They're roughly that top time two. I haven't heard anything
about anything.

Speaker 9 (01:36:54):
Uh seven grade feet in nineteen talls that a treatment,
so uh you never.

Speaker 5 (01:37:03):
Uh, folks, we're gonna do here for talk.

Speaker 1 (01:37:05):
Hey, I'm her up down at the wrong.

Speaker 4 (01:37:09):
Where you are about to take a three minute break.

Speaker 1 (01:37:11):
For a change.

Speaker 7 (01:37:12):
Here in the panel we're gonna we'll roll right into
it if you use a rep and please do so.
But we are going to trump at this break significantly
because we've done a lot to cover and you definitely want.

Speaker 1 (01:37:22):
To do around for this next panel as.

Speaker 4 (01:37:24):
Well, Big Ronald Compert panels break, What do you.

Speaker 5 (01:37:33):
Those are a plane to catch?

Speaker 1 (01:37:34):
So we played right up to you.

Speaker 2 (01:37:35):
Guys are lower, Okay, I need to figure out how
to slide stream. Well, look at that Steve Bassett. Who
else is there? Let's see Martin Willis. I saw Leslie Kane.

(01:37:57):
It's Ryan Graves, let's see. Yeah, all the usual suspects,

(01:38:20):
Chris Mall and Steve Bassett, Leslie Kane. I wonder if
they know they're on live TV right now. I should
be live streaming this, damn it. Then I wouldn't be

(01:38:45):
as I wouldn't talk as much. Josh, I think it
is good. At least there's one kind of mainstream physicist
out there, like Avvy talking about this, and he brought
up a good point. I think that's Keith taking a

(01:39:09):
photo with Tim. I wonder who they're going to have
on the second panel. We didn't know about it. There's
my gold Okay, So they're gonna have my gold in there.

(01:39:30):
Tim Burchett's still there. Two bad Repluna had to leave. Yeah,
it is nice not being live. I can just say

(01:39:51):
what I want at the same time, though probably thousands
of people, I saw twelve hundred people touching on vetted Live.
I thought I recognized her. All right, I'm gonna leave

(01:40:12):
the sound up and then I'm gonna go use the
bathroom and see what's going on with my kids. That's
the problem. I live in Portugal, so all this stuff
is like dinner time, and I have to take care
of her. All right, I'll be back.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}UAP-Congress Bombshells Pt1/3: Crash Retrievals, Exotic Materials, & Hidden Government Programs!

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

All Episodes

UAP-Congress Bombshells Pt1/3: Crash Retrievals, Exotic Materials, & Hidden Government Programs!

Stuff You Should Know