Why Are UAPs Around Nuclear bases? A Deep Dive with Simon Holland

Are the most important breakthroughs in physics deliberately hidden? In this deep, unfiltered conversation, Prof. Simon returns to explore how advanced physics may have been locked away since WWII — from zero-point energy and plasma stealth to the classified “black world” of defense research. We revisit legendary test pilot Dan Isbell’s extraordinary UAP encounters and the physics they suggest, and we ask: Has mainstream science been steered off course for decades? Topics we explore: – Why WWII and the Manhattan Project may have shifted physics into secrecy – Test pilot insights on exotic craft, plasma sheathing, and zero-point energy – The quantum vacuum vs. the old “ether” — and why the words changed – Suppressed experiments from Faraday to Tesla to Chris Chiba today – Passive radar, Gorgon Stare, and citizen-built detection networks – The real split between mundane UAPs and the 5% that defy known physics – Consciousness, remote viewing, and the idea of a connected universe This is a rigorous but open-minded discussion for anyone serious about UAPs, advanced propulsion, and the future of physics. 🔔 Subscribe to Lehto Files for more interviews with pilots, scientists, and truth-seekers digging into the frontier of science and UAP research.
Guest links & resources below ↓ 
00:00 Why Dan Isbell’s interview mattered 02:12 NHI or reverse-engineered? What Dan likely saw 05:00 Quantized “plasma ball” & zero-point energy idea 08:20 Challenging mainstream physics (JWST, Standard Model tension) 11:40 Test-pilot mindset: avionics, batteries, & real-world engineering 15:20 Funding gatekeeping & the “black world” vs public science 18:50 Aurora, UCAVs, and the loyal-wingman concept 23:10 Pseudosatellites & real surveillance: passive vs active sensors 27:40 Gorgon Stare and time-indexed ISR (past–present–future on demand) 31:20 Passive radar vs stealth + the Star Trek “cloaked ship” analogy 35:10 Plasma stealth, SR-71 inlet nosecone, triangles vs plasma sheaths 39:40 Nuclear sites, Faraday cages, neutrinos, and silo incidents 44:30 Sorting the mundane 95% from the truly “high-strange” 5% 49:10 What AARO/Congress may hold and why footage stays hidden 53:20 Decentralizing truth: Tesla, Faraday, Chiba; consciousness links 57:30 Closing thoughts & what’s next
Chris Lehto is a former F-16 pilot with 18 years of experience in the Air Force. He managed multi-million dollar simulator contracts, was an Electronic Attack SME for the Aggressors (OPFOR), and commanded the US Detachment at TLP for NATO Fighter Pilot Training. 
Chris fought in Iraq for 5 months in 2006. He spent 3 years in Turkey as an exchange pilot and is fluent in Turkish. Chris is also a certified crash safety investigator, having investigated Air Force accidents for four years. Lehto has a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry-Materials Science from the Air Force Academy and a Master's in Aeronautical Science from Embry-Riddle University. He was stationed in various locations worldwide, including South Korea, Italy, Alaska, Turkey, and Spain. Lehto's YouTube channel, "Lehto Files," focuses on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) research, future tech insights, and sharing knowledge. H

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Okay, welcome back to Professor Simon. I think we both
are just looking at the reaction and the comments from
our interview with Dan Ispel, and I really think it
was a historic interview.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Oh, Chris, it was fantastic. Dan is an absolute legend.
It was so good that we both covered him, and
we're very honored to be kind of contacted by test
pilot Dan and his story that he has kept secret

(00:32):
for over forty five years is incredibly interesting. The more
I have thought about it and what he saw, the
nature of the craft where it was at the time
in history, it's relationship possibly to the runs from forest incident. Yeah,

(00:54):
what kind of feedback have you been getting on your
channel from the interview?

Speaker 1 (01:00):
The comments have been overwhelmingly positive, you know, I don't
remember maybe Doc Rogers had just the same amount of
overwhelmingly positive comments. But I think everyone is just happy
that he came out and his credibility. Dan has so
much experience, you know, he had so many stories and
he has so many more. I had quite a few

(01:21):
comments actually asking to have him back on just to
talk about his aviation stories further. So maybe I'll do that.

Speaker 2 (01:29):
What's your thoughts? I mean, a big question, Chris Lee,
So what do you think he saw? You know, have
other people seem similar craft? And if so, you know,
what's your views on it? I mean a big question.
NHI or USAF.

Speaker 1 (01:51):
That's the big question, right And we asked, We asked
Dan that, you know, do you think it could have
been reverse engineered? And he said potentially possibly. You know,
it felt like he didn't want to rule it out.
But the impression I got is he thought it was
Nhi is the impression I got, especially from his later encounters.
You know, when he's getting when he's getting out of

(02:12):
the hot tub and he has the orb above him,
the craft above him, and that's where he described it
as it basically went to a plasma ball, a perfectly
circular white plasma ball, and then really interestingly, it quantized
where it doubled in size, and then it went to
another third in size. So he set a total of

(02:33):
four four times the original size of the plasma ball
before it shut off. I thought that was really interesting.
I've been thinking more about that encounter and I talked
to a physicist, Na sim Haramane. That interview will come
out in a few weeks. Really interesting interview again talking
about this quantization of space, zero point energy, et cetera.

Speaker 2 (02:56):
To make it clear, the concept on the word quantize
is where something isn't analogue. It's not turning up a
volume control smoothly. It's jumping in in defined steps. We
see this in nature. It seems counterintuitive, but for example,

(03:18):
electrons are in in defined orbital energy levels. They don't
drift between them. They stay in one and go snap
and are in a in a lower level and throw
away energy in the form of photons and and and
plasma does that as well. So it's very very much

(03:42):
a thing of physics. And you know it it proves
in a way that it's that it's a bigger force
of nature from our universe. You know, it's not it's
not may, it's not it's not a throttle quadrant, is it.
You know, it's you know, it's something which jumps. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (04:04):
It was really very pleasantly surprised to hear at the
end of our interview where Dan really talks about the
plasma universe or the electric universe. Thunderbolts Project is another
YouTube channel I follow closely. I'll watch all their videos,
and his impression was that the craft are getting the
energy from the quantum vacuum, if you will. Basically, the

(04:28):
the the zero point energy, which after talking with Nasimhaman
and he is investigating this is basically the zero point
is at zero kelvin. There is still an amazing amount
of energy in that area of space, you know, and
we just our current physics just says there's no energy

(04:48):
in empty space at zero kelvin. There's no energy in
the system, right they say that there's no vibrations, there's
no energy, there's no temperature, but zero energy means at
zero degrees kelvin and there is still an amazing amount
of energy. And that was Dan Ispel's I guess his
intuition or his suspicion is that these craft they're they're

(05:12):
pulling the energy from that quantum vacuum, They're pulling zero
point energy, and that's how they're able to these amazing physics.

Speaker 2 (05:22):
I completely agree. I think that that opens the kind
of worms of of what we're told in conventional physics.
I mean, I think that a lot of physics that
we are taught and we kind of use our physics
that fit physics models, and there's tons of evidence out there,

(05:47):
you know, coming from James Webspace telescope even about the
age of the universe and inflation theory and and as
you say, the connectivity and energy that's in our universe
doesn't fit the standard model of physics, and I think
we need to expose that and have interesting physics thinkers,

(06:09):
like guests that we both have on our shows to
actually discuss it more open mindedly. I think it's so true.

Speaker 1 (06:18):
Yeah, and it was amazing to hear from from Dan
Ispel because test pilots, and he talked about how he
became a test pilot. He actually didn't have the hours
required to be a test pilot. But and I've learned
this over the years. Test plots, when you go through
test pilot school is actually you're doing a thesis. You're
actually going through and it's much more science nerdy program

(06:41):
than you would originally expect. You know, you imagine a
test pilot. You know, they just go to the plane,
everything's already been decided, and then they do the actual test.
You know, okay, go this speed this out, you know
everything right to these exact parameters. But actually know the
test pilots are very integral and creating the tests and

(07:02):
actually determining what you know, the aerodynamics, the electronics, everything
deeply related to the testing of that airframe, so that
it's much nerdier than you would suspect. And like he
mentioned when he created that radio that would just tie
directly into the battery of the fron eleven the Ardvark,

(07:22):
that is a huge thing because even in the F sixteen,
we can only have the battery on for fifteen minutes,
so we would actually yeah, let's say if your wingman
his plane breaks, which happens a lot, and he has
to step to a new plane, and it takes them,
say thirty minutes to run to the other plane's sweating,
get it ready, everything started again, we actually turn we'll
turn the battery off, turn everything off, and just sit

(07:45):
there in a dead plane essentially wait twenty minutes, and
then we turn the battery back on because you don't
want to waste that battery. But then you can use
the radio. And so Dan actually created this his own invention.
If if you will reconnected the battery to the radio
in the in the Ardvark, And so yeah, he knew

(08:07):
all this stuff.

Speaker 2 (08:08):
To prior to you having any battery which is powerful
enough to turn on the Avion X, you would have
to run the engine, which is you know, to get
to get generator. Is that right?

Speaker 1 (08:20):
No, so, well, you'll have a battery and it recharges
through the generator. So we would have you have fifteen
minutes of battery essentially, and it's based on voltage. You
know when your battery right, so you have at least
and they have sixteen. Anyway, we have at least fifteen
minutes of just straight battery usage. And even when the

(08:41):
engine fails, you actually have a limited and that is
quite a serious issue, is you only have about fifteen
minutes of battery use. So if the battery is powering
your any sort of your major systems, like it can't
power the hydraulics, et cetera. So no, generally in aircraft,
at least in the F sixteen, the generators recharge the

(09:03):
battery consistently. It's kind of like how it works in
your car essentially that once your alternator goes far, you
know your batterial has a certain usable time limit. But
my point is, you know, that's how Dan got to
be a test pilot is he knows about electronics. He
knows how electrics work. You know, at an engineering level,

(09:25):
like he engineered these systems, and so to hear his
impressions of how these craft work was really interesting. And
I think we should listen to these people. That's where
we're going to get the most information, you know, observations
about the universe from really smart, intelligent people, and then
use those observations to update our theories. Where it seems
like now our science, you know, they're just theorists. They're

(09:48):
just sitting in their basements, are sitting and in rooms
with not even lab equipment, and they're coming up with theories.
And then they're telling all of these people, very smart
intelligent people like Dan Isfel and that it doesn't exist,
you know, what he saw cannot exist, which I think
is just ridiculous.

Speaker 2 (10:07):
All right, Yeah, and I think it's even worse than that.
I think that funding now for science is like you
just can't push boundaries. It seems, you know that you
only get funding to as a as a continuation of
the of the continue of the present paradigm or you know,

(10:29):
of physics and anything novel just forget it, you know,
it's just it's it's really stage. I mean, do you think, Chris,
that they're hiding something is there? Something is there a
kind of a black world of physics of better knowledge,
and a kind of a bollocks world of white physics

(10:50):
where we're going, uh, well, you know, that's as much
as you need to know.

Speaker 1 (10:57):
I mean a few years ago, oh, I would assume
that that thought is just ridiculous, you know, and that's
the land of a conspiracy theorists, and there's no way
that could be possible. But now I think that's actually
more probable than not. It's actually that this physics has
been hidden. And again I keep mentioning this guest, nots mphoerment,

(11:21):
but his first paper that came out in two thousand
and four. He published it and the next day it
was taken down by Los Alamos. And his paper actually
related to nuclear energy, right, So essentially the quantum vacuum
where you could there is some sort of what used

(11:45):
to be called an ether medium, and now they call
it the quantum vacuum. It's kind of like you can't
say UFOs anymore. We have to say ueps. They changed
the word so you can't say the ether. So now
it's quantum vacuum. Really, that's what they're talking about. They're
talking about a medium that pervades all of the space
that we know of. And in past this was called

(12:08):
the luminiferous ether. But you can't see that your left
out of the room. So now they just say, oh,
it's the quantum vacuum. Right, they call it the quantum vacuum.
But it is the same thing. It's a medium, and
I think it has been hidden.

Speaker 2 (12:21):
Well, my kind of thought on this is that there's
a really good bit of evidence that there is hidden physics,
and that is when the Trinity Manhattan Project turned a
blackboard physics equation into a bomb. It was the ultimate

(12:42):
weapon that used physics to weaponize something which the enemy
wouldn't know what hit them. And it seems to me
that ever since World War Two that the military have
needed advanced physics or have wanted more advanced physics to
come along to be the ultimate secret unknown stick. I mean,

(13:10):
you must have come across just bits of technology. They go, well,
you don't get that in the apple store. I mean,
which is fair enough. I mean, military needs to have
that kind of thing. But has the military desire to
have advanced physics kept physics secret? I mean anti gravity

(13:31):
research must have been must must have been of great
interest to defense contractors and zero point energy and energy
saving and energy conversation conversation whatever the word is conservation
and generally that kind of technology we don't have. But

(13:52):
does the military, I mean, when you were in the military,
was it was it genuinely fifty years ahead of what
you could buy in the Apple store.

Speaker 1 (14:03):
Not that I saw, you know, but even in the military,
it's very walled off. There's walled gardens. You know. The
Special Access Program is a is a bigoted list. You know.
I was working on simulator systems at Luke Air Force
Base and they wouldn't let me see the simulator for

(14:25):
the F thirty five. Even though I did work on
ancillary parts of the F thirty five simulator, they never
let me actually actually fly it in any manner. And
and so they're very picky on how many people can
be on the list. There's limits to that and which
people are on the list. And you know I did,

(14:47):
I wasn't important enough to be on that list. And
it also knew very little to nothing about satellite systems.
You know, even though we used we used comsack. It
was extreme only secret and we used all the GPS data,
the Almanac data. We jobbed GPS, you know, so we

(15:08):
had to know a lot about how GPS systems work, right,
but just from an operational perspective, we knew just the
minimum to actually use the systems and to you know,
fix any faults and et cetera. But how it actually
worked the satellite constellation systems or how the satellites worked
was deeply held secret. So no, it's it's very walled

(15:30):
off wall garden.

Speaker 2 (15:33):
Yeah. I've just had a fascinating conversation with Nick Cook,
who is the who was the aerospace editor for James
Defense Weekly. He did an interview with Jesse Michaels talking
about the mythical Aurora spyplane and my background very much

(15:53):
as growing up with parents who worked at the military
base rif mcrahammish in civil capacity for the government, and
Aurora was the buzzwords at the time. But what Nick
Cook claims, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on this,
is that at the end of the Cold War, there

(16:17):
was when SR seventy one's or A twelves were being
a bit long in the twoth and you know U
two's were really old, but still fantastic, wonderful airplanes. The NRO,
the National Reconcerts Office, was still waiting for live space
spased Enemy of the State type video pictures from a

(16:42):
war zone to be beamed onto their you know, flat
screen TVs in Langley or wherever, and it wasn't available yet.
And so he's saying that the Aurora program, from what
he got an interview with a senior doodeper, was just
a project name for a stop gap measure for for

(17:06):
for for an airplane with some capabilities from an n
R wish list such as, I want a spy plane
that goes higher, I want a spyplane that goes faster,
I want a spy plane that incorporates stealth. And I

(17:26):
want a spyplane that is unmanned. And that's what we've
got today, I mean Global Hawk. What's what's the percentage
of unmanned unmanned aircraft in the US Air Force today?
Isn't it some staggering number? I don't know.

Speaker 1 (17:48):
Actually, you know, when I was in Iraq, I think
there was only five predators over a wrack at any
one time. And I and I remember complaining, not not
politically in a politically correct manner, in the bar to
a general and he wasn't happy about it, but basically
saying is we should you know, we should have had

(18:09):
predators covering Iraq. It shouldn't have been just five. You know,
they were using F sixteen's to do this kind of
ISR surveillance mission.

Speaker 2 (18:19):
That's perfect.

Speaker 1 (18:20):
Yeah, that's perfect for predators or your long duration, cheap
to operate drones. So that was two thousand and five
and six we only had five over Iraq. I think
now it would be reversed, so I think you'd have
way more drones. And when I was leaving the Air Force,
that was the idea of fighting over the Taiwan Straits.

(18:42):
You're basically going to have you know, unmanned UCAVs, so
unmanned combat UAVs out in front and then as the
first tier, and then your second tier would have your
man fighters maybe even further back, you know, in control
for those UAVs. But that's the future of warfare as

(19:04):
we're seeing.

Speaker 2 (19:06):
Oh, unmanned combat drones. You know whoa mind blought blowing Chris.
I thought about high high altitude reconnaissance drones and some
of them, obviously do you know they drop bombs and missiles,
but an actual replacement for a for the ooder loop

(19:30):
trained pilots that pretty sophisticated. Wow, okay, so and what
and did you ever come across the concept of a
loyal wingman where you would be a pilot but you
would have a couple of unmanned things helping.

Speaker 1 (19:48):
You, you know, never operationally. We just we heard about it.
That was the idea, right, the F twenty two, the
F thirty five would have these loyal wingmen. And the
Air Force does now have a program they call him.
I can't remember what the acronym stands for, but basically, yeah,
you have Lawyer wingman and we did actually plan, you know, Chris,

(20:10):
missiles in a manner are they're your programmed right U
calves essentially you know, they don't come back, but they
are unmanned aerial vehicles, you know, and they air breathing
air breathing systems that are going to hit a certain target.
One second, Simon, Sorry, my dog is I need to

(20:30):
go let him out?

Speaker 2 (20:32):
He needs to go out, Fluffy. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (20:34):
I didn't want him come down, and I knew he'd
want to go up going fluffy. Hey, my wife, my
wife's my wife said tell Simon that we we got
a new puppy, another little another little fluffy, super cute.

Speaker 2 (20:53):
Well we have three. Our old dog is called a mua. Yeah.
I mean you try to go to the vat and
they go move, go, yeah, moo, that's right. And and
we used to have Leika, after the space dog, and

(21:14):
now we've got we inherited a dog with a name
that's called Dolly, so she's just hollow Dolly, she's fine.
And my Collige, my personal dog, is named after the
French kinetic artist Jean tugli who because she's just kinetic,
which is great. Yeah, so you love them awesome.

Speaker 1 (21:38):
But I think kind of what we talked about before that,
you know, if I was in modern warfare at the time,
I would want what you've mentioned is a long loiter,
high altitude balloon type system, you know, because the problem
with satellites is if they're in lower orbit, they're going
very fast, so you're only going to see them come

(21:59):
over a certain area. They're very difficult to move, and
if you want them to be geostationary, now they're going
to be very far away because your orbit has to
match the spin of the Earth and it depends where
you're looking on the Earth, but basically they're going to
be many tens of thousands of kilometers, so you have
to have much larger cameras, et cetera. So what I

(22:20):
would want is something that could float much closer, like
a Chinese spy balloon, that you would be maybe higher
and have some stealth capability to it be difficult to see.
So that's what I would want, is some sort of
aerogel drone. And I haven't seen anything in that nature.

Speaker 2 (22:38):
Oh you have, you have, Well, you haven't seen. You
haven't seen them. But they know they do it. They
totally exist. There's a program. They don't talk about the
nature of the type of craft very much apart from
they call them buoyant. They don't describe why how they're buoyant.

(23:01):
I mean, some of them are hydrogen helium. But there's
the program goes under this kind of pseudonym of calling
them pseudo satellites. They're not satellites because they're still in
the stratosphere, but they're way above flight levels. There are
sixty plus thousand feet I hear they might be eighty

(23:24):
plus thousand feet. And they were on the wish list,
you know, of the National Reconaissance Office way back that
one of the possibilities of what AURORA actually, you know,
the legacy of AURORA as a program that is just

(23:44):
a test program, was on mannedarial vehicles and high altitudes
long loitering surveillance drones. And then the other thing that
you can do from these long loitering craft is that
you know longer actually have conventional as we would think
cameras on them. You have a very very sophisticated sensor

(24:09):
array which is a combination of synthetic s synthetic a
radar stuff for altitude and obviously seeing through poor weather
conditions and maybe material recognition. That's quite controversial. But the
other system, which is definitely out there and definitely known,

(24:34):
is a system an AI system. One of the names
that has been banded around is gorgon Stare, and the
idea of gorgon Stare, which almost definitely was used in
the Middle East, is its time based media. So what
if you can record everything in downtown wherever in the

(24:59):
Middle East, you can look into the past, the see
the current, and then work out the future. So you
can actually say when an IUD goes off where and
there's a car seen in the vicinity. You can rewound,

(25:20):
rewind Gorgan's there to say where did that blue pickup
truck come from? And then you can say where is
it now? So you've got past the incident and the future.
Now that's real amazing surveillance. And you know that's and
for that, as you say, Chris, you need long, loistering, big,

(25:44):
very high resolution overview. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (25:48):
You mentioned a couple of things there. One is SAR,
you know, synthetic aperture radar, and I've looked into that
a lot recently with doctor b when he talked about
being able to scan under the ground using synthetic aviture radar,
and I think these high altitude systems are probably not

(26:09):
going to use that. And the simple reason is now
you have to. It's an active system, so you're sending
out electrons, you're sending out signals, which means you're highlighting
yourself to everyone.

Speaker 2 (26:20):
You're there, right. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (26:22):
But what is very good, and that's why flear is
very good, or which you mentioned there, is just listening
to signals. So that would be an amazing capability is
listening to cell phone signals well of like vehicle people
and vehicles that are putting down I DS, et cetera,
where the ID signal is emanating from to set off

(26:44):
the device. So listening passive passive, it would it would
all be passive. You're not going to have active sensors
up there because then you just highlight your position easily
to enemy systems.

Speaker 2 (26:57):
Yeah, and just this last week we were all learning
about what current Russia is doing was the world's biggest
passive radar, which literally is turning Western Europe into its
own Soviet radar system. Because passive radar, when you fly

(27:23):
through even with a stealth aircraft, who here's my stealth aircraft,
through radio signals, through cell phone signals, through Wi Fi,
through everything, you can detect something passively without sending out
an active beam that gives away your signal. So passive

(27:44):
radar is is massively important. Have you heard that passive
radar can pick up a conventionally stealth aircraft that might
be only stealth from from an enemy's microwave radar. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (28:02):
I mean, luckily I don't know anything of any sort
of classified nature on this, but what you can tell
if you just look into unclassified information on it. Yes,
So stealth aircraft are flying.

Speaker 2 (28:16):
Through the air.

Speaker 1 (28:16):
You know, they're equipped to not be seen to rate
our energy, meaning they absorb it or deflected off at
weird angles so it doesn't go back to the receiver,
but they're still flying through the air. So it reminds
me of in Star Trek, you know, when Captain Kirk
Kirk when they're seeing the stealth what was it Wrath

(28:36):
of Kahn ship the Cloak.

Speaker 2 (28:41):
Ships of the Klingons or the Romulans.

Speaker 1 (28:45):
Yeah, sorry, yeah, I think it was specifically in Wrath
of Khan when Kirk, you know, he brings Spock over
and he says, look, you can see it there, and
you can tell where the cloak was because it slightly
moves the background radiation, right, And that's basically what you're
talking about is through the air right now, it's full,
it's full of electromagnetic radiation from all of our signals, right,

(29:07):
and everything.

Speaker 2 (29:08):
An enormous grid. Imagine a grid which gets slightly bent
toward distorted by anything, yea, even the stealthy aircraft.

Speaker 1 (29:18):
Yeah, exactly. And for stealth aircraft even you know there's
stealth to certain certain wavelengths. You can't be stealth to everything,
at least not that we know of unless and I
wanted to bring this back to dan Isbel's interview. He
talked about when he was at Ewards Air Force Base,
he thought of a way to stealth aircraft. And I've

(29:40):
heard of this before where you could use some sort
of plasma. If you could sheathe the aircraft, the leading
edge of an aircraft in some sort of ionized gas,
which is a plasma, then theoretically you could just absorb
all of the radar energy. In that case, maybe it
would absorb all of the radarergy so then it wouldn't

(30:02):
reflect anything. And so in that case you could stealth
an aircraft. That would be I guess active stealth, which
again I've never heard of, which is why I can
talk about it because I have no knowledge of it
any sort of classified sense.

Speaker 2 (30:14):
You were reading the wrong book. Active stealth. Yeah, using
plasma was part as far as I mean, what do
I know, But as far as I have heard, the input,
those cones of the SR seventy one's are massive, and
obviously they're spikes that moved to readirect the shockwave of

(30:38):
supersonic air, but they are an incredibly strong radar return,
and so an early plasma stealth application was just to
coat the pointy bit of the inloot inloot nose cone
of the SR seventy one with an electrical field, a

(31:01):
plasma an ionized charge section that would at least reduce
the radar signature of a very very active radar target.

Speaker 1 (31:13):
Oh yeah, I'm and I've heard that multiple times. You know,
I think it's these concepts aren't that difficult to come
up if you have a basic understanding of how the
systems work. But another interesting point Danispelt talked about was,
first his sighting at Upper Hayford was a triangle. That's

(31:34):
really interesting. Yeah, we heard Borland talk about that. But
what was different about the triangle that Borland, Dylan Borland
talked about in the UAP hearings is that was your
standard TR three B and it seemed to have propulsion
with it had light balls at the three corners and
then one larger kind of plasma bawl right in the
center of the craft. Whereas what dan Ispelt talked about

(31:58):
is the whole craft was noted in some sort of
plasma sheath colored sheath, and this is basically that's that's
very similar to what Doc Rogers talked about. We mentioned
him before, as he said, he watched a video of
a test uh test vehicle. It was it was actually

(32:18):
saucer shaped. It was fully saucer shaped, right, it wasn't
triangular shaped. But he mentioned around it when it when
it when it was doing its crazy anti gravity system
and orienting up at forty five degrees and turning around.
Uh said, there was electrostatic some sort of electrostatic uh
electrics around it, and he was he didn't want to

(32:40):
describe actually in detail what it looked like because he
does not want to give away any sort of I
guess classified data or any any data to help the adversary.
But I thought that was interesting.

Speaker 2 (32:53):
Oh, completely agree, Yeah, there's obviously something in it. My
overview of this is that we are very basic meat
puppets with incredibly narrow uh uh your senses, and the

(33:15):
universe is much wider and bigger and much more connected,
and you know, we live in this, in this bubble
of perception surrounded by much more interesting things. You know,
when when we call uap UFOs multi dimensional, I think

(33:36):
that it's probably correct. I mean, I think there it's
very unlikely that their aluminum solid flying sources are much
thick prefer to think that they are in a physics
that we can only barely perceive, and as occasionally they
pop into our reality, either by mistake or intentionally for purpose.

(34:02):
And you know, it's really fascinating. We need the signs
to actually start thinking out of the box and looking
multi dimensionally into U A P. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (34:19):
I think that's a great point, and it seems quite clear.
I think we are actually getting closer to an answer.
I think it is clear that our physics went off
the rails at World War Two. I think that was
a very emotional It's you know, World War Two still
affects our world in a very serious manner. And I

(34:42):
think if you look that's when Nikola Tesla's work was classified.
You know, there's very good argument that it's still classified.
And that's what Nicola Tesla argued, is that there is
a quantum vacuum, there's energy throughout the system. We're all
basically connected through some sort of medium. And I think
that's I think it's coming out. I think many people

(35:04):
have come to the same conclusion. That's what I found
looking just with help of AI in my basement, I
found the same thing. Salvatore Pais he found the same thing.
I'm meeting with him again in a couple of weeks.
Hopefully we can push history further on the super force.
And like I mentioned, Nasim Haamane, he also found the

(35:25):
same thing, and I think he'll I really believe he
will get a Nobel Prize for his work on proving this.
He actually has proven it, and he used the same
knowledge and technique to show the true radius of the proton,
the charge radius of the proton in twenty thirteen. When

(35:45):
we talk about do you think this has been censored,
I think it's very clear. In twenty thirteen, he released
a paper saying, oh, no, that the actual radius of
the proton is four percent smaller than what current codata
is what they've used in physics for the last seven decades.
And they said, no, that's it's obviously this is a

(36:07):
bunk pseudoscience. But sure enough, in twenty eighteen they updated
the actual experimental codata radius of the proton to make
it to what his number was that he calculated. And
it's not like, you know, the radius was five or something.
It's point zero zero zero zero eight four one two

(36:27):
nine six. You know, it's still like ten digits and
so he showed that, and again they still say it's
not correct, but he's coming out with another paper. So
I think we are we are getting closer to an answer.
And I think it really it went off the rails
in World War Two for obvious reasons. You know, if

(36:49):
if your adversary, you know, imagine North Korea, or imagine
your enemies in Syria, et cetera, able to use advanced
fits to now do some of the things that we
see ueps doing, which is going faster than light, getting
unimaginable energy direct from them, vacuum all of a sudden,

(37:12):
it destabilizes the world and they can create amazing weapon systems,
et cetera. But sooner or later, we have to grow up.
I think humanity has to go and we have to
realize that we we're surrounded by energy. You know, there's
no lack of resources. It's really just can we mentally
be mature enough to deal with abundance? Can we actually

(37:36):
deal being part of a larger universe? Because I completely agree.
I think it's consciousness based. Like you mentioned, imagine a
dog lives in a totally different reality than you or
I do.

Speaker 2 (37:48):
They do they do wonderful reality. It's a joy. I've
always wanted to ask you something, Chris, Sure, and it's
something which I have had a real difficulty in understanding,
in understanding the logic behind this and this Why do

(38:09):
you think that we have so much cases of u
A p UFOs being attracted to nuclear sites when let
me give you my bollocks overview or the thing that
I'm having difficulty with is a nuclear weapon or a

(38:29):
nuclear power station is incredibly shielded. It has to be.
You know, if you're going to load a nuclear bomb
onto your plane or somebody's plane from a weapons store
where we have UFOs hovering over, it's inerts at the time.
It shielded. It needs to be a handleball. You in
the plane don't want to die because it's radioactive. A

(38:51):
nuclear power station, you know, is in is in a
a reactor vessel and it's got human shield thing, you know,
tons of concrete around it and obviously it's not very regular.
What's your thoughts on how and why a UFO UAP

(39:12):
could detect or be interested in a nuclear sight unless
they're looking at history, you know, to know that it's there,
because there's nothing emanating, there's no particles, there's no physics
comes out of a weapon store, are you sure?

Speaker 1 (39:30):
No? No, no, Right, that's not true. Actually, from from
what we currently understand or believe in mainstream science, is
that you can fully shield using a Faraday cage, right,
you can shield all the electromagnetic information, all the information
in that in that area of space. But that's not true.

(39:53):
Right if you look at our current physics, look at neutrinos, right,
because neutrino's neutrinos. And again and we've never directly detected neutrinos. Uh,
it's a part of our our theory that when a
neutron decays, it decays into a proton, an electron, and
some additional form of energy, and that's what we call

(40:15):
a neutrino. But if you actually go and look into
what neutrinos are in the actual proof that neutrinos actually
exist in the way we understand, it's it's very nebulous.
I would say, it's not hardcore theory. I wouldn't I
wouldn't bet my life on it exactly that that neutrinos exist.
The other thing is you can pass neutrinos through any

(40:39):
through any object. You know, they have scientific It was
a scientific experiment where they they wrote a word through
concrete transmitting neutrinos. Trinos emit from any nuclear reaction. And
that's actually what I think is the the ice cube detector.
You know, that's your colorometer by kilometer array down in Antarctica, Antarctic, YEP.

(41:04):
So it can detect where neutrinos come from. And so
if you had a few of these systems around the planet,
theoretically you could start you could triangulate where any nuclear
reaction is occurring on the Earth, and so you could
start tracking things that are moving, such as nuclear reactors
that power ships, et cetera, submarines, cubbrains. And again I

(41:27):
have no knowledge of any of this stuff, so I'm
just speculating, and I don't speak for any government agency
it by far, on anything. But if you did have
enough of these detectors, you could start triangulating where neutrinos
are coming from. And every nuclear reaction is going to
create neutrinos, and they go through anything.

Speaker 2 (41:46):
So saying anything, yeah.

Speaker 1 (41:48):
Exactly, And there's there's experiments showing that it goes through
like thirty feet of concrete, and so that would also
explain to me the Bob Solace encounter where that Mountains
Air Force base and he was down in the silo
when ten nuclear missiles were taken offline by a UAP,
a large red orb at the front gate. And you're so,

(42:10):
the question is, how is that possible? Right? If these
ICBMs are shielded against nuclear MPs. Right, that's why you
have these giant, thick doors for your ic ICB A
missile silos. Is so your enemy, King, just your enemy
can't explode a nuke right above these silos and all
of a sudden e MP all of your missiles. So
they're shielded. But they were all sent offline at the

(42:34):
same time, and I think it's their I N s's
were messed with, so their g the if your I
ssole goes offline, then your system will not launch, right
if it doesn't know where it is. So again, if
you look at current science, we can send information through
many many feet of concrete which should be shielded by

(42:58):
a Faraday cage. Has proved that that doesn't that's not
the case, and so no, I think again, it just
goes back. We don't understand science, at least our mainstream
science doesn't understand science. But looking at these cases, If
you look at these cases, it does start to make
sense that, yes, you can affect through a concrete you

(43:18):
can travel faster than light. And that's why I'm also hesitant.
You know, I just don't get excited about like three
I Atlas. You know, I don't get excited about this
UAP video, which I believe very strongly is a balloon,
because nothing we hear about from people, all the hundreds
of people that I haven't interviewed hundreds, but many dozens

(43:40):
of people who've seen these things, credible people. It doesn't
act like that, you know, They're not like, oh I
saw I saw a comment flying by and then it
turns out it was an alien ship, you know. Or
look at the You're not shooting a UAP down with
the hell fire. It's just not going to happen. Look
at what happened to food All the food fighter accounts

(44:02):
like they're shooting machine guns at it, everything, and it
just goes right through. Like these it's operating on different
it's different physics, Like it's not going to act like
a commt, it's not going to act like a comet
like AVI Lobe's like, oh, this is an alien spaceship
or whatever. But Avi lobe go and talk to all
the people that have actually seen these things, and they
don't act like commets, you know, they act crazy electromagnetic

(44:27):
multidimensional objects, you know, interact with our consciousness in ways
we can't understand because we don't really understand consciousness. So yeah,
I think we're slowly getting there, I think, but enough
people are lining up on the same general concepts, you know.
I think you you you came to the same conclusion
that it's something to do. There's some alternate physics. We're

(44:47):
all connected in some manner, just like you said, I
believe it's multidimensional. We're only we can only perceive perceive
this reality with our limited human capabilities, you know. And
I I think we're part of a larger system. Actually,
that's my whole view is it's a fact on nature
of life in the universe, and so these systems that

(45:10):
are in power don't want us to know what's going on.
It doesn't help them survive.

Speaker 2 (45:18):
I completely agree. Yeah, I mean, I've always thought when
people see things, if it's genuinely nhi, it needs to
fall into the category of being highly strange. As soon
as it's not highly strange. We need to be open,

(45:40):
honest and say that it's not. You know, it's very
important because all it would really take is incredible evidence
of an incredible event of the incredibly highly strange for
people to really say wow. But we should stop. We

(46:02):
should be more open minded at the prosaic. You know,
I think there's a lot of hatred and weirdness about
the word debunking, but in fact, debunking of the eighty
percent of sightings that aren't highly strange is really useful
because that focuses it in on the remainder and the

(46:25):
remainders what's interesting in my humble opinion.

Speaker 1 (46:30):
No, I think you're spot on. Like we mentioned Dylan Borland,
I think his sighting is amazing of a TR three
on a base we talked about dan isbel his sighting
is amazing sightings. You know of triangle near a nuclear
nuclear weapons storage facility? Right if you look at nusatell

(46:51):
his you know a football sized red triangle I'm sorry,
red square, football size red square flying again near nuclear
base again, Vanderburgh, I believe at least had tests ICBMs.
I believe they also have ICBMs, so I think that
is that is the strange, you know, and I think

(47:11):
we should focus on those sightings, whereas, like Nick Pope said,
you know, ninety five percent of your cases are going
to be mundane, even even the ones that look look weird.
Ninety five percent are going to be prosaic, but they're
still flat that five percent. So the sooner we can
weed out the ninety five percent, the better.

Speaker 2 (47:31):
Yeah, yeah, definitely, I mean I think that's right. So
let's not be too harsh on people who are doing
very good work. And you know, I I would never
want to be in living in the shoes of Midwest,
I mean, because I mean poor make you know, he's

(47:51):
going out and going it's Ryan Air flight one, two three,
and people going it's a flying source and it's not.
It's not and you should really give him the credit.
I mean, maybe he's a bit down on the whole subject,
but I mean he's probably not. I think he would
probably be very, very very intrigued if we actually saw

(48:12):
had decent evidence of something which you really can't explain.
Do you think that Arrow and the Congress have got
video evidence or of anything which is incredible.

Speaker 1 (48:31):
We certainly heard rumors that they have you know. Loue
al Zando says they have very compelling videos. I talked
to another UAP TESK Force member. I don't know if
he didn't clear me to say anything, so I won't
say his name, but he said that they they were
asked to receive videos from the Air Force and the
videos were actually intercepted, the tapes were intercepted. And we've

(48:54):
also heard in this last hearing that AERO is acting
as a counter intelligence agency. Actually they're not in the
business of trying to find out what's actually going on.
So I think it's it's very probable that they do
have compelling videos. We've also heard from Chris Mellan that
there's there's actually videos from satellites showing orbs near the polls.

(49:16):
That was also said by Dan Brown. I think he
said they also had very compelling videos with the Macchia constellation.
So there's certainly a lot of evidence pointing towards that
that they do have really compelling videos, but I think
ERO is not interested in proving this, as they're showing

(49:37):
now that they're more of a counterintelligence agency.

Speaker 2 (49:41):
It's yeah, it's true. That's really really very very sad
because so I think it's very much up to social
media to actually and and and members of the public
and whistleblowers to come forwards and say things something. Going
back to passive radar, one of the most amazing things

(50:02):
that I've been hearing I'm sure we've all been hearing,
is that it's possible to set up a citizens passive
radio network that would have enough people. If there were
enough people with receivers, you could interface them, say over
a whole country, to see if there was anything disturbing

(50:23):
the air that wasn't Jet Blue. I mean that would
be I would definitely have one on my roof, wouldn't you.

Speaker 1 (50:31):
Yeah. It's just so difficult to make these sort of
large citizen systems. You know, I was a huge opponent
of Sky three sixty for years. I have even the
cove Mi Oh yeah, yeah, Sky three sixty. But I
think ultimately, you know, they just could They couldn't make
it work. It's just it's very complicated. The best system

(50:54):
I've seen so far as like the move pass system.
I have one of these things, and now it just
movie where that's just a detector in your house, you know,
five hundred people. I think he has over three hundred
people on that system.

Speaker 2 (51:10):
Really interesting.

Speaker 1 (51:11):
Yeah, I think it's very difficult to set up these
large distributed systems. There's also some apps, the phenomen app
I know about that's being created by Logan, So yeah,
you do have these systems coming on board. But I
think focusing on what is the underlying truth that you

(51:34):
know at some point you can only classify the truth
for so long. Yeah, and that's why I think that
the physics, the truth of the physics is going to
come out, and I think it is going to take.
The decentralization that we have now is a huge advantage
and I think that we can get to the truth.
And I think Nasim Haramaine he has a paper coming

(51:55):
out in hopefully two weeks that will push us further
and sooner or later that we're going to show that,
oh okay, the world, the universe is electromagnetic. You can
go faster that light. There is something related to consciousness,
which is another interesting point because if Faraday cages, if
fairy de caages don't block out all information entering and leaving,

(52:18):
then that really leans towards some sort of telecommunication, right,
basically being able to communicate with minds.

Speaker 2 (52:27):
The whole, the whole quantum consciousness debate is absolutely fantastic.
I mean, we've seen it demonstrated by Stanford Research and
you know, and distant viewing remote viewing, you know, badly
named it's neither it's it's viewing into a into a
connected consciousness would be a much better name for it.

(52:49):
I mean, it's obviously it was targeted to intelligence who
wanted to know what was behind the closed door, but
it was very much a way of tapping into a timeless,
connected universe that we all feel that we actually have.

(53:11):
I mean, I think you know, as I've often discussed
you we use the word gut feeling or premonition. It's
because we are connected, and I think some people are
better at doing it than others. But we all need
to understand that we live in a tiny sliver of consciousness,

(53:34):
and consciousness is far wider than we possibly think, and
it is physically possible. You know, people do all the time.
Your bank manager Chris Lito goes down to the bank
for a house extension and promises to pay the bank back,
and that bank manager has to assess you. But they're

(53:55):
very good at predicting your their future, you know, there's
supposed Yeah, Russell targ told me that that. Never go
to Gypsy rose Lee. They're rubbish because they just tell you,
like AI, what you want to know. But go to
your bank manager because there's some of the best clairevant

(54:17):
voyants in the world. I think that was a great story. Wow.

Speaker 1 (54:21):
And and science is catching up, you know you have
you mentioned Russell Russell tag remote viewing, definitely. But you
also have Rupert Sheldric, you know, from England. He's been
showing that there is some sort of telepathic links. There
is some sort of morphic field if you will. It
sounds very much like some sort of ether r it's

(54:41):
some sort of quantum vacuum. He's been showing that with
proven science for decades. You also have a Dean Raydan.
He's been doing this work for forty years. I'm interviewing
him hopefully again in this next month.

Speaker 2 (54:55):
Great.

Speaker 1 (54:56):
Yeah, he has again decades of research and more search
coming out, more science experiments showing that we are linked
in some sort of manner. There is a connected field,
somehow consciousness is related and consciousness is the base. And
then the scientist right. I would love to talk to
Chris Chaiba. You interviewed him. You know, he's showing as

(55:17):
well through direct experiment, that there is you can generate
electric microvolts from the spin of the Earth. Right, that
really leans towards the proof of a quantum vacuum.

Speaker 2 (55:29):
Well right, right exactly, And that incredibly simple fact of
putting a Faraday twisted bit of copper at the right
angle because the Earth's magnetosphere is tilted, so you get

(55:49):
an induced voltage. I mean it's amazing. I mean, it's
just amazing.

Speaker 1 (55:54):
I can't believe more people aren't talking about it, Like
when you came out. I remember you interviewed him, and
you've made video saying this day will go down in history,
and I remember thinking this is unbelievable. You know, this
is an unbelievable breakthrough. And yet nothing, We've heard nothing
for months.

Speaker 2 (56:11):
No, no, I mean ridiculous even. I mean Chris, Chris
is very much you know, a physicist. He and his
experiment was not to produce a decent voltage which would
be useful. He said he'll leave that up to the engineer.
He wanted to absolutely prove that Faraday was correct, and

(56:36):
Faraday was ignored. They knew the Fara Day experiment actually
was true, but they discounted it because it didn't need
to be true. So Maxwell came along and said, oh,
I know that nice far Day is right, but I'll
just write a different equation and we'll just forget about Faraday.

(56:58):
But we've lived. We lived in a world that you
could put up a damn telegraph poll an angle in
your garden and power your freezer. No, it's a bit
of an exaggeration, but I mean we're going to make
but we're still got an electric meter ticking up from
whatever power station is selling us a potential difference between

(57:22):
their power station and your house. I mean, yeah, it's
all about making money, Chris. But Chris, thank you keep
up the good work. It was an absolute honor to
work with you and Dan together, And that was such
a good idea of mine to it because I really

(57:45):
wanted you to help absolutely nail it that Dan is
completely one believable, his credentials, his background, his physics. I
mean we didn't even touch on what he did after
the Air Force, no directed energy, directed energy weapons. I mean,

(58:09):
so please, if you get a chance to talk to
Dan about anything, I'd always lap up anything that you
and he says, he's a he's an absolute legend.

Speaker 1 (58:19):
Excellent. Yeah, I'm in contact with him, so I'd be
very happy to have him back on, and I know
people would be interested. He has amazing, amazing stories. All
of his stories were unbelievable.

Speaker 2 (58:28):
I thought, Yeah, so you've got some great guests coming up. Uh,
you've named a few, fantastic Keep pushing away that kind
of the door of physics, real good stuff.

Speaker 1 (58:44):
Yeah, and Charles Bueller. I just got the word today
that he was willing to come on the show as
well his electrostatic propulsion systems from NASA. So I think
it can't be hidden for long. I think we're really close.
And I think, as you know, is it is working,
like sharing this information, getting these guys talking, like highlighting
Chris Chiba's work like you showed Chris Tiber you know,

(59:07):
I didn't know about it before your video. And so
I think this decentralized is this decentralized information media system
that we have now I think will be the way forward.

Speaker 2 (59:19):
Yeah, keep watching. You know, I'm doing this film this
week about possibly the real truth of Aurora, which you know,
and that's that's the kind of thing that conventional media
just wouldn't touch. But you can dig into some facts.

(59:43):
Nick Cook, you know from you know from Jay's Defense
Weekly knows Information and here on social media, you know,
Chris and I and lots of other channels are really
pushing boundaries talking to scientists who don't get the kind
of a chance to actually describe their work. So folks,

(01:00:05):
subscribe to everything that you like and keep watching because
there's lots and lots of interesting things coming up, because
we live in interesting times. Chris, thank you very much
for the Today's chat. Keep in touch and and keep
up the good workmates. I so enjoy watching your channel.

Speaker 1 (01:00:24):
Yeah, the same timon. Thank you so much, Thank you mate.

Speaker 2 (01:00:28):
All Right,