This is Houston. Say again. 7:00.
>> I think that there are people in NASA
who know more. Ken Johnston, senior, he
says he was told to destroy a bunch of
first generation Apollo negatives
because they had some anomalies on them
and they're not supposed to be there and
they don't want to release them
publicly.
You see some bluish metallic looking
streaks that are very bright in a
certain area. And if you zoom in, you
see that it almost looks like an
insecttoid type probelike metallic
object.
Buzz Aldrin probably knows more than he
can say. Edgar Mitchell probably knew
more than he could say.
>> They've been observing us and here for
quite some time. And he says Ed Mitchell
confessed to him that yeah we saw these
blue orb like lights following us or you
know from the lunar surface. It's really
wild how many early astronauts were
Freemasons. They were all Freemasons.
There are all these apocryphal stories
of Neil Armstrong saying we were told
not to come back to the moon.
>> Armstrong was overheard at a party
saying that.
>> Really?
>> Yeah.
>> NASA knows a lot more about UFOs or UAP
than they're letting on. Even still
today, they actually have a term for
UFOs in space. It's a fast walkers. It's
a code word.
>> Is that the booster or is that an actual
sighting?
>> What's being shown there is craft of
some type exhibiting extra human
propulsion capabilities.
It's very plausible that our solar
system has been visited by ET visitors
in the past.
And if that's the case and they built
some sort of a structure, it would be
highly eroded by now. There are a number
of these images from Mars Global
Surveyor showing what look like they
could well be maybe the skeletal
structure of uh fossilized large forms
of life on Mars. Wow.
>> Ignition sequence.
>> How is this possible? [music]
>> Nothing too unusual about that.
Their existence [music]
cannot longer be denied
>> for the audience. What is your
background?
Well, I am a physicist uh by training. I
did a PhD at Utract University in the
Netherlands and uh stints at Clemson and
Stony Brook University in physics. I
also have worked in the area of uh
philosophy of physics which examines
more of the foundational assumptions
underlying our mainstream physical
theories and over the years on the side
I've also dabbled in uh statistical
analysis of parasychology studies
specifically the Gansfeld
>> uh approach and the remote viewing
approach. So I've published a bit in
that area too. And uh and most recently
I've been very interested in and
involved in or doing research on um
evidence of anomalies, anomalous
phenomena, structures, formations on the
surface of the moon as well as Mars. And
I've recently given a number of uh
presentations on that topic for mainly
about lunar anomalies and potential
evidence of technological signatures,
non-human technological signatures on
the moon's surface uh for Ross Coulart
and his show on NewsNation.
>> So first, if we brighten this image, two
anomalous things show up. We see this
weird cutout or irregularity in the
brightened image.
>> A blue sky
>> and a bluish something. Yeah,
>> you did an amazing job. And you go
through all of these lunar anomalies and
from, you know, these hazy lights where
it's unclear, you know, what the source
is to uh heat signatures uh that seem
pretty anomalous to astronaut sightings
and encounters uh to structures, real
structures uh on on the on the back side
of the moon. So, uh yeah, I'm excited to
get into all of that with you. You said
something else in your initial kind of,
you know, background introduction, which
is that you uh were at Stonybrook.
Stonybrook, as you may or may not know,
is the center of a lot of conspiracies.
[laughter]
>> Uh my former colleague, Eric Weinstein,
you know, says that Renaissance
Technologies and Jim Simons, you know,
might be the center of the theoretical
physics component of the UFO legacy
program.
>> You've got Brook Haven National
Laboratory. You've got State University
of New York at Stonybrook, a mid-level
university with an out of thisworld math
and physics program. And you've got a
hedge fund that makes more money than
anybody can possibly imagine.
>> And if it is, then you would have to say
that Stonybrook is like the the feeder
for that academically. Is that the case?
[laughter]
Well, I've been inside Renaissance
Technologies campus a couple of times as
an undergraduate um for some lectures or
colloquiums that they would have and
I've I spoke to Jim Simons a couple of
times when he was alive when I was in
undergrad. Um, to me,
if it really were the hub of some sort
of ultra top secret um, UFO crash
retrieval or ET UFO crash retrieval
program
with all the top physicists um,
clustered there,
my suspicion would be that it would be
much harder to actually go inside of the
complex or there would be maybe some
information would be leaked. I mean, I I
interacted heavily with basically all of
the leading professors of theoretical
physics at Stonybrook at the time, 2004
to 2008 in the Yang Institute for
Theoretical Physics and the math
department. I was president of the math
club for like a couple of years. So, I I
spoke to the various prominent
mathematicians. I never came across any
hint or trace of any sort of
interest in um UFOs or
>> their research in fundamental
theoretical physics
from my vantage point then never seemed
to tie into anti-gravity or the
possibility of that or faster than light
travel or warp drives or wormholes or
any of that. people did many people did
things on like string theory for example
maybe general relativity but um much
more abstract mathematical and from my
vantage point today as a as a
professional theoretical physicist I
don't really see how their research
could sort of tie into that so I'm
generally skeptical that
a Renaissance technologies is a hub of
that my suspicion is that if there are
these retrieve D craft that the US
military or other government agencies
have. The reason that leading
theoretical physicists are not brought
into these programs or maybe like only
very few are um is because
the intelligence agencies the uh deep
state of department of defense or
whatever they're extremely concerned
about secrecy and uh many uh theorists
don't have a military background like
maybe theorists did in you know 50 years
ago or so. Maybe there's a question of
like their politics and whether or not
they can be trusted to keep secrets of a
certain kind. Um my guess is that
secrecy trumps the uh the credentials or
the Yeah.
>> abilities and that's why there's this
kind of this separation between the two.
>> Yeah,
>> that's my guess.
>> Sure. Yeah. And I I have no idea if
Weinstein is right. I will say a few
data points high level that maybe point
to, you know, corroboration for his
theory is I think at Renaissance you
sign these like super hardcore NDAs for
life.
>> Um
I believe his idea wouldn't be
necessarily that like Renaissance itself
is like the vital, you know, like
they're working on craft or something.
>> But I think he had a conversation with
Jim Simons once who was like, you know,
you'd be disappointed if you knew how we
made our money. They've made 30%
year-over-year return since 1989, the
Medallion Fund,
>> and like hundred billion plus.
>> I gave him this entire theory that all
of modern neocclassical economics is
actually differential geometric. He
says, "Wow, Eric, that's brilliant. If
you knew what we were actually doing,
you'd be very disappointed." [laughter]
>> And so, like, is it like a slush fund
where they're like putting the money to
work in on some of these things? Brook
Haven National Labs. I believe there's a
crash, a UFO crash in 1992 where
everybody in that town, South Haven, um
basically saw the National Labs itself
recover this craft, collect it and like
take it into the the national labs.
>> It's about 7:00 at night and being
November, it was full dark and all of a
sudden it was lighter out than it is
right now.
Brook National Labs is a site of, you
know, the largest uh uh particle
accelerator in the US as well called
Cosmatron. And so it seems like the UFOs
seem to show up around particle
accelerators as well. So I have no idea.
And then for the final data point would
be David Spurggle who is head of the
Simons Science Foundation um ended up in
2022 on the NASA review panel. He was
kind of chairing it. So it it look I I
have been on the other end of you know
[ __ ] conspiracies and I know they're
not you can I can cherrypick data points
for any anything and say it's real and
so I don't want to say that I I'm I'm
below 50% even with all of those data
points but do you think there's anything
possibly there?
>> Guess it's always possible because I
didn't actually work at Renaissance. Um,
>> so I wasn't privy to maybe whatever all
the secrets they have or you know uh so
I have to keep an open mind about that
and I can't really refute the
revelations and age of disclosure from
people like Hal Putoff and Eric Davis
and others um about a legacy UFO
program. So
I I think as an honest scientist I have
to keep an open mind that there might be
something there. I just didn't see it.
But just in terms of what I saw, I
didn't see any I couldn't see a
connection or a trace.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Connection.
>> Uh tell me about the Clementine mission
and tell me about the public facing, you
know, messaging around its purpose and
then maybe what it was actually for.
>> Yeah. Clementine was a joint department
of defense NASA mission to send a a
probe to the moon in 1994 or so. So it
wasn't made publicly widely known that
there was this joint mission and the the
publicly stated purpose of the mission
according to NASA and the DoD was to
scientifically study the surface of the
moon, its minology, its morphology and
broad things like that. Um, there's
still there are still documents that you
can find from NASA and DoD about the
Clementine mission's objectives and
that's what you see.
And it did apparently discover um water
ice at the poles of the moon
as like a first discovery. But um
that was at least publicly the only
stated objective of the mission is just
to do scientific analysis and maybe to
test out certain new sensors in space.
But one of the former deputy managers,
um, a deputy manager to the like
missions manager of the Clementine
Mission, his name is Dr. John
Brandenburg, who I know you've
interviewed previously.
>> He is on record in 2014
in a u documentary uh called uh Aliens
on the Moon, like the truth exposed. But
it was a serious interview with uh
Brandenburgg and Brandenburgg says that
the Clementine mission was basically a
photo reconnaissance mission to see if
someone was building bases on the moon
that we didn't know about and were they
expanding them. That's almost a verbatim
quote of what he said in that interview.
And
since 2014, to me, what's interesting is
that
nobody has come out from Clementine or
DoD or from either the NASA or DoD side
of the Clementine mission to say that
he's lying or that he's saying [ __ ]
or anything of that sort.
And he had a serious position in the
mission as a deputy manager. That's
confirmed. That's all publicly available
information.
And so, and then the fact that the DoD
and NASA did this mission together
jointly raises questions as to why DoD
would be so interested in sending a
probe to the moon in 1994 to take images
of the surface. [gasps]
And certainly, if what he said is true,
that would be an obvious like motivation
for the DoD to do that. Uh there's also
just the observation that NASA and the
department of defense have always been
very tightly linked in law through the
space act of 1958 which created NASA by
congress congressional act. Essentially
the act says in many many parts that
NASA is tightly overseen by the DoD and
its uh space missions and objectives
have to be in the interests of US
national security and if any discoveries
are made in its space explorations that
could threaten national security that
information can be withheld from the
public and from Congress except those
members of Congress that are uh you know
qualified to see it.
And so essentially NASA is an arm or an
extension of the Department of Defense
in law. Um and so if there was
something that NASA saw maybe in the
Apollo missions or the lunar or the
pre-app
orbiter for example, it would make sense
that they would want to take a closer
look perhaps and do some sort of a joint
mission and that they wouldn't tell the
public what the true reason was. Um, if
anybody from the Clementine Mission
wants to come out and refute
Brandenburgg, I'd invite them to do so.
But, uh, so far I have not seen that.
And that to me is what's interesting,
combined with the, uh, obvious legal
incentives to not be totally transparent
with the public about
some type of discovery along those
lines.
>> Yeah. Do you think NASA just knows a
whole lot more about all this stuff than
meets the eye? I mean, I I sort of go
back and forth there, too. uh with this
new department of ward drop uh with
there have been kind of a series but the
first batch really focused on kind of
space exploration and astronaut
encounters and it basically forced Jared
Isaacman who's the current NASA admin to
say yeah you know we're not talking
about you know reverse engineering UFOs
necessarily or you know confirmed alien
bodies you know nothing like that but
these sightings were unexplained which
is a huge update
Because you know from 1958 until that
point you know uh for for decades NASA
had just been gaslighting the public.
There was no budging on on you know
whether this they were all everything
had an explanation or everything was
sort of to be laughed off. Um so yeah do
do you think NASA knows a lot more about
UFOs than meets the eye or at least has
a lot more data than they're sort of
admitting? I think that there are people
in NASA, probably not the very top, not
necessarily Jared Isaacman, but maybe
people below him who've been there for
many decades who know more. Um,
>> I mean, I could name probably a few
names here and there as my as to who I
suspect probably knows more about this,
but I I don't know if I should because
there's some maybe some effort to talk
to them in private and try to get some
of this information out. Well, I think I
think I think you you naming them only
helps with that, you know, and I don't
think you're calling them out
necessarily because
>> there should be some sort of truth and
reconciliation process. But uh can you
say
>> well what I've heard is that uh certain
people uh like uh uh Pete Weren
um
>> know a lot more about NASA's knowledge
about the UFO phenomenon or about uh
astronauts uh observations of anomalies
in space and um
>> what was position at NASA? was he uh I
don't remember his official title, but
it was a fairly high I believe associate
administrator position of some sort,
>> but um he was heavily involved in the
Clementine mission from what I
understand
>> and there there are public documents
that also like mentioned this. So
>> well he also I believe connected uh Tom
Dong and General Neil McCasslin. This is
public information. So, you know, it
seems like he had some sort of interest
in UFOs. And I think he had was involved
as an admin in the Breakthrough Prize as
well,
>> right?
>> Around sort of, you know, exotic signals
and space and stuff. And I think he
moved to like Belgium or something, but
I I I ordered a book of his that he
wrote in like the early 2000s. Um, that
was very strange as well.
>> Yeah. I think it was Luxembourg or if
>> Yeah, maybe Luxembourg. Yeah. Okay, that
makes sense. Yeah, it's it's it's really
interesting. So so so he might know a
little bit more.
>> Yeah, I would suspect that he would be
one person. Um probably there are past
administrators at NASA. I suspect that
>> maybe
>> maybe Dan Golden. Uh maybe Bill Nelson.
>> Yeah.
>> Um I suspect Buzz Aldrin probably knows
more than he can say. I suspect Edgar
Mitchell probably knew more than he
could say publicly. I suspect it's I I
mean maybe even uh Dr. Harrison Schmidt,
the one of the last uh men to walk on
the moon for Apollo 17, Eugene Cernin.
Uh Schmidt is alive, by the way. And uh
but uh he's never commented on any of
the NASA UAP file drops.
>> Interesting.
>> Which is I I would love to
>> see what he thinks. because also I've
found a number of uh UAP type anomalies.
>> Mhm.
>> Uh in photographs from Apollo 17 taken
from the lunar surface, not just the
trio of blue lights that was released in
the first trunch.
>> Uh I had discovered that also like a
year or so, more than a year ago on my
own and uh made it public in certain
forms. Um
>> what are those exactly from Apollo 17?
There's just a photograph um from taken
from the lunar surface. Uh I think the
frame number is AS174722470
and there's a hill a lunar hill and then
above the lunar hill a little bit to the
left in the black lunar sky if you zoom
in on this photograph and the raw scan
uh is available. So a scan digital scan
of the raw uh image is available. You
see three
solidish looking blue lights almost
equally distant from each other and in a
very small area of the lunar sky
and they're just there. And if you
brighten the image a little bit,
increase the exposure to brighten it a
little bit, you see that the center
region or the region in between gets
significantly brighter than the uh rest
of the lunar sky. And that suggests that
maybe those three bluish lights are
perhaps attached to something and not
just three independent lights. Uh when
NASA released this image uh in the first
trunch, there was a description about it
uh next to the image and they say in the
description that uh the department of
war and NASA have opened an a special
investigation for this particular image
because a preliminary analysis suggests
that these lights are part of probably
part of a physical object. And so they
said that they've acquired the original
film from Apollo 17 of this particular
image and they're going to analyze it
and report the results. But there are
many more like that and even more I
think impressive UAP anomalies from
Apollo 17 as well as earlier Apollo
missions, images taken from the lunar
surface that um NASA has not for some
reason released in the last two
tranches. I'm not even sure. Uh
Isaacman, administrator Isaacman is
aware of them, but there are even more
impressive examples outside of the three
the three blue lights. And then what
else?
>> Before we dive into this wild episode, I
want to give a huge thank you to one of
today's sponsors, Dose. Dose for your
liver is an extremely high quality
drinkable supplement. It tastes
absolutely delicious. It helps you feel
your best and all you have to do is take
it once a day. As you might know, I love
nerding out and finding the best new
health and wellness hacks. And it's
super easy to overlook the biggest
internal organ in your body, the liver.
It's your body's most metabolically
active organ. It runs over 500 functions
every single day. It processes
everything you consume. It filters it
daily and it supports your energy levels
and your digestion. What I appreciate
most about Dose is that they actually
have serious research behind it. two
double blind placeboc controlled studies
showing positive impact on liver enzyme
levels and liver function. Having data
like that is very rare in the supplement
space and it's the reason I was fired up
to work with them. New customers can
save 35% on your first month of
subscription by going to
dosedaily.co/jessie
or entering jesse at checkout. Again,
that's d o s e d ai ly.co/jessie.
co/jesse
or jes s e for 35% off your first month
subscription. I want to thank do so much
for sponsoring the show. Now back to
today's episode.
>> There are even more impressive
>> examples outside of the three the three
blue lights and then what else
>> from Apollo 17. uh they're on the lunar
surface
and
I forget the spec exact frame number for
this particular one but I can find it
later. Uh they've done a lunar excursion
in the lunar rover because you can see
the tracks of the lunar rover on the uh
um on the surface. And up in the black
lunar sky,
you see
some bluish uh metallic looking streaks
that are very bright in a certain area.
And if you zoom in, zoom in on it, it
looks like a physical metallic object of
some kind. If you brighten the image a
little bit, you see that it almost looks
like an insecttoid type probe like
metallic bluish metallic object. Wow.
And as you brighten the image further,
you see that the rest of the lunar sky
becomes uh this kind of reddish
orang-ish u
bright uh cascade of like lights or it's
it's very it just becomes like a noisy
reddish orange color, but there's a
black envelope surrounding this
particular object in the black lunar
sky.
And well, it's sort of surprising. And
it also um it really does look like
there's a physical thing in the sky
that's maybe reflecting sunlight from
the correct direction in the uh in the
image. And that
somehow for some reason uh light does
not the way it emits light from the
camera produces this sort of envelop
like distortion. I'm not quite sure what
it is, but it to me it looks like the
most compelling uh example and it's it
was probably photographed either by
Eugene Cernin or Harrison Schmidt
because they were the only two that went
on the lunar surface. Um NASA has not
released that one. And in that same
image, there's also another similar
looking object just above it with the
similar enveloping effect when you
brighten the image too. And they also
both have contrails when you brighten
it. You see that there are these like
debris tails.
>> Wow.
>> In each of them. And you see a similar
thing about I think uh eight frames
later in that same image sequence in the
lunar sky. A different metallic looking
object. You brighten it. It has an
envelope and it has a trail. Um in
between you don't see anything but we
don't know how much time elapsed between
the different frames taken. So, all of
this is a mystery, but it's all there in
NASA's public image archives. And NASA
doesn't comment on any of these things
in the actual image archives there.
>> What's the conventional explanation?
>> There's none publicly stated, at least
for that one, um, or for many of the
others.
>> Can you even come up with one? Like, if
I were to like give this to like a Neil
Degrass Tyson, like what would he say?
Okay, if you give this to Neil deGrasse
Tyson or probably Avi Lope or Mick West
or whoever, my guess is they'll say um
this is probably
uh either some com either a camera
artifact of some kind. Um maybe like a
an electrical spark uh after the camera
after the image was actually taken. um
that produces this weird optical effect
on the frame. Maybe it's a cosmic ray. I
know a Lobo has actually suggested this
as the most likely explanation of the
trio of blue lights in Apollo 17. uh
that cosmic rays just hit the um hit the
frame or hit the film I guess in equally
distant points on the film in a very
small region of the sky and they produce
that uh effect.
Those are the two most common or
sometimes people say well it's lens
flare. That's another possibility. So we
know what lens flare is. Um there is
lens flare in some of the Apollo images,
but to me they don't look anything like
that. Um as far as cosmic rays, I think
that is an improbable explanation for a
number of reasons. One is that cosmic
rays and this has been studied by
various astrophotographers.
Um NASA has studied this as well.
>> Yeah. Why is that implausible? is um
>> Neil Degrass Tyson came out with
specifically kind of a debunk of Apollo
17 sightings
>> citing basically that it was like case
closed cosmic rays
>> and uh you know I found it to be smug in
tone but also somewhat substantive and
like I was like okay maybe he's right.
>> Yeah.
>> So yeah why why do you think that that's
implausible?
When cosmic rays hit digital cameras or
enter digital cameras, they produce thin
long streaks typically because they
don't come in orthogonally or
perpendicular to the camera sensor. They
typically come in at an angle and the
effect produces thin long streaks. And
NASA has produced many of its own
examples of cosmic rays and various uh
digital images and they're thin long
streaks of some kind. They're not these
solid
bluish dots in the sky. Uh, also
radiation tends to produce a fogging
effect on film and that's not observed
in these Apollo 17 frames. Um, and then
also just the odds of cosmic rays
impinging on the film equally distant in
a very small region of the black lunar
sky is I would say statistically a very
improbable event. Yet you see a trio of
lights like that not just in Apollo 17,
you also see it in Apollo 11. There's a
frame
>> showing that as well, a similar such
trio.
>> Apollo 11's so weird. Uh because you
have Buzz Aldrin openly admitting in
multiple interviews that you had this
thing following them and it's it's he
then kind of dismisses it. He goes,
"Well, I went back to sleep and didn't
report it because we would have been
looked at as sort of ridiculous." But
he's admitting that it was like a UFO
like it was by its very nature
inherently unidentified. He will openly
say this as much as he,
>> you know, was sort of, it seemed like
kind of trained or like, you know,
forced into the orientation of being
anti-UFOs, he will say there was a thing
following us and I don't know what it
was.
>> 60 seconds.
>> I saw this illumination that was moving
with respect to the [music] stars. We
were smart enough to not say, "Houston,
there's a light out there that's
following us."
So technically becomes an unidentified
flying object.
>> He said this in one interview. He said,
"I don't know what it was." In
subsequent interviews, um, one in
particular on Larry King Live in like
2007
>> where James Fox was there too and
Stanton Friedman. He he says, "Well, I'm
now almost certain that it was a panel
of like the S4B rocket booster that just
broke off and was just moving along with
us. We saw one of the four panels, the
99.999.
And these are uh three guys who have
flown in space twice and have looked out
at the stars and all sorts of things.
>> But the S4 was 6,000 mi away.
>> Yeah. And so he the the explanation he
seems to propose is that one of these
panels, I guess, got free and just kind
of drifted along with the Apollo capsule
for multiple days as it was moving
towards the moon. I don't think that's a
plausible explanation.
>> It's completely implausible. Unless it's
like its own gravitational source, which
it's not big enough to be in free space.
That doesn't make any sense.
>> Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me. Uh
either
>> like unless it was super close and like
literally like kind of attached or
something cuz it I it doesn't really
make sense.
>> No, I agree.
>> Um Yeah. And then and then that Larry
King interview was also very interesting
because James Fox called him out on
another sighting he had had as a fighter
pilot over Japan cuz Feyenne Potter, his
sister, had told Fox that he had had two
sightings. One on Apollo 11 that was
clearly a UFO in her readout which she
had had all these private conversations.
That's her brother. And then also like a
UFO in in Japan.
>> Quick question. Um, when you were a test
pilot, I think was was it Edwards Air
Force Base?
>> I uh commanded a test pilot school
afterward. I was not a test pilot
trained.
>> Okay. I was I was told by a very close
source of yours that you actually saw
something um other than
>> a lot of people have said things.
[laughter]
>> That doesn't mean that
>> I don't want to reveal the source.
Someone very close to you told me that
you had another sighting that you
actually chased your
>> in your years of flying. as you have.
You've seen strange things.
>> I was flying a T33, I guess, and and I
looked out and saw a star out there. Um,
but it wasn't a star. It was Venus, but
it kept following me all along. And and
you would swear that it's another object
out there and you can turn and uh I want
to congratulate you on your magic show
last night with all the illusions
because now we're getting a lot more
illusions tonight.
>> And I I really trust James Fox. like he
is so like, you know, he's just very
honest. And he chased Buzz Aldrin all
all around the world to get like just
some statement from him on UFOs cuz he
was so sure that these two sightings
were genuine UFO sightings. And he
chased him all the way to Monte Carlo
and Buzz Aldrin was like uh you know at
the very last minute when he was about
to give him an interview, he goes, "What
would my testimony do anyways?" Paul
Allen just invested in SETI and he got
labeled a a UFO freak or something and I
can't jeopardize my initiative. I'm
working with Congress right now. I'm
trying to get money to develop a rocket.
It's going to help put civilians into
space. I I can't do it.
>> He's implying that he has something to
say about UFOs, but if he did, it would
hurt his reputation.
>> Then he said he said, "And how's my
story going to change anything anyway?"
>> And so that's not saying I, you know, I
didn't see UFOs. that's saying, you
know, this is going to hurt my
reputation. And he even cited, he just
said, he said Paul Allen, who was, you
know, uh, uh, backing STI. He was the,
you know, Microsoft founder. He was
getting all sorts of [ __ ] for backing
SETI at the time, which is kind of
conventional, but it's looking for alien
signals. So, he was like, I don't want
to get, you know, similarly criticized.
So, it's like it's so obvious.
>> Yeah. Um, it seems very likely, very
obvious that Buzz knows more than he can
say publicly. I've actually tried to
approach him uh through one of his
assistants at Balls Alter Ventures about
showing him some of the Apollo 11
imagery of UAP that I've found uh and
also the Apollo 17 imagery. I got a
polite reply saying that unfortunately
he's not available to look at any of
these images or do any analyses of
anything, but um I still hold out hope
that maybe someday he'll maybe make a
confession or at least show some
interest in looking at some imagery and
just having a public discussion about
it. And same with Harrison Schmidt. you
see him getting visibly embarrassed on
Larry King and and then and then he sort
of resorts to mockery and he says,
"Well, you guys saw Chris Angel last
night at a show. How how much of what he
did could you not explain?" Like
>> and uh can you explain everything that
that happened with Chris Angel last
night? No, you
>> can't explain. It doesn't make it.
>> That's right. Exactly.
>> And he gets kind of red in the face.
You're like, "Oh, you're covering for
something, dude." Like it's a behavioral
science 101. You were to put any sort of
like, you know, lie detector person like
up against that guy and they'd be like
that p he's lying. He's lying. So
>> certainly how it seems to me. And um
yeah, I I I on the one hand I I I'm like
you. I'm skeptical of his uh
explanations. At the same time, I don't
want to um
be necessarily too critical of someone
in his position because of what if he
knows something and he was told you
can't say anything because of certain
consequences then
>> sure.
>> Yeah.
>> It's just one of the unfortunate things
about the
>> military secrets that we you know these
people have to hold on to.
>> Definitely. But it's I think it's
irrational at this point, especially as
the Department of War puts their own
stamp of approval on saying these things
were unknown. Just say, "Yeah, I I was
told I couldn't say it was unknown. It's
I'm at the end of my life."
>> I mean, a a recent, albeit anecdotal
story, but one that was powerful for me
is I was in Japan just recently, and I
interviewed this guy named Takano Jouen,
who uh has all these modules and
boosters and stuff on loan, a hundred
years from NASA. It's like a NASA, it's
a full-on NASA museum. He also has
Soyu's, you know, Russian rocketry
there. It's really amazing.
>> And he was personal friends with Eugene
Cernin. And he goes, "Yeah, I was
friends with him." And one time we were
talking about Apollo 17. I said, "Why
didn't you why didn't we go back after
Apollo 17?" And I will say Apollo 18 and
19, I think, were cancelled before
uh uh 17, you know, actually took off.
But I guess his reason for there never
being anything after that was that when
he was on the way to the moon in Apollo
17, he got some sort of telepathic
message saying,
"We don't really want you here."
Really
mental download. You know, you might
think that's crazy, but there are all
these apocryphal stories of Neil
Armstrong telling similar stories in
Washington DC saying, "We were told not
to come back to the moon." You think
they said, "Don't come back without
permission."
>> Well, Armstrong Armstrong was overheard
at a party saying that.
>> Really? What party?
>> Uh some party in Washington DC with big
wigs and several people said that that
he said that. And then you have Edgar
Mitchell in Apollo 14 who literally uh
apparently privately told somebody that
there were like, you know, aliens
following them all the way or something.
But he also has this like telepathic
conversion experience that he's public
about this telepathic kind of
parasychological conversion experience
where he his whole worldview updates
>> right
>> on the way back from the moon.
>> Yeah. He had a mystical experience uh on
his uh
>> I think it was his uh Apollo mission. Um
and yeah, this this is uh
discussed by our our mutual friend Ross
Koulthart in uh his book uh in Plain
Sight, I believe it's called. Uh he
quotes an anonymous source which who he
calls the spaceman who was apparently
very close personal friends with Ed
Mitchell. And he says Ed Mitchell
confessed to him that yeah, we saw these
blue orb like lights
following us or you know from the lunar
surface flying around above the lunar
sky and
uh apparently Mitchell said he's not
sure if they are extraterrestrial in
origin but we definitely saw them and
they're not camera artifacts.
>> Let's see what that
be.
On the other hand, publicly speaking,
Mitchell was, you know, very uh clear
that he believed that at Roswell, an
extraterrestrial spacecraft had crashed
and that the government had recovered it
and that there is a legacy, a secret UFO
retroengineering program. He was clear
about all of that. But
>> he said there's like a cabal in the
government.
>> Yeah. But what's odd to me is that he
says he himself never publicly he says
he never saw anything on any of his
missions or uh that would count as a UFO
of some sort or another. And uh he and
Richard Hogland actually had a long
debate on Art Bell's Coast to Coast show
in the '9s. It's on like Rumble I think.
And u and in that debate, he's very
skeptical and even dismissive of
Hogland's ideas about the possibility of
structures on the moon, glass-like
structures or debris uh above the lunar
surface. And um so that's potentially
another case of an astronaut who knew
something privately, experienced
something privately, but said the
opposite. I I note that um Dean Raiden
uh he on his latest uh in his
podcast with Joe Rogan recently, he uh
relays that he was part of the project
project Stargate, the remote viewing
program that was uh initiated by the CIA
uh while he was while it was under Hal
Putoff's um direction. And he says that
while he was part of Stargate, he
couldn't not only could he not talk
about it, but if someone was asking him
about remote viewing or he was in the
room and someone brought up the topic,
he had to go along with what the
mainstream narrative was and say, "Oh,
it's all [ __ ] and nonsense."
>> Right? Because he couldn't even say, "I
can't say one thing one way or the
other." Because that would give too much
information away. So that's a clear
example of where secrecy forces
scientists who are working on something
or who know something to disparage a
certain idea or topic um for the
purposes of yeah I guess disinformation.
And so it's entirely plausible to me
that Mitchell
dismissed the possibility of uh UAPs or
structures on the moon that are of
non-human origin because he was told
that that's what that's what you have to
do.
>> Yeah. NASA also much weirder than meets
the eye. I want to get into Richard
Hogland and his book Dark Mission and
the idea that they
>> are there are like a cult rituals and
and you know you have launchpad 33 and
the idea that launches are timed at
certain you know equinoxes and stuff for
success. And then you have Diana Pulka
also saying that second century Latin
was written inscribed on you know some
of these missions like the rockets and
stuff.
>> So I don't know what to make of all of
that. It's almost like it's this like
gnostic pagan cult or something. Are you
familiar with any of that or
>> I'm familiar with some of these
arguments and evidence. Uh I do know for
a fact
that well Buzz Aldrin says himself in
one of his books that uh he's a 33rd
degree Scottish right Freemason.
>> All of the astronauts were like almost
all Glenn all. So there was clearly a
type of secret society uh brotherhood
among the astronauts.
>> Buzz Aldrin planted they did like
communion and then Buzz Aldrin like it
was a masonic ritual on the moon. Yeah.
>> So when you have things like that and
you know that Freemasonry is a secret
society and they have secrets. They're
not going to tell the public everything.
We know that many powerful people in
American history were Freemasons. um
like a disproportionately large number
of the astronauts and also NASA
engineers during the Apollo era were
Freemasons.
I I think it's entirely plausible that
there was some sort of ritualistic
aspect maybe to some decisions about
when to launch a rocket or where to land
perhaps on the moon. And that's all
entirely I think plausible. Um,
in terms of how that would tie into
like how far it goes exactly, I'm not
sure about that myself or in terms of
what connection that might have to
uh secrecy about any discoveries made of
an ET, you know, origin on the moon. I
that part that connection is not
entirely clear to me or has never been
entirely clear to me. But, um,
>> but NASA's much weirder than meets the
eye. I think like there's a director at
um NASA as
>> his name is Steven Hubard I believe and
he wrote a psychic spy manual for the
CIA. Like people don't know that that
that crossover. I didn't know this
actually.
>> It's pretty fascinating. Yeah. Kevin
Kuth who's another you know obviously
studies UFOs, believes in UFOs, was at
NASA and felt kind of gas lit on the
whole topic. Um you know actually
brought that up on my show. So he Yeah,
it's really wild. You can like look it
up. it's public. Um, and then you have
uh Gary McKinnon. I don't know if you're
familiar with his story. I just
interviewed him um in in England. And
like
>> he's amazing cuz he's just just like
cool halfless guy. He's in his, you
know, um you know, he's got some IT
skills, you know, at the time. and he's
like in his uh girlfriend's I think
aunt's basement and it's like 3:00 am
and he does some like basic like
password fishing techniques to break
into Army, Navy, NASA, DoD, DOE, like
everything and um
>> gets into NASA uh Johnson Space Center
in Houston. They're building 8. The
reason he targeted that is because Donna
Hair was this whistleblower who had come
out with uh Stephen Greer's disclosure
project and she had said that she was
basically involved in this kind of
scrubbing of photos that were being
stored specifically in that building.
>> By its very nature, UFO means
unidentified. So I did not know what
this was. But I realized at this point
that it's very secret that it was kept
secret because I asked him, "What are
you going to do with this piece of
information?" And he said, "We always
airbrush these out before we sell them
to the public."
>> And McKinnon then sees a UFO pop up on
his screen. He sees a tic-tac UFO that
seems to be orbiting Earth pop up on his
screen.
>> Uh, so that's another really interesting
data point. And then this guy talking
again this NASA you know curator museum
host curator patron in Japan who's also
you know he's been to all these places
and he was at NASA Johnson Space Center
and he said he went to a specific
building and they showed him photos of
UFOs and did you see pictures and video
of UFOs?
>> Yes.
>> Wow. And it was
>> I found the UFO footage.
>> The UFO footage?
>> Yes. Was
[clears throat]
it at Johnson Space Center in Houston?
>> Yes.
>> There's also Ken Johnston Senior who was
um uh one of the uh pilots who trained
the NASA astronauts and was like a
backup astronaut for the Apollo missions
if I remember correctly. and he says he
was told to destroy a bunch of like
first generation or early generation
Apollo negatives uh because they had
some anomalies on them and they're not
supposed to be there and they don't want
to release them publicly and he actually
saved some of them
>> and put some of his copies online and he
>> Have you seen them?
>> Um yeah, they're publicly available.
There's an archive
>> and they're negatives. They're not Okay,
they're real photos. He says they're
like co like early generation copies of
the very original photographs.
>> Okay.
>> Most of the copies um
>> do they look legit to you? Do they look
like they match other NASA? Really?
>> Yeah. Um they have some differences on
them for sure.
>> Yeah.
>> And
compare. So there is a NASA archive
called March to the Moon which is said
to be the um latest scans of NASA's
original films from the Apollo missions.
If you compare what's on those films
with what Johnston has shown or even in
other scans actually from other um other
branches of NASA, you find that there
are a lot of actually obvious
inconsistencies.
>> Lights, UAP type lights or structures of
some kind or another are clearly blacked
out in some versions, some NASA scanned
versions and they're not in others. Um,
so there are provable inconsistencies
across uh different NASA archives, the
same frame.
>> Do you have a specific example of like
something where Yeah. you see a photo of
a UFO or like some anomalous thing and
then it's blurred out?
>> Yeah. And in uh a couple of my uh
interviews with Ross Coulthart, I I give
I show a number of examples of this. You
go to one uh scan from the Lunar and
Planetary Institute. This is an archive
that NASA has managed since the 1970s
and it's an Apollo 14 photograph uh with
Ed Mitchell standing on the lunar
surface
and he's I guess he's doing something on
the surface and one of the other
astronauts took a photo of him. You see
his long shadow stretched out and
um I'm blanking on the exact frame
number but I can pull that up uh another
time and show it. Um, essentially the
lunar sky is completely black in this
version. You zoom in everywhere, it's
completely black. However, if you look
at the uh March to the moon
uh version of that same frame, which is
managed by Johnson Space Center and uh
Arizona State University,
there is a blue orb in the lunar sky
very clearly. It's very obvious above uh
Mitchell. And if you brighten the Lunar
and Planetary Institute version of that
same frame, you see that there's a weird
blackish
um cutout or discoloration in the exact
spot where that blue orb is in the more
recent frame. And there's also a weird
like light anomaly. There's almost like
a mushroomlike cloud in the black lunar
sky that gets unusually bright and
there's like a bright streak here and a
bright streak there. Um, which none of
that should be there because there's no
atmosphere on the moon. There's no
dust debris field that can scatter light
to produce visible effects. There
shouldn't be any sort of unevenness in
the lighting. And the sun is out of the
frame to the right, so it's not even I
don't think it can be lens flare. Um,
but yeah, there's a clear discrepancy
between these two frames. And there are
many other examples of that sort that
I've found uh examining uh different
archives. So, I find Johnson's claims
that the more recent uh maybe scans
don't show everything that's actually on
the originals to be fairly plausible
just on that basis alone.
>> That is wild. So, they literally
pinpoint the blue orb. Yeah. What were
you saying? I just want to add that
Johnston himself in connection to the
secret society stuff in NASA. He himself
is apparently a 33rd degree Freemason.
Why
is he in such a high position
kind of whistleblowing about all of
this? I don't know. Johnson Ken Johnston
senior guy who says that uh maybe from a
secret society or maybe it's a I don't
know
>> may but uh
>> no Freemasonry look I I
>> sort of um you know I think a lot of
people who talk about Freemasonry
controlling everything are ridiculous
people but um
>> with the NASA thing it's pervasive it's
everywhere it's really wild how many
early astronauts were Freemasons they
were all Freemasons in an anom anomalous
way even for that time. It wasn't like
the founding fathers or whatever where
like a lot of people in elite American
society were Freemasons. Uh it's it's
it's almost bizarre. And then you have
the Freemasonic ritual. You have Warner
von Braun and Walt Disney making a movie
around, you know, the space age that's
like this Disney cartoon with 33 being
this like recurring symbol. You had
launchpad 33. Mhm.
>> Freemasonry was played a part in, you
know, the the creation of the launch
program. It's very strange.
>> Yeah, it's very it is. And um there
might be some sort of an interesting
story there background there that if
someone could dig even further, they
might be able to come up with or expose
something. I don't know. But yeah, I
think it's worth looking into uh
further. And uh there are in in
connection to Gary McKinnon's um
um discovery or or this tic-tac-shaped
craft above the earth that he saw in
this image that was gradually uh
downloading. Um,
one of the things that to me lends
plausibility to that as well and also I
think reinforces the notion that NASA
knows a lot more about
UFOs or UAP than they're letting on even
still today is that in the 1990s uh at
least two space shuttle uh NASA space
shuttle videos were um made publicly
known by some independent researchers.
One is STS48
from the 1991 STS48 mission and the
other one is uh STS80 in 1996.
In both cases, they show UAP type
objects exhibiting on analysis, if you
analyze those those videos carefully,
propulsive capabilities that are clearly
impossible with any human propulsion
technology of rocketry jets or magneto
hydrodnamics or anything we could
remotely produce.
And yet when NASA astronauts of those
missions were asked about it, they said,
"Oh, we didn't see anything except for
just ice particle debris
and then they've uh put out people like
James Oberg saying, "Oh, yeah, it's just
ice debris." But that's all it is.
There's nothing really to see here. Um,
and
I think it's pretty clear if one
carefully analyzes those videos that
those explanations are in contradiction
with the available facts in the footage.
>> They're clearly false. And so uh what's
being shown there is
craft of some type exhibiting
uh you know extra human propulsion
capabilities. So, if that's true, then
yeah, it's possible that there is uh
that that maybe NASA does have an
archive of like some showing some sort
of tic-tac-shaped uh craft above the
Earth and that McKinnon just stumbled on
it if I
>> fascinating. This guy in Japan said that
they had uh he spoke he was close with
Edgar Mitchell as well and he said that
they had um code names according to
Edgar Mitchell.
>> Uh bogey was one. I believe Santa Claus
might have been another. I know Moon
Pigeons was another
>> um and so and then this is funny. I
hadn't heard about like the bogey one
for example
>> and then in the department of wardrop
which occurred after I got back from
Japan I'm hearing Frank Borman in Gemini
7
>> talking about you know we've got a bogey
and I'm like holy [ __ ]
>> like so it that seems correct. Yeah,
they they used these code words to
describe uh unidentified craft of some
kind. And yes, NASA published even a
report in the early '7s called moon
pigeons. And essentially another way of
saying UFOs above the lunar surface are
seen by astronauts while orbiting the
moon, right? Um, it was just, I guess, a
cover phrase to not create a UFO flap in
case maybe the document leaked leaked or
someone else uh, you know, it was a way
of talking about that subject without
>> Yeah. And it's it's funny cuz Borman
kind of downplayed his sighting for the
rest of his life as with all these other
astronauts. It seems like there was some
blood pack made or something, but if you
actually listen to the audio, it's like
that sounds like a UFO. He's like, I
don't know what this is. He see sounds
kind of freaked out.
Gemini 78.
>> Loud and clear. Seven. Go ahead.
>> 10:00.
>> This is Houston. Say again. Seven.
>> 7. Is that the booster or is that an
actual sighting?
>> Say again. Seven.
>> We have several looks like
actual sighting.
>> Uh you have any more information,
estimated distance or size? We also have
the booster in sight.
>> Understand you also have the booster in
sight. Roger.
>> And then you also have Simpkinson NASA
archive UFO. Uh shout out to to Chris
Ramsay actually for recommending this to
me. Uh and I believe this is a a a real
like photo of something from the Gemini
11 archive. Um Gemini 11 famously, Do
you want to tell this story? There was
like a like a power outage and there's
even audio around this. Do you know
about this?
>> I don't know the details of this
particular story, but I I am vaguely
familiar with this particular image. Um,
>> so this was airbrushed on, I think. So,
it's not a real photo because it would
be the best photo of all time, right?
But I think clearly in reference to
something we have audio and facts around
and I spoke to Kevin Kuth about and it
seems like there was an actual UFO
around Gemini 11 that caused this
electromagnetic outage and so this was
like this tongue-in-cheek
>> joke done by the NASA archivist
probably.
>> Mhm.
>> To like denote this whole event. It'd be
great to see if we can find a uh scan of
the maybe the raw version of that film
or maybe prompt uh Department of War or
NASA to release the images of the raw
film uh at some point. That would be
great. And then you have structures. So
you have this wishbone structure on the
back side of the moon
>> and it looks I'm not going to lie, it
looks pretty weird,
>> but it also looks like it could be some
natural geological formation. you use
some interesting kind of deductive
principles as to why it might not be.
So, how would you justify that possibly
being an artificial structure? The thing
we have to remember is that if the moon
has been visited by extraterrestrials
um at some point in the past,
it's very it's most probable that it
happened a really long time ago, perhaps
millions, hundreds of millions, or even
billions of years ago. And if that's the
case and they built some sort of a
structure, it would be highly eroded by
now because of micrometeoroid
bombardment essentially because you have
no atmosphere on the moon. Any
structures on the moon, if it's like a
spire type structure, it would be
pulverized in all directions by little
micrometeors and occasionally larger
ones and eventually it would be
flattened or smoothed or rounded. So um
over time you should expect that
structures on the moon become very
smooth and rounded and spiral-like
structures can't just persist for a very
long time. Moreover, they are unlikely
to uh form naturally on the moon. Uh
especially after like three billion
years ago or a billion years ago when uh
volcanic activity ceased and tectonic
activity more or less stopped or at
least like intrinsic tectonic activity
stopped. So
what I basically do is just to say look
these structures are very unlikely to
have been formed naturally by meteoric
erosion erosive processes and other
erosive processes are far too weak to
and also irregular and random to account
for the these particular structures. So
this for example this wishbone structure
some spire structures as well. There are
structures in Parisa sea and other
crater on the uh backside or far side of
the moon that also have unusually
precise geometries. Um, all of these
geometrically
anomalous or geologically anomalous
structures or formations are all
candidates, serious candidates for
ancient ruins on the moon from a past ET
visitation.
And so the project that I've been
pursuing is essentially to identify
geologically anomalous objects,
structures, formations, and phenomena on
the moon as potential candidates for
uh ancient highly eroded ruins of some
kind.
And then the next step of course uh is
to send some sort of a probe or robotic
rover of some kind or maybe manned
mission to examine the most promising
ones you much more closely to see if
that's the case or not.
>> To people who think we're crazy too,
it's like what is the rational decision
for the government to make? Is it for
>> them to film for all civilians to see
the first time they encounter anything
on, you know, a new structure, a new
planet or a new moon?
>> Obviously not.
>> Like obviously they would encounter the
thing first. They'd want some asymmetric
access to it. If it could confer a
tactical advantage or if it has the
potential to freak out the population,
>> you're going to keep it secret. And so,
yeah, like you said, you have the space
act of 1958 where NASA was explicitly
kind of, you know, an extension of the
DoD. And then you have Trump saying it's
like, you know, an intelligence agency,
you know, last year. And that's just
sort of, you know, call calling a spade
a spade. That's saying it is what it
already was. And even before that, NASA
commissioned uh the Brookings report in
1959. It was published in 1960. And the
recommendations of that report from the
Brookings Institution commissioned by
NASA was explicitly that it's possible
that artifacts from an ET visitation
will be found
>> on the moon or Mars and our future space
explorations of those planets. And if
so,
there could be potentially negative
catastrophically negative consequences
for so societal stability.
>> So there might be there's reason to
consider withholding this information.
that's an explicitly recommended
consideration to make. So you put that
together with the space act of 58. And
then on top of this, you get now uh the
Trump administration's executive order
saying that NASA will be considered an
intelligence agency for you know various
purposes. Um
the the default assumption should be
that if NASA discovered anything on the
moon or on Mars or elsewhere, more
likely than not because of the national
security implications of that such a
discovery, they probably would not have
just outright told the public or the
scientific community. That should be the
default, I think, expectation of
>> Yeah. Apparently John Brandenberg, who
we brought up earlier, who's a physics
PhD, really smart guy, worked at Sandia
for a lot of his career, um, and knows
kind of head honchos at a lot of these
places. He was, you know, going around
theorizing about, you know, ancient
structures on Mars, on Sidonia. You
know, a lot of this stuff that Richard
Hogland also reports on. You know,
lately we've had this like ridiculous
square object that doesn't look at all,
you know, square natural. Yeah, that's
pretty remarkable. And um so he actually
took it a step further and he said that
argon 40 and xenon 129 exist in excess
of what you would ever expect with just
natural radioactive isotope decay
implying that there was a nuclear
holocaust on Mars. And apparently when
he did that, Carl Sean of all people
called him up and he said,
>> "Randerenberg, why are you causing this
trouble?"
>> No way.
>> Yes. He said, "Why are you causing this
trouble?"
>> And we know that Carl Sean held really
high clearances. We know that he was
part of Project A119, which was a plan
to nuke the moon as a show of force
against the Soviets in 1958.
So I think what you're saying is is is
is correct that uh you have power
structures at the top that are really
they have to think of themselves as like
guardians of the world and like
calculating you know what can people
handle and there's this you know room
rumored sort of committee around this in
the UFO topic called the Majestic 12.
It's very sort of riddled with
controversy. It's unclear if that's a
real organization, but it makes sense
that there would be an organization like
that that is almost um containing
reality, like their modern uh platonic
guardians of of our reality.
>> Right. Yeah. And I've also heard rumors
of the so-called Collins elite, if I
remember correctly. Yeah. is a a
Christian group of group or I guess a
group of religious Christians who
believe that UFOs represent some sort of
a demonic phenomenon that perhaps should
not be studied closely or at least maybe
information about it should be
controlled. So that's another
possibility. Um I should mention
>> and maybe there's overlap between these
two groups.
>> Oh yeah, very very very likely. Very
plausible I think. Um, in terms of Sean,
I should mention that he was very
two-faced about uh the possibility of
UFOs or structures on the moon and Mars
when he was alive. On the one hand, uh,
in 1963, he published himself a
scientific technical paper where he used
Drake's equation to estimate the number
of probable galactic technologically
advanced civilizations in our galaxy and
the likelihood of Earth having been
visited. and he came up with estimates
on the order of probably 10,000
visitations of the earth have occurred
in like the past billion years or so. Um
and he even said that uh because of
erosion from weathering and uh whatever
uh other geological phenomena uh the
moon would be a natural place to put a
base if they wanted for example to
monitor earth over time and that future
missions to the moon should bear these
possibilities in mind. He explicitly
says this and he never retracted his
analysis in later papers. He also wrote
a 75 paper saying that if we want to
look for possible signs of
technologically advanced life on other
planets, one way to do that is to look
at the surfaces and to find uh
thermodynamic disequilibria or basically
thermodynamically anomalous structures,
rectalinear geometrically precise
structures that are hard to explain in
natural geological terms of the you know
the planet's geological processes And so
on Mars we found that
>> we found that yeah I would say on the
Mars I think there are countless
examples on the moon I think also and so
Sean was suggesting this himself and
saying this is a worthwhile thing to
explore and he even had correspondences
with with Dr. Mark Carlott, one of the
early researchers of the face on Mars,
expressing interest in Carl's various
analyses of the face on Mars. He even
said, "I agree with you that Gerald
Soffen, the uh I think he was the lead
um project scientist on the Viking
mission, which took the first images of
the face on Mars, Sophen said, "Oh yeah,
this isn't it interesting what a trick
of light and shadow can do. It can make
a just a simple hill look like a face."
And Sean agreed that what's often said
is actually uh mistaken because the face
still looks like a face when it's imaged
under other lighting conditions. And he
even said this was like an unfortunate
thing. And he even said that uh yeah,
it's worthwhile. If we're going to go to
Mars, we should take a look at the face
on Mars at some point, send a man
mission there. But publicly he ridiculed
people like Richard Hogland and Carl and
uh Brandenburgg. But privately in
communications he was um quite receptive
to what they were doing and even
supported some of their re likely
supported
>> in his early diaries. He'd write about
UFOs all the time. He was clearly
interested and he would debate his
mentor saying keep an open mind and then
he sort of flipped when Jen Heinik went
the opposite way.
>> It's very very interesting. Um, yeah.
It's almost like he was sort of this
citadel scientific spokesman who had to
like kind of manage the narrative in
some way. And
>> that's Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> plausible explanation of his
contradictory
kind of behavior on this.
>> Well, cuz he I mean, look, he wrote Pale
Blue Dot and he wrote Contact and like
both seem like he knows more than he
lets on about the topic. Even in in in
contact you have the first transmission
to Earth being Adolf Hitler
>> and making a speech which is really
>> trippy and weird but I think he's
talking about these long delay echoes
which are this phenomena that occurred
in the 1920s and 30s at the invention of
the radio where you would send a signal
out and then you'd get the same signal
back
>> with a little bit of delay
>> and so you know really really trippy
>> interesting phenomena. Um but it seems
like he always just knew more than than
met the eye.
>> I I think so. I mean uh Hogland has also
relayed Richard Hogland relayed a story
to me directly once about Sean that um
after some sort of a hearing uh I
believe it was it was either a
congressional hearing or some sort of
other uh
[snorts] public hearing. Uh Sean
apparently came up to him and put his
hand on his shoulder and said, "Keep up
the great work." Like whispered into his
ear and then uh walked off. And uh so
and Hogland says, "Yeah, he knew Sean
personally. They were friends." And
well, if that's true, and that's what uh
Sean said, then that says it all,
doesn't it? And you said he had top
secret clearances
>> and he's calling Brandenburgg and he's
saying, "Why are you causing so much
trouble?" And he was interested in
Brandenburg's work about the face on
Mars, too. And he said, "Oh, can you
send me images of this other face that
you've seen, too?"
>> Totally. And then I think Brandenburgg
went into a meeting uh or maybe this was
actually my buddy uh science Bob Maguire
>> was uh in a meeting about, you know,
with um the top scientist uh on Venus,
on the planet Venus,
>> and there was some anomaly or something
they were looking into there. And Sean
was in the meeting with like the White
House science adviser or something like
that.
>> Carl Sean was sitting in the room.
>> No way.
>> Yeah, Sean was sitting.
>> Wait, this is crazy. So, it's clear that
Sean was somehow like super deep. I
always thought he was deep on the inside
cuz he
>> But I'll tell I I don't mind telling
he's he's passed. I don't mind. He had a
contractor green badge with a picture on
it. You don't get that if you're casual.
>> And so he's just was Yeah. as cleared as
it gets. Really high up. And it seemed
like he was kind of meant to like
disseminate or trickle out information
like Don Menzel, right?
>> Who was caught destroying astronomical
plates, right?
>> Uh by his um kind of assistant who was
an astronomer in her own right at
Harvard, uh Dorit Hofflight. And he was
sort of meant to kind of manage the
narrative too. It seemed like he knew
more than he kind of let on about UFOs.
He held very high clearances and then he
just was dogmatically opposed to any
sort of openness to the topic. He would
always say, you know, weather phenomena,
temperature inversions, you know, things
things like that.
>> Um, and then now we have Beatatric Vale.
Are you familiar with her?
>> She's at Stockholm University
>> and she's found all of these on the
Palomar Observatory, which is one of the
most prominent observatories in use
>> at the time in Mount Wilson and San
Diego. uh California, she there there
10,000 plus transients, these light
reflecting what seemed like mirror like
metallic objects a year for 8 years from
1949, 1957 before we ever put Sputnik up
in space. And then she was like, I
looked into it and I spoke to NASA and
they were like, oh yeah, we call those
uncorrelated targets. Like they just
sort of like try to reduce all the noise
around this stuff. And then she was she
looked into it further and somebody told
her oh yes space force tracks those
>> they removed this background of
uncorrelated targets from the total uh
number of things that they see in order
to calculate the number of objects in
space. However, I think that there uh
they don't do it themselves. It's done
by militaries and it's classified lists.
So it's kind of becoming a little bit
more fun. I'm trying to look into this
right now. Well, uh, in fact, um,
US Space Force, uh, Northcom, Space, um,
NORAD, they actually have a term for
UFOs in space, which it's, uh, fast
walkers. It's a code word and slow
walkers, too. And, um, John Greenwall
Jr. of the black vault. Uh he has tried
to uh submit foyer requests for all of
uh US space forc's documents, the DoD's
documents referring to fast walkers and
slow walkers. And the response he got
was that all such documents are actually
exempt from FOYA disclosure under some
special you know uh subsection of the
FOYA act. And and so um yeah, then also
like I think last year or two years ago,
Arrow was um appointed to head some sort
of a space tiger restudy team to examine
UAPs in space of some kind or another.
Um so there is clearly evidence there
that's uh exempt from declassification
even to the degree like they don't even
want to release documents and redact
them. Even beyond that um I would say uh
Viller Royal's uh research on these uh
transients also lends further credence
to the hypothesis that these lights and
orbs seen in these Apollo images from
the lunar surface could well be of
extraterrestrial in origin. Perhaps the
common there's a common cause
explanation both for those and for these
transients uh seen in these photographic
plates in the 50s and whatever.
>> And her study is remarkable because it
correlates the transients showing up
with nuclear. It's 68% more likely to
show up within 24 hours of a nuclear
detonation which is wild because we all
know that UFOs are connected with
nuclear weapons. Allah Robert Hastings
work where you have nuclear bases all
over the US and all of these guys who
are you know um cleared to you know
pretty insensitive stuff and you know
they're on the PRP program where they
have to report if they're taking
ibuprofen and they see tic tac saucers
often messing with the nukes that he has
167 of these whistleblowers so the fact
that there's a correlation there is
fascinating and she's working with this
other scientist at Vander Vanderbilt uh
Dr. Steven
>> Brule
>> who's, you know, doing the stats on this
stuff and like I don't get any grifty
vibes from either of them. like they
seem pretty legit and you have
>> Sabina Hosenfelder, Brian Keading, you
know, being like we don't know how to
explain this like you know you this
requires further inquiry and I think she
just updated the public that
>> one of her colleagues in Germany I think
his name is Ivo Busco or something
blanking out his name but he um you know
has all sorts of impressive astronomical
space experience. he uh uh uh basically
figured out that that so the the number
one debunk on her work was that these
were like issues with like chemical
staining and plate defects over time
>> and cosmic rays as another I I've heard
as another
>> okay interesting
>> especially from a low but I I think she
refers to Bosco
>> yeah Busco's work as debunking the
cosmic ray explanation
>> so apparently that proves that these
These patterns aren't from chemical
stains or plate defects, but from the
light actually hit the optical circuitry
of the telescope itself. The light came
through the telescope. It is not an
artifact of, you know, uh the plates
drifting over time chemically. Uh so
that that that's pretty, you know,
amazing. Um uh and it just seems like
there's getting, you know, we're getting
more and more proof there. and hopefully
she gets a replication from another
observatory cuz to me that would be this
really exciting
>> smoking gun moment. But to go to your
point around fast walkers, uh there's an
email as well from the Wikileaks drop
>> um that involves Podesta, John Podesta,
who is you know obviously this you know
Clinton chief of staff um you know
helped manage Hillary's campaign.
He is at uh you know some aerospace
company or corporation in Elsagundo and
I think he's with a guy he's emailing
back and forth with a guy named Bob Fish
right
>> and he's talking about fast walkers
there and that email gets scrubbed from
the internet right
>> so there's something about fast walkers
which were clearly you know used as a
term as you're as you're implying.
>> Yeah. I I think there's one of the
things I would like to do at some point
is if I can somehow get my hands on the
uh defense support program satellite
records. These this is the satellite
network that tracks fast walkers and
slow walkers or has at least
>> Yeah, that's what they were referring
to. The DSP, which is the outer earth's
kind of orbit like that's like kind of
the first defense against anything
coming into the Earth's atmosphere.
>> Yeah. Apparently, uh, Lee researchers,
aerospace, uh, researchers Lee Graham
and Ron Reger, they, uh, claimed to
have, uh, analyzed DSP satellite
printout records in 1976 or 77 at the
day and time of the event of the Tan UFO
dog fight with the Royal Air Force of
the Sha at the time.
>> Yeah. And they claimed that the the DSP
uh satellites or at least one of them
detected an infrared or heat anomaly
over Tahan, Iran at the moment of that
event. And they've done some analysis of
this.
>> That story is wild cuz you have the the
pilot I think in a James Fox movie might
have been [clears throat] out of the
blue or something
>> saying that he like shot at the UFO and
then he lost control of his aircraft.
like, you know, all the I think it was
some electromagnetic outage and it like
just shut down on him. So you're saying
that that correlated with the DSP
archive sensing some sort of infrared
signature right around Tahran
>> according to Graham and Reger. But uh
apparently it's um these records are
still um
like still classified to the point that
like the public can't access those
satellite records
>> independently of what these guys did.
But if someday we could get our hands on
that satellite data, we could then try
to look at these crossorrelations with
known UFO incidents and crossorrelate
the time that it happened with what
those satellites may have picked up or
the STS 48 and STS80 UFOs. I would love
to look at the DSP satellite records
from those moments and see if there's
some sort of a crossorrelation there.
Um, so I think there's an enormous
potential if we can get our hands on
this classified data to show some maybe
really explosive scientific
corroboration of Yeah,
>> that'd be amazing. They should just let
it out, you know, we should just figure
this out. I think that the scop is that
they don't fully understand what's going
on. So [laughter] So I think they're now
like letting things out because it's
like, you know, they they need to open
source this stuff, especially with AI.
It's like you're not going to get the
new insight if with in a closed system.
The open system will always win.
>> So you need you need to you know update
your strategy like you know even if you
all you care about is like the tactical
military advantage of the US like you
still you need to figure your this is
not a good strategy.
>> Um
>> I agree. I also think it's very telling
that, you know, speaking of astronauts,
um, Neil Armstrong when he came back
from the moon in 1976, he does this
other mission at the edge of the Amazon.
>> Yes.
>> Through this Teaos cave system in
Ecuador, which the the only lore of
which is, you know, this was written
about in like Chariots of the Gods by
Eric von Danigan. And there's rumored to
be this ancient alien metallic artifact
in this cave system. And so why would
you go looking for that if you weren't
open to the presence of extraterrestrial
life possibly from experiences you had
on the way to the moon?
>> I completely agree and uh I
wonder if anyone has sat down with
Armstrong before he passed away and
asked him in detail why did you decide
to do this? What led you to this? I'm
not aware of that having happened. And I
just I I do know there were some camera
crew that filmed him doing this
expedition, but no detailed conversation
with him to ask his reasons for doing
it. But clearly it shows that he's open
to some really incredible
>> Yeah. Why why would you go look for that
at all if you didn't think that there
might be something up with the, you
know, origin of mankind on Earth or
presence of non-human intelligence or
something?
>> You you you have to have some sort of
opening to to do that. Otherwise, go be
a conventional archaeologist. Like,
don't don't go looking for an ancient
alien metallic artifact cave thing like
that.
>> It's either you've like spun out and
you've lost your marbles or like you
think there's something there. Yes.
>> And I think it's probably the latter.
>> Yeah. Buzz Aldrren and again he um he
himself was
always he's he's always flirting in
these circles with other people who are
or for example he's also insinuated that
this uh monolith that NASA has imaged on
Phobos one of the moons of Mars
um is an interesting structure and we
should go there and visit it and and
maybe take samples of it and he's
actually and NASA has actually proposed
a mission to do precisely that in 2007
to send a probe to this monolith on
Phobos and take a sample of it with the
probe and do some direct analysis of it.
Um,
>> how big is the monolith?
>> This monolith is about uh it's estimated
to be 90 85
m um in diameter and then 90 m tall. So
90 multiply by 3 to get it in feet
approximately. It's like 270 ft roughly
>> tall which is quite tall. Extremely
tall. It's like a tall building in size
>> skyscraper. Yeah.
>> Yeah. And it's I mean I've examined
those NAS those NASA images of that
monolith and clearly there is no other
structure anywhere else on Phobos nearly
as large. There are smaller much smaller
monolith.
>> What do you think that is? Do you think
that's remnants of an ancient? I think
it's plausible enough I mean coming back
to this general point that it's very
plausible that our solar system has been
visited by ET visitors in the past
billions of years. Okay. And where are
the two places in our solar system would
that they would have most likely gone?
>> Mars and the Earth.
>> Mars and the Earth. Especially because
like three billion years ago
>> and the moon in Phobos. Yeah.
>> 3 billion years ago Mars was much more
earthlike as an atmosphere.
>> Well, yeah. You had a biosphere, you had
a magneettosphere, and you had water.
No, nobody would dispute any of that,
>> right?
>> And maybe independently evolved life.
>> And if they wanted to monitor maybe that
life, maybe they would put something on
Phobos, like a monolith to monitor it,
just like they might put something a
base on the moon or maybe a monolith on
the moon, which I think there are a
couple of interesting candidates of that
sort um to observe Earth. So,
>> it's absolutely, I think, worth looking.
Certainly the monolith is geologically
anomalous. That is it's doesn't seem to
be a natural formation of Phobos. Um
it's too large, it's too symmetrical. Uh
its albido
or reflectivity is significantly
different from the surface of Phobos. So
>> interesting.
>> So but alternates this. And then uh he
was also friends with Arthur C. Clark,
the noted science fiction author who
also, you know, uh, Kubric made 2001 of
Space Odyssey based on his books, right?
>> Um, and 2001 Space Odyssey is riddled
with bizarre symbolism.
>> Yeah.
>> That's like, you know, it doesn't seem
like the space program is what it seems,
you know.
>> And Arthur C. Clark was a very trippy I
mean, he lived in Sri Lanka and wrote a
book about a portal in Sri Lanka. And,
>> you know, given his personality, you
think that he like walked through the
portal or something. He wrote
Childhood's End about an alien presence
that,
>> you know, can't make itself known all at
once. And so it needs to infiltrate the
highest ranks of the government and
speak through
>> nonverbal autistic children or whatever,
which is
>> you know, it's this weirdly kind of
maybe predictive around like what's
happening with telepathy tapes and
stuff.
>> Um, so yeah. Did you did you know that
Clark also in a um media interview at
his home in Sri Lanka, this was circa
2000, uh Buzz Aldrin was visiting him
there. There's an image, a photograph of
that uh media interview and Clark has
asked about um Mars and he says uh
what's really shocking and exciting to
me is that uh NASA has basically
discovered large forms of life on Mars.
Have a look at the pictures of Mars from
Jet Propulsion Laboratories. Take a look
at these structures. I don't see any
other interpretation other than that
these are gigantic forms of biological
life on Mars. And Buzz Aldrin just sits
there quietly. Doesn't contradict them,
doesn't disagree. Um that's another I
think interesting connection. And it
I've seen those specific Mars images
that um Clark was referring to who also
was by the way um a proponent of
studying the face on Mars more closely
and he thought those were promising
candidates of
>> uh ET built structures on Mars. He was I
think basically correct there. There are
a number of these images from uh Mars
Global Surveyor from nowadays from
high-rise showing what look like they
could well be maybe the skeletal
structure of uh fossilized large forms
of life on Mars or perhaps technology of
some sort that's just more exotic. But I
think he was on to something there. And
uh soon enough I'll be uh saying more
about that in some upcoming interviews
showing some specific examples
>> about what? Oh, well, so I recently did
an interview with uh my friend and
colleague John Ward, who's an Mars
anomalies researcher who does really
excellent work. He's made some
discoveries of uh anomalous formations
and structures that look like ruins or
look like maybe fungal structures that
are, you know, spanning um hundreds of
meters in in area. Um
in that interview we examine the images
in great detail. I apply some algorithms
to evaluate that evaluate the likelihood
that they can be naturally formed
fractal and texture-based algorithms.
And I show that the algorithms um imply
that these these uh landforms are
probably not of natural origin. And um
there are many other images of that sort
from NASA's own uh high-rise and MGS
images of the Martian surface. And so I
think they corroborate what Clark had
said in that interview and had said in
other places.
>> Wild. So then the question is why is
NASA not acknowledging that?
>> Yeah.
>> Why are they putting these images out
for the public to see
but ignoring uh these independent
researchers or just saying, "Oh, it's
all nonsense." Um,
it's kind of unclear to me what the
motive is in all of that, but it's clear
that there is one.
>> It's uh, you know, see like it's it's
don't shut down all discourse on the
thing. In fact, even seed it in these
kind of non-authoritative ways and then
track it.
>> And I think that's what's going on with
Arrow and with all the modern UFO
conversation. And it's, you know, it's I
don't think it's a coincidence that the,
you know, NS a former NSA director is
like, you know, the arrow guy where it's
like they track all the comms probably
around what's coming out and like, you
know, figuring out the unknown is is
going to be beneficial, I'm sure, to
them in many ways and they're just going
to track everything. And we know from
Snowden and from all these, you know,
revelations over the last 20 years that
like all our [ __ ] is tracked all the
time. So, so maybe they want people to
work on these things and
>> probably publicly and they're hoping
that someone will give some insights,
but they just don't want to acknowledge
these.
>> They don't want to do it like
officially. They don't want to say like,
you know, cuz they worry that that will
be destabilizing and then they probably
just want to like seed it as much as
they can. And so it's yeah, it's not
it's not giving it the stamp of approval
it totally deserves cuz it's a real
field and all this stuff is legit, but
it's also not shutting down conversation
in a way that you know they can they can
they can always like
>> knock on the person's door who's like
essential to them when they need them or
whatever.
>> And then there's the other explanation
is like the lights are on but no one's
home and like they're they literally
don't get it and they're like old gray
beard bureaucrats who like don't
understand this stuff. So I I don't
know. I go back and forth, but maybe
this is also why um when Project Blue
Book was released, the press release
associated with or at least with like
Special Report 14 or the whole thing was
uh Stanton Friedman uh did some research
on this and he said the the press
release said that uh we didn't find
anything anomalous even in the unknown
cases or the unidentified cases. there
was it was only like 3% of all the cases
and we think that
>> if we had more information we could
easily explain those. But then in
special report 14 of Blue Book, you look
at the actual report and the data table
of identified and unidentified and
unknown cases and it's something like
21% of almost a thousand different cases
were uh unknown and
they even say in the report that oh
yeah, we we can't actually identify
them. We we're not sure that we can
identify them with more information
either. So they clearly lied about their
own report that that was released to the
public.
>> Yeah. The analytical overlay, the stated
conclusion was just false. The same with
uh the Condan committee which is
synonymous with having you know shut
down Blue Book as far as you know what
we think of it. But if you actually look
at the
>> committee report it's over 30% still
unidentified. Same with Arrow. We think
of modern day arrow, you know, precaus,
you know, with Sean Kirkpatre as like
bad faith actors. They're trying to shut
down the conversation. Then you look at
the actual substance of like what
they're reporting and it's also over 30%
>> still unidentified. So, you know, and
then he just goes, "But we don't have
evidence for extraterrestrials." Well, I
don't know if we do either, but I know
we have evidence for a lot of anomalous
stuff that's worthy of worthy of further
inquiry. and you're trying to shut down
that conversation and you know almost
acting as like a fly trap for the data.
Um so yeah, it's it's very weird where
like the the statements don't actually
match the data and then it's like is
that some sort of dog whistle that's
supposed to hit the right people who
like are you know you're initiated if
you you can think for yourself and then
get beyond the stated sort of look away
you know uh blanket statement. I don't I
don't know. I don't understand how this
stuff works, but there there is a lot of
talking out of both sides of of your
mouth.
>> But I think that's probably the most
promising explanation that you just
gave, the dog whistle one.
>> Yeah. Yeah, maybe. Yeah.
>> Um, okay. There's some more uh really
weird anomalies on the moon. You have a
heat signature.
I want to take a moment to thank one of
today's sponsors, Ziotics. Ziotics
pre-alcohol probiotic drink is the
world's first genetically engineered
probiotic. It was invented by PhD
scientists to specifically tackle rough
mornings after drinking. Here's how it
works. When you drink, alcohol gets
converted into a toxic byproduct in the
gut. It's a buildup of this byproduct,
not dehydration that's to blame for the
rough days after drinking. Pre-alcohol
produces an enzyme to break this
byproduct down. Just remember to make
pre-alcohol your first drink of the
night. Of course, drink responsibly and
you'll feel your best tomorrow. I have
Ziotics before my first drink of the
night and I wake up feeling totally
normal the next morning. So, go to
zibiotics.com/jesse
to learn more and get 15% off your first
order when you use Jesse at checkout. Z
Biotics is also backed with a 100% money
back guarantee. So, if you're
unsatisfied for any reason, they'll
refund your money, no questions asked.
Remember to head to zbiotics.com/jessie
and use the code jesse at checkout for
15% off. It happened to me in the woods.
I was hiking solo. New year, no phone,
no gear. I was just trying to find
myself. That's when I saw it. Something
glowing, silent, descending through the
trees. A UFO. And stepping out from it
wasn't an alien or an android. It was
me, but better. Same face, same great
hair, but something was different. This
guy had perfect posture. He was wearing
the perfect jean. And they start at just
$79. Six fits. Sizes for every thigh on
this timeline and beyond. Now 2026 me
wears the perfect jeans. They don't
crush my thighs or my dreams. They're
soft but dangerous. For a limited time,
our listeners get 15% off their first
order plus free shipping at the perfect
gene.nyc
or just Google the perfect gene and use
code jessie5
for 15% off. That's 15% off for new
customers at the perfectgene.ny. NYC
with promo code Jesse15. After you
purchase, they'll ask you where you
heard about them. Please support our
show and tell them we sent you your
khakis and get the perfect gene. There's
some more uh really weird anomalies on
the moon. You have a heat signature.
Yeah, there is a place on the far side
of the moon called the uh um well
between two craters called Compton and
Belovich.
And NASA has found in imaging uh
infrared imaging of the
entire moon that there's this one area
that is emitting 20 times the average
heat output of the rest of the far side
of the moon. So 20 times the heat output
in this one area between these two
craters.
And
uh not only that, but this area has also
an anomalously high concentration of um
thorium and I believe uranium. So
radioactive elements.
>> It's also anomalously glassy and highly
reflective compared to the rest of the
back side of the moon, far side of the
moon. And in terms of the cratering of
this particular area, uh NASA scientists
have analyzed that and they've concluded
that the number of craters in this
particular area is anomalously low or
few indicating a much younger age than
the rest of the far side of the moon.
The ages they estimate based on the
cratering rates, which is a standard
technique used by lunar geologists,
celenologists,
is about on the order of hundreds of
millions of years old. whereas obviously
the rest of the backside of the moon is
much more ancient than that three plus
billion years old and even more. Um so
there are there are anomalies on top of
anomalies on top of anomalies on top of
anomalies in this one area this heat
this anomalously hot area
>> 20 times is well beyond uh some sort of
expected standard deviation.
>> Yeah. And while it may not be an
enormous amount of heat, it's uh that's
being emitted, the fact that it's so
much more than the rest is what makes it
a particularly interesting uh uh
geological anomaly. And what's more is
that the best explanation that NASA and
the planetary science community has been
able to come up with so far is that
there must be a massive 50 kilometer
wide block of granite below the moon's
surface kilometers below that's storing
heat from billions of years ago and just
emitting it through the lunar surface.
And that's being seen at this particular
spot called the heat anomaly. The
researchers who uh came up with that
hypothesis, they admit that this
otherwise would not make sense
geologically because for granite to form
you need massive amounts. You need water
and you need tectonic activity. And for
a 50 kilometer wide block of granite,
you would need a massive amount of water
to produce that which doesn't exist on
the moon and probably never existed.
At least like in the standard picture of
the moon, it never existed. And so they
admit that geologically it doesn't make
sense that there could be such a massive
block of granite. And it's only invoked
as an ad hoc explanation of this
particular heat anomaly. There's been no
imaging like ground penetrating radar
has not found a block of granite like
that of any sort. Um so it's just a
purely ad hoc
geological hypothesis that's
geologically nonsensical too according
to everything we know about geology.
Yeah. hypothesis that actually cuts
against basic conventions of geology
because it's been nothing like that has
been found anywhere else in the solar
system in terms of like granite in that
large a quantity.
>> So I would say this is another obvious
candidate place to go. Maybe there's a
remnant of I don't know an underground
base that was maybe uh maybe had a
nuclear reactor. Maybe there was it was
a landing site of somewhere else. These
are all these possibilities. Well,
that's where my mind goes cuz on Earth
it feels like UFOs show up at kind of
nuclear hot spots, but also places where
they're rare earth, you know, mineral
deposits, that sort of thing.
>> So, I wonder if there's some sort of,
you know, uh, yeah, thorium deposit
thing going on there. I I don't know,
you know, would that connect somehow
with UFOs showing up? Well, I think it
would be interesting.
Yeah, I I don't know. Um, in terms of I
mean maybe the thing to do would be to
send some robotic probes or rovers at
this particular Compton Belovich heat
anomaly and have them just point cameras
to the sky and monitor and see if any
interesting uh I don't know anomalous
orbs or whatever are seen. Um, by the
way, do do you know if in Hastings work
if this correlation between UFOs and
nuclear sites includes just ordinary
nuclear reactors?
>> Oh yeah. So he actually has an appendex
where he details six to eight civilian
nuclear energy grids. And there's a
famous case in Baroce, Argentina.
Apparently the Chernobyl spill, the
Fukushima spill. Well, there's a
mountain in Japan called Mount Sangori,
right next to the Fukushima Civilian
Energy Grid that's dedicated to UFOs.
There's a whole UFO museum at the top of
the mountain. Well, if that if that's
the case, then I guess we should expect
that when NASA builds its uh nuclear
reactor for this planned moon base,
>> at least, you know, um this has been
stated that this is a plan to build a
nuclear reactor on the moon to power
this moon base at some point, then maybe
we should expect to see um yeah, UFOs,
UAP flying over the lunar surface drawn
to that nuclear reactor. At least that's
a thing to perhaps look out for.
>> Totally. It's very Yeah, exactly. You
also have this anomalously bright
crater, right, called Called Aristarkus,
and that kind of connects with one of
these Apollo was it Apollo 11?
>> Apollo 11 is when it was uh
>> it was noticeable. Well, so apparently
some astronomers in Germany saw this
crater as unusually bright. Mhm.
>> Um, and mission control told Apollo 11
about this while they were in orbit
before they landed. And they were asked
to take a look at Aerost Starkus from
orbit around the moon. And yeah,
Armstrong and uh, Uldren um, and the
other guy, I think Collins, they uh,
looked at it and they said, "Yeah, it
looks unusually bright, almost like
fluorescent. We can definitely see
that." Um it was also considered to be a
potential landing site for uh Apollo 18
which never happened as a you know
mission but uh they were interested in
it. It's also in NASA's own multiple
studies of transient lunar phenomena. So
so NASA has this archive of transient
lunar phenomena dating back hundreds of
years from amateur astronomers,
professional astronomers on Earth.
about half of them have been identified
coming from Aristarus as well. And they
don't know why. Nobody knows why. Uh
there are some handwavy guesses,
speculations like maybe there there's
some sort of outgassing of some type
coming from deep within the moon
>> um of some unknown gas that's somehow
then creating electrical phenomena or
sparking of some kind. Um but that's
just a guess. Uh they they have they
have detected anomalous quantities of
radon which is a byproduct of uh of um
yeah of other radioactive elements and
it's still not known what is causing
the transient lunar phenomena around our
starkcus or just anywhere in general.
There are some very tentative
explanations. So this I would say is
another potential site. It's anomalously
bright in the visible spectrum in the
ultraviolet spectrum and uh it produces
flashes of light occasionally
apparently. It changes color in
anomalous ways. It becomes hazy in
anomalous ways. It exhibits all kinds of
phenomena that again do not fit the
standard geological explanation of what
the moon is. So we got to take a closer
look. It's squarely one of the, you
know, one of the best anomaly candidates
we have. And there are there appear to
be potential, um, like cavelike
entrances at the base of Arister
Starkus, which have been found by some
lunar anomalies researchers. And so, um,
that's wild.
>> Yeah. And, and I wonder if maybe that's
this is part of the reason NASA wanted
to go there in Apollo 18 was because,
um,
>> send some rovers.
>> Yeah. They they they haven't even done
that. Interestingly enough, there's been
>> they've never sent rovers to rovers. Do
you think some secret program has sent
rovers or
>> perhaps? Um I I was recently uh I
recently learned that the Air Force had
detailed plans for like an Air Force
manned mission to the moon.
>> Yeah.
>> Called Lunex, which was designed in like
1957 to 1961.
>> Yes. And
>> it was at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Oh,
the man orbiting laboratory,
>> right? And they wanted to build a base
and send multiple
>> uh Air Force I guess personnel to the
moon. And
>> um and then nominally it was canceled.
>> Nominally it was canceled. Yeah.
>> And because it was like, oh, we'll have
NRO satellites, which nobody knew what
the NRO was at the time, but it was
like, you know, NRO would image things
better than humans. But if you have
things like Aristarus which are real
lunar anomalies with
>> seemingly some sort of internal cave
network and you know brightness and you
know associated with it. Why wouldn't
you send a person there? You probably
would. And so that air force you know
man orbiting laboratory I always think
uh another interesting place to look for
truth is uh you know really ridiculous
narratives like what's directly adjacent
to that. So there's this whole idea of
secret space program. You have Cory good
going on Gaia
>> saying, "Oh, we have, you know, we have
all these people who've gone 20 and back
into like the deep solar system
>> and it's just insane and it's so there
are all these logical fallacies involved
in it. You it's not even worth getting
into and debunking because it's so
primmaacious, sort of ridiculous in bad
faith." But like and then and then you
think when you say the word secret space
program, you assume that we have no
secret space program. So it did its job.
That's what I think its job was. You
know, it's almost like uh pizza gate and
Epstein or something like it's very
adjacent and and similar to so of course
we have a secret space program. Of
course there is some I don't know what
it is. You have Reagan diary entries
from the 80s saying I you know met with
top astronomers from from NASA you know
and and the Navy I think and you know
turns out we can put you know 300 up to
300 people in in Earth's orbit. We right
now we have if you count like you know
international space station and Soviet
and Chinese equivalents we have like 10
11 people in space. What are you talking
about 300 people? We had the capability
in the 80s to put 300 people like
according to I mean maybe it you could
say you know it was some bureaucrat
showboating. You know, there are ways
you can explain that away, but then you
have the man orbiting laboratory stuff
which was nominally cancelled. But like
why wouldn't you also have again people
going to some of these sites where we've
discovered anomalies to figure out, you
know, if there's some super kind of, you
know, again, one line of code update on
everything, you know, a person has to
analy. You're not going to send some
robot and like just, you know, figure it
out optically. or if you do then you're
going to send a person after that.
>> Yeah. I mean I I think there's no
question that there is a covert or
secret space program which is more or
less admitted by um uh US military. Um I
if you go and look at uh potential job
applications and various private
aerospace firms,
they talk about you have to have
knowledge about maybe space systems and
space vehicle propulsion. And uh we know
that at Vandenberg Air Force bases there
are classified payloads that are
launched into space routinely. And NASA
has even launched classified DoD
payloads into space uh through the
shuttle missions for example and even
after there was the joint DoD Clementine
mission as well. And um
there's no question that there is a
secret space program to some degree. The
only question is how far does it extend?
Uh, does it include secret manned
missions in orbit, for example, aside
from NASA? Does it include manned lunar
missions or potentially even beyond that
that we don't know about? And well,
yeah, given how little we know, given
how much secrecy there is um
around these covert space programs, I
think that's all possible. Has we have
to keep an open mind about that.
>> Totally. Yeah. What about the idea that
the moon is partially hollow?
>> Yeah.
>> So you have like um you know Apollo 11
and 12
>> where it rang like a bell and they put
seismometers and they intentionally
crashed the booster into it and it
ranged even more for longer. Um you know
this is all documented. You have Gordon
McDonald Eisenhower's space advisor
saying the only way in which the moon
makes sense is if it's somewhat hollow.
So what is that significant somehow? Is
that is that you know maybe maybe it's
sort of this you know if you want to get
really crazy some people say it might be
this geoengineered structure
>> right
>> well it's
there are I think a couple of
explanations for why it rings like a
bell um in these or why it rang like a
bell in these Apollo experiments and uh
one is okay yes it's bone dry right so
that allows sound waves to prop
propagate more easily doesn't have water
except for like just a little bit of
water ice at the poles and uh
microscopic amounts of water elsewhere.
That's one thing. But NASA has also um
imaged the subsurface of the moon using
a probe called Grail which measured
basically gra changes in the
gravitational field of the moon. And
it's found that there are massive caves
and caverns um extending
even potentially kilometers below the
lunar surface.
Irregular. It's not uniform everywhere,
but there are clearly major gaps um and
cave like structures below the lunar
surface. So that probably that has to
also uh contribute to the explanation.
Now, beyond that, I is it hollow if you
go like straight to the core? I don't
know. But, um,
if it has these anomalously large caves
and caverns, like one in particular,
which is uh connected to a lava tube,
it's it's considered a gigantic lava
tube. It is so large you could take
Manhattan and the burrows and fit it
inside of it. And it's something like uh
I think nine kilometers tall or
something like that. It's enormous. Um
that's
it's possible that it's been
geoengineered. Um, if there was a past
ET visitation, one of the logical places
or what logical things you might do to
build a base, establish a long-term
presence is to build it underground
to just avoid micrometeoric bombardment
or solar flare activity or radiation.
And so
it's very possible that the reason there
are these massive hollow expanses at
certain portions of the moon is because
it was basically built out at some point
in the past. And so I think we have to
just go and look
>> and it regulates the tide on the earth
and the environment. There are zulu
myths of like pre-moon society like this
idea that like it showed up at some
point,
>> you know, or even if you read um the
Quran, the the moon opens up. Um, so you
know, who knows,
>> uh, you know,
what that what any of that means, but
but isn't it even conventionally thought
of as anomalous the fact that it's tidal
locked that you never see the dark side?
And it is, isn't it unusually
close and big for a moon as well? Well,
what's what's special is about the tidal
locking in this case is that I mean
multiple moons in our solar system are
tidily locked to their uh planets like
Phobos and Damos, the moons of Mars are
tidily locked. But what's unique about
our moon is how large it is compared to
Earth
>> and it's tidily locked. And then yeah
the fact that it's at this particular
distance that regulates the tides in
such a way that uh life could basically
evolve without or develop over time in a
fairly stable way that's where the tides
are not destructive to the gradual
development of life on Earth. Um that's
an interesting anomaly. And then I also
I think I mean the question is is like
what is the odds of of a moon being
tidily locked at this particular
distance such that it regulates the
tides in this way. That's not really
fully understood. And then the other
thing is how did the moon form in the
first place? The leading explanation is
a glancing blow from a Marslike
planettoid body. I know four billion
years ago it just came out of nowhere
and just crashed into Earth. uh what are
the odds of that particular collision
happening?
>> Makes no sense.
>> Doesn't really make sense either.
>> Sphere would pop out and then you know
move into some you know orbit point or
what it doesn't make sense. It doesn't
make a lot there are a lot of ad hoc
aspects
>> and then and then also it it doesn't
pattern match to the earth like the the
more you dig on the moon you get into
kind of less dense layers you know and
obviously maybe maybe that's you know if
you get to the core maybe that changes
somewhat but with the earth it's just
more dense all the way down you go you
would expect it to match
>> if it if like some you know like perfect
slice proportional slice of the earth
popped out of the earth you would expect
it to match the earth yeah the the
distribution of mass below the surface
of the moon is anomalous too. I mean I
mentioned the cavernous gaps the big
gaps there also areas of the moon that
apparently have enormous concentrations
of mass and these turn into
gravitational anomalies. So even the
lunar um the the Apollo spacecraft while
orbiting the moon they had problems with
landing or uh they had to correct their
orbits because of these gravitational
anomalies like uneven gravitational
pulls of the moon because some places
there's enormous concentration of mass
and we don't know why. In some places
there's a big gap of missing mass
underneath and we don't know why.
And it's really hard to see understand
that in terms of this uh conventional
explanation of uh thea this Mars like
planet just crashing into the moon and
then the debris just coalesing and um
and I I think if you press lunar
scientists enough on these points
they'll admit that yeah there's a lot of
there are a lot of mysteries here about
how the moon could have formed
naturally. So [snorts] they'll admit to
it. what they'll probably be reluctant
to do is to consider the possibility of
the moon as maybe artificially formed or
at least maybe maybe uh geoengineered in
some way in the distant past. But I
think when we take into account the
improbability of these particular
properties of our moon um and the way it
could have formed naturally, we have to
consider those scenarios seriously. And
I think also the fact that life on earth
the way it could have evolved or first
of all the way that DNA and RNA could
have spontaneously formed and then from
that complex biological life evolved. I
think frankly that there is no remotely
plausible natural physical chemical
explanation of how that occurred. I
don't think the standard neodyarwinian
synthesis of that has um provided
particularly plausible explanations.
It's the reason like Francis Crick was
like there's no way that DNA could have
formed in 100 million years. So,
>> you know, he started to write about uh
uh life, he wrote a book called life
itself in 1981 about directed panspermia
and he wrote a paper about it as well
and Carl Sean was very interested in
this too.
>> Um because it was the only explanation.
So this whole like
>> primeval primordial soup thing of like
you know how does chemistry turn into
biology seems like a very unsolved
question that we're you know we're just
inserting placeholders and the sort of
conventional explanation there right now
>> right so if the human genome is
genetically was engineered by someone
billions of years ago um if directed
panspermia is correct it could well be
that whoever seated ed life on Earth or
engineered
DNA and RNA may have also said let's
also engineer the moon of this planet so
that this form of life that we're
seating here can develop over time um
without too much difficulty so I think
that's entirely realistic
>> do you think there's a chance that we
came from Mars
>> yeah it's possible in some sense because
Mars seems to have had a earthlike atm
atmosphere for like over a billion years
according to even known NASA's own
studies. Um when and this was like three
billion years ago.
Maybe life independently developed or
maybe it was first
seated on Mars through some directed
panspermia scenario of some ET visitors
and then over time maybe they became
space fairing. Maybe they came to Earth
uh billions of years ago. Or maybe
um meteor strikes took some of the the I
don't know the the bacteria or the
primitive forms of life and then they
just you know went through space and
then crashed into Earth. Um that's
another possibility. What about all the
you know you're sitting in the chair
that Joe Rogan sat in as my first guest
in the spaceship and it was a total
honor. It was really fun. And uh we just
went off on this whole like, you know,
maybe we didn't even go to the moon
thing. And I I don't think he would or I
would say we definitely didn't go to the
moon. I think
>> we just wanted to instill some kind of
epistemic humility or openness on the
part of the audience because there are a
lot of weird facts about uh the first
Apollo missions. They're just they are
there are if the whole I can say
definitively that at the very least the
perception of the entire thing was super
managed and there are fake elements of
the Apollo program and then it's just
like how fake was it?
>> And I'm inclined to believe I'm I'm in
this sort of middle camp is how I net
out that like we did go to the moon. We
experienced some weird stuff along the
way and that's what we're hiding. But um
is there a chance
>> that we never went to the moon? Why have
we not gone back? Yeah.
>> Do you have any explanations there?
>> I think we definitely went to the moon
um at least as early as Apollo 11. I
think that many of the
uh
>> you think possibly earlier.
>> Yeah. I mean, if the Air Force was
planning uh making detailed plans for
that in the ' 50s, even before NASA was
formed and then afterwards, I mean, who
knows? Maybe, but I don't know. I I
would say just at least since Apollo 11,
I think that what people like Bart Sabre
and other uh moon hoax proponents say, I
think I can explain
pretty much all of the main objections
they have to the claim that we went to
the moon in Apollo 11. So I think there
are reasonable explanations for the
apparent shadow discrepancies for
example or um for example the valent van
Allen radiation belts and the question
of how we could have gone through um but
>> yeah it's very I it does seem like some
of the imagery was uh
>> like yeah managed or at least
>> subsequently images released to the
public may not have been the original
imagery. Um, there is this particular
exchange between Buzz Aldrin and Conan
O'Brien.
>> Uhhuh.
>> From many years ago. It's on YouTube.
Everyone can watch it. And Buzz and
O'Brien asks him, "What was it like
going to the moon and walking the moon?"
And then Buzz Aldrin says to him, "Well,
what you saw there was actually not the
original like image or real. It was like
a manufactured uh image of some kind."
And the audience is like, "What?" And
O'Brien is like, "What?" And then he
changes the subject. I remember my
parents waking me up and we went down
and we watched you guys land on the moon
which was
>> No, you didn't.
>> What?
>> Because u there wasn't any television.
There wasn't anybody taking a picture.
You watched animation. See, you
associated what you saw with
>> I have very hazy memories.
>> And I don't know what Buzz Aldrin meant
by that. Ex. It sounded like Buzz Aldrin
was saying that some of the imagery was
not real or it was a simulation or was
simulated.
>> Wow. That's I mean if you take his words
at face value there, that's what he
seems to be saying.
>> I mean the video so fake ridiculous. It
doesn't look I mean it's it's not
impressive by today's standards and it
looks like it could have been I agree it
looks like it could have been fake but I
think in the end it there are too many
indicators that it actually happened and
that the more likely explanation is that
it's just it looks that way but it's it
was genuine. It was just poor quality
and that's why it looks so fake. I have
a friend named uh Jim Keller who's like
one of the most famous chip makers in
the like he built the chip that's like
in all of our iPhones and he was
>> uh working directly under Elon at Tesla
and he's a super impressive guy. He was
I don't know if his title was CTO he's
de facto CTO of like Intel for a long
time. He's a VP there.
>> Genius, like renowned guy. And uh he's
can be pretty conspiratorial and he can
beat anyone I know
>> in a debate about the Moonlanding videos
being fake and he will he takes the
their fake side.
>> Oh, he does.
>> And he's super hard-headed first
principles. and we almost did an
interview for American Alchemy and he
has so much like shareholder value
associated with him that we sat we were
like I literally flew up to the Bay Area
to do it with him and he was like Jesse
dude like when we talk we just say a lot
of crazy [ __ ] and like I don't want to I
got to raise money for my companies and
stuff but um he has a lot of interesting
stuff from there being you know no dust
on the lunar lander to uh you know uh
the flag waving, all all your kind of
conventional things. But then you go one
step deeper, you know, even on the on
the on the pro side and like he kind of
dismantles any argument. So
>> I don't I Yeah, that's where I I net out
that it was really optically curated and
managed, but we did go. But I I don't
know. Well, if it would be of interest,
I'm happy to talk to him at some point,
see his reasons, and go step by step
with him through it and see what we can
>> Yeah.
>> maybe agree on.
>> That'd be cool because you you seem
really hard-headed and um
>> you mentioned a couple of things though
in your intro that I want to dig into.
Uh one is that you studied kind of
statistical analysis around
parasychology. So like remote viewing,
mind matter effects. M uh what prompted
you to do that and how did you shake
out? Do you think it's it's real?
>> Well, from the time that I was I mean
this my interest in this topic goes way
way way back when I was like I don't
know 9 10 11 and had an uncle who was
really um interested in these topics.
and he said, "But it's probably all
nonsense and uh there are skeptics like
James Randy and other skeptic
organizations that say all of this is,
you know, not really true, but it would
be cool if it were true." Years later, I
got in touch with Dr. Hal Putoff. As a
high school student, I was looking to do
a Intel science talent search project on
something to do with 0 point
fluctuations and the physics of that. So
I ended up contacting Hal when I was I
don't know in 10th grade or so.
>> How long ago was this? That's
>> like 2002. Wow. So
>> yeah, I was I mean I had read a number
of his uh number of articles about his
physics work. The suggestion his
suggestion that gravity is a 0 point
fluctuation force and gravity and
inertia are zero point fluctuation
forces. And
I knew about Earth Tech and the
experimental work that his team was
doing.
>> As a sophomore in high school, you knew
about all of this.
>> Yeah, I was I was Oh, reading about uh
um yeah, claims of free energy devices
and anti-gravity to Biffield Brown
effect and all of that from years
before. And Hal was someone who struck
me as a serious physicist, obviously
with excellent
academic credentials, mainstream
credentials, who was also open-minded
enough to consider some of these more uh
maybe fringy ideas in physics. And so I
yeah, I reached out to him and uh we
established a communication back and
forth for a while. And then when I was
in 11th grade, I took like an AP psych
course and the textbook said there's
nothing to parasychology. The people
have done experiments. These two people,
Russ Tar and Hal put off at Stanford in
the 70s tried to do some experiments
with Yuri Geller and with remote
viewing, but James Randy debunked all of
it. So I wrote to Hal and I said, "Hal,
I didn't know you did research on
parasychology." And he said, "Oh yeah, I
have." And yeah, what your textbook says
is all wrong. And here is an article um
that I wrote about the remote viewing
program uh with Stargate and Scanate or
DIA and CIA. And so I was really
surprised but also very interested and
impressed with the carefulness of the
article Hal gave me, the overview of the
research done and his book Mind at
Large, which is a compendium of his
published papers in the LE E in the 70s
or so. [gasps] And then I got in contact
with uh the pair lab. Yeah. Princeton
engineering anomalies research lab.
Brenda Dunn and Robert John.
>> I said I I I called them and I said,
"Hi, I'm a senior u high school student.
I'd like to uh participate as a test
subject for your uh lab, your
psychoinetic and remote viewing
experiments because if this is real, I'd
like to see it happen for myself and I'd
like to see how you uh run your
experiments and all of that." And so,
uh, they invited me and we established
kind of a communication and I was kind
of an intern at the lab on and off for a
while. Um, but at the same time, I had a
foot in the skeptics community. I joined
Scychop and I interacted with those
people. I wanted to have a foot in each
to try to stay sort of scientifically
neutral and to consider both sides. And
I didn't really settle on an opinion at
that point. And I kind of put it on
hiatus, my interest in that subject
until I got through my undergraduate
studies. And then once I went to grad
school, I decided that you know what, I
know enough statistics at this point
that I should be able to do my own
analyses of various uh size studies. And
one of the ones that was most
interesting to me was the Gansfeld
protocol which is a sensory deprivation
technique developed in the 70s
um really by German psychologists then
used by parasychologists like Charles
Hertton and some others uh to try to
amplify side effects of the telepathy or
clairvoyance or precognitive type and
since then there have been thousands of
trials conducted did across hundreds of
studies across dozens of countries going
back to the 70s. So there's this big
public database of publicly available
database. Explain the Gansfield method
for yeah somebody who's not familiar.
>> Essentially what they do is there's a
sender and a receiver. The sender is in
one room. The receiver is in another
room.
And the receiver is asked to look at v a
video screen or maybe a photograph of a
particular image chosen from a set of
four possible videos or or uh
photographs.
And it's chosen randomly according to
some random procedure.
And they they're asked to try to
telepathically send information about
the target, the visual target to the uh
receiver
who's in the other room. And the
receiver um is put into this
sensory deprivation state
called the Gansfeld. Gansfeld is German
for whole field. Then essentially the
way they do this is they take ping pong
balls, cut them in half, tape them over
the eyes of the uh receiver and they
shine a red flood light onto their face.
So they just see a uniform red, bright
red visual field and then they put on
headphones and uh white noise is played
so that auditorially all they're hearing
is white noise. And after about 15 20
minutes,
most people start to have mild sensory
and auditory hallucinations or they at
least they see imagery of some kind or
another. And one of the experimenters
prompts the receiver to describe what
they're seeing and uh describe it
descriptively. And as the receiver is
saying, I'm seeing, I don't know, a man
in a big red in a red suit, a fat man in
a red suit, and I see a Coca-Cola bottle
or whatever, uh, they write it down and
write everything down, maybe draw some
diagrams, and then after about 45
minutes, they're brought out of the
Gansfeld state. And this is all
happening while the sender is in the his
room trying to mentally project or send
the imagery to the receiver.
After the receiver is brought out of the
Gansfeld state, they're asked more
questions, maybe asked to draw what they
saw in more detail. So all of this
information, it's called a mentation,
is um then used by the receiver and the
experimentalist in the room with the
receiver to try and identify the target
image from a set of four that's given to
them on say a screen for computer screen
that's like separate from the computer
screen in uh in the sender room. And
essentially they try to guess or
identify the target and they have a one
in4 chance of doing so. But over
thousands of trials cumulatively the hit
rate across the best trials or at least
the best quality studies seems to be
around 30 to 35%.
And it seems that certain subops,
particularly artists, professional
artists and musicians perform
significantly better on the order of
like 40 to 45%.
Success rate where the sort of chance
expectation is 25%.
And so if you do some simple statistical
analysis on that and it's something
called an exact binomial test, you'll
find the odds against chance of this is
something like one part in maybe 10 to
the 12 or one part in a trillion or
something like that.
>> Yeah. So this is it's like the single
line update of code that like changes
everything. Like if if there is some
sort of mind matter interaction or like
mental interaction across spaceime that
like goes faster than light or whatever
you kind of have to throw out all your
priors when it comes to physics, when it
comes to uh even consensus reality, even
the alien disclosure stuff. It's sort of
impossible to have this conversation,
but like you've done this statistical
analysis, so has this woman named
Jessica UTS, right?
>> Um I believe she's at UC Irvine, right?
>> And she uh was the uh president of the
American Statistical Association in
2016.
>> And she did this whole kind of
metaanalysis of Stargate and the remote
viewing stuff, which it sounds like you
did along with the Gansfield. And like
she was like, if this were any other
field, this it would be beyond a shadow
of dou of a doubt. It's so it's so
beyond, you know, replicable. Uh and
because it's called parasychology, it's
sort of, you know, laughed off. You
mentioned Bob John. He was the dean of
the engineering school who's invented,
you know, plasma propulsion that's in
satellites we use today, you know, and
uh he's basically spent the last 40
years of his life working on random
event generators and trying to prove out
this mind matter effect. and no one
would listen to him other than Navy
spooks who were extremely interested in
what he was doing. Yeah.
>> So, it's this weird bifurcation of like
like you know people like yourself who
earnestly look into it. It's like it's
it's like obviously there you know Joe
Rogan just had on Dean Raiden.
>> You just you earnestly look into it for
like a little bit. you're like, "Okay,
this is obviously a thing." And then
everyone, you know, in consensus
academia, it just completely dismisses
it and says it's sort of like a joke.
Um, I want to now talk about your your
physics theory because, you know, I find
that to be fascinating.
>> Uh, you know, there are very few people
who are kind of, you know, coming from
the hard-headed physics world,
>> uh, who try to explain UFOs or who are
even open to UFOs. So, what is your
physics theory? If you were to describe
it at a at a high level for uh not
technical but interested in the
substance audience,
the best broad explanation that I can
see
as out there from physics as we know it
is that UFOs understood as
extraterrestrially engineered craft of
some kind. They are
um doing something called space-time
metric engineering or essentially
engineering the um structure of
space-time
and this particular object called the
metric which is the central object of
Einstein's theory of gravity known as
general relativity the Einsteinian
description of gravity and spacetime.
Um, essentially they're
they're probably
setting up a type of uh metric called a
warp drive metric. It's a particular
kind that I mean the most well-known
version it's was due to this guy Al
Kubir. Essentially it can um it's a
spaceime that involves the contraction
of space in front of an object and the
expansion of space behind the object.
And this particular combination of
contraction and expansion can actually
tug or pull something inside of this
metric uh region [clears throat] in
between
in the direction of the contraction. And
it doesn't require any sort of um
conventional ejection mass or reaction
mass of any kind. You don't need to
throw something out the back. So, it's a
true example of a reactionless
propulsion system
and it requires massive amounts of
negative energy density to do
>> which we don't know how to engineer.
>> Yeah, we don't know how to engineer it.
We only know how to engineer it in
extremely small. Yeah, you have Sunny
White with who can engineer the Casemir
effect which is this sort of uh almost
like anti-gravity dark energy quantum
black vacuum fluctuations related force
>> where you have two uh non-charged but
conductive plates when they're placed
very close together they sort of attract
in this anomalous way and then he can
harness that into like a this like what
is it 1.5 kilovolt or like some super
low voltage
chip. That's like amazing. I mean, if
you can like light up anything and use
that as like real electricity, that's
nuts.
>> Yeah.
>> Um, but so yeah. So, so you're saying
[clears throat] if you can then scale
that to, you know, much higher levels,
then maybe you can operate a UFO.
>> In principle, it seems, I mean, uh,
general relativity theory, Einstein's
theory of gravity allows it in
principle. One of the open questions
still in the physics is um there's this
thing called quantum fluctuations or
zero point fluctuations. Basically the
um the the the I guess you could say the
energy associated with quantum fields in
their lowest energy state. There's a
question about how they would gravitate
or what kind how they would influence
the space-time metric. And this is an
area of active research, but we don't
really have a yet a consistent theory of
how that would work. So, it's still an
open question. And one possibility is
that it might turn out that uh
the way that quantum fields alter the
metric, in other words, how they
gravitate could destabilize. It could be
such that they destabilize warp drive
space times
>> and make them basically unworkable. M
>> if that's the case then it's got to be
something much more exotic. It would
mean that there is something
fundamentally
that that we're missing in our current
physics. But I think but if it doesn't
then I would say this is the most likely
uh
>> cuz the alubi thing doesn't require any
sort of break in Einstein. It's
consistent with Einstein right it's it's
within relativity and it's just if you
can harness
>> you know negative energy negative mass
some way then you can create this sort
of you know space-time metric
engineering. Yeah.
>> So, okay. Interesting. So, that would be
your top candidate is that we just
figure out how to it's more of an
engineering problem than it is a
theoretical physics problem at this
point.
>> I mean, I would say maybe it's a
combination of both just because um the
theoretical understanding can also
inform the engineering understanding.
But
but then again, we we also know that
it's possible to engineer things to a
very high degree of prec precision
without fully understanding the physics
behind the fundamental reasons why they
work. So
>> that's true.
>> Maybe the way to make progress is just
to continue experimenting and tinkering
and to try to prepare larger quantities
of negative energy density in the right
configurations and just make a warp
drive and see if it works.
>> Yeah. Don't worry about the theory not
being up to speed with the experiments.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> I maybe that's the way to go.
>> Have you ever been asked to be part of
the legacy UFO program?
>> No. I I wish I would be. I um I even
asked Hal Putoff and Eric Davis uh once
I said, "Well, if if I were interested
in doing that, how should I go about it?
And how how do they recruit people?" And
>> yeah, they gave some general pointers to
me about how it would work or what you
would have to do.
>> What were the points? But it was just
that you would have to first apply to an
aerospace corporation, one of the major
ones that are, you know, implicated as
one of being part of the legacy program,
work work for them uh for a few years on
maybe a on a more public project, get
top secret SEI clearance, express
interest in the legacy program, and then
uh
there will be like an internal call to
applicants or if if if they think you're
both interested and you're capable,
they'll maybe reach out to you and then
>> if that's the only path, we're [ __ ]
[laughter] because I mean I I think you
gota
>> I mean that's crazy. That doesn't make
sense. But that I mean that's
interesting to hear that that that was
directly from Eric and Hal who I think
of as you know being on the outside the
closest proximity-wise to the inside as
can be. they seem like they really have
an understanding of the map and the
frameworks and all all that sort of
stuff.
>> Yeah. And to some extent um a lot of my
knowledge of this is I've built on their
work on this like space-time metric
engineering is a phrase that Hal came up
with came up with. I think it's
appropriate terminology and he's written
papers on this. Eric Davis has also
written a number of papers on warp
drives and traversible wormholes and
I've studied their works and then I've
I'm you know trying to build on this
with a new type of framework that I
think can potentially describe how
quantum fields gravitate and that could
be used to address these questions about
the feasibility of warp drives.
something I've been toying with recently
because I had this uh discussion with
Eric Davis and Eric Weinstein
>> and it was super frustrating because we
we were talking to Eric Davis and we're
like
>> so did you find any theoretical
physicists on the program and he was
like no there none of them were
theoretical physicist he was like maybe
one guy Bernard he hush or something
>> and we were like what like no one and so
>> one interpretation is like the
military-industrial complex is like
totally asleep at the wheel like has no
idea what's going on This is like, you
know, it's like crisis mode. This is
crazy. It's like this cargo cult that's
like super poorly run. And then on the
other side of that, it's like the people
who've seen these objects know that
physics falls so far short of ever being
able to ever crack these things open
that and it's so much more consciousness
related. These are like boundary
condition celestial platonic objects
that you know allah the holographic
principle like we see that you know the
3D boundary of but they exist in some
higher dimensional space and we just you
know we've tried but we could like
barely get in and maybe we got in after
50 years to one of them or something and
then we were really confused once we got
in you know like that sort of thing.
Those are the only two explanations.
either super asleep at the wheel or it's
not physics at all. And like and they
know it's not physics and the whole and
then and then you get into like are
there intentional conflations being made
between these like exotic physics
frameworks around you know high
frequency gravitational waves uh
gravitational manipulation with
>> solid state superconductors and Bfield
Brown and like all these things that
like are real topological physics
anomalies that lead to like really cool
exciting lineages of science and
breakthroughs. Is that being conflated
with this UFO conversation which is
really just parasychological and has
nothing to do with like nuts andbolt
science?
>> Um
my
impression is I mean from what I've
understood for example Hal Putoff
mentions that he was asked by the Bush
administration the the second Bush
administration to partake in some sort
of a a review and to ask about like What
would it take for disclosure to occur?
What would be the costs and benefit uh
the costs and the benefits of that? And
one of the conclusions that this review
team came up with is that each aerospace
company wants to keep their progress or
their work proprietary and they don't
want to reveal their secrets to the
other one. And
um so there's this
incentive for different aerospace
corporations to just not talk to the
other ones about their findings and to
be extremely guarded about who they
allow into the program. And so the
incentive to keep these things secret
and to control who can come in and who
can't
leads to limitations in terms of uh yeah
who gets to know about what's being done
actually in these or or uh who gets to
work on these programs and very few
people from academia
even think to say oh I'm going to go
into
um aerospace and um
show an interest in UFOs um
>> for sure.
>> But if but if if you really run that
simulation, say like Lockheed has, you
know,
>> the Kingman craft from Arizona and it's
some warehouse or whatever and it's just
like no seams, no rivets, like this
beautiful thing
>> and you really want to make it work cuz
like you have this market cap that's
like, you know, good, but like you need
the quarter over quarter growth. you
have your shareholder meetings, you
know, you have China and Russia and like
you got to you got to make progress on
this thing. Do you not think that at
some point you'd be like, "Okay, like
the tinkering hasn't really worked. The
engineering's been tough.
>> Let's get a head hunter to find some
theoretical physicists. Let's create a
short list of the theoretical physicists
that would be open-minded to this in the
first place or qualified to work on
this. Let's show them the goods." You
know, do you not think that that would
happen at some point?
Perhaps at some point, but they might be
extremely few, highly selected, and if
they were there in society, they would
definitely not be able to say anything
publicly, and they might even be one of
the people say, "This is all [ __ ]
and it's none of it's real." Um I think
I vaguely remember some people
suggesting that Edward Teller maybe was
one of the maybe one of the physicists
who if he if there is this legacy
program he would be one
>> he was on it if there is a UFO legacy
program for sure.
>> Yeah. So then that would be an instance
of this of extremely few people are
selected people that can have shown a
track record of trustworthiness with
secrets even smaller secrets for example
and I didn't know if you know this but
there's a project sign or grudge
document
>> from pre-blue book
>> in the late 40s and Edward Teller's name
is on it where he's engaging in a real
UFO review.
>> So that's fascinating. You have that and
then you have the fact that he got Lazar
his job with EG which I think you can
almost definitively say at this point
there's too much data there to dismiss.
Um, and then you have the fact that he
was, you know, friendly with Thomas
Townsen Brown and was shown uh kind of a
demo of his uh fan precipitator
experiment and said, "I have no idea how
this works." And freaks out
>> and then gets um this guy Floyd Odlam
who's the majority or one of the biggest
shareholders in Northrup pre- merger
with Grumman to invest in Towns and
Brown and just thing after thing after
thing.
>> It's like
>> he was and he was Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, and
he was very obviously deeply associated
with, you know, Lawrence Liverour lab.
He just had to have known something. And
then he's there's even a letter where
he's talking about John Alexander. John
Alexander is like, you know, synonymous
with, you know, UFO research on the
government side for the last 70 years.
>> Like that guy has as much of a history
or top of the pyramid understanding as
anybody again in the kind of public
world. And uh there's a letter where
Teller is like commending John Alexander
saying like, you know, this guy has made
all these important updates in
non-lethal warfare.
>> Mhm.
>> And so like that's a wild connection.
Yeah, that's really interesting. So
yeah, I I think Teller would be somebody
who would have been on Legacy, you know,
back in the day.
>> Yeah. But but you know may maybe to your
point about um
it's just something so far beyond any of
our theories and models of the world
that there's just no point in trying to
bring in I don't know Ed Whitten from
Princeton Institute for Advanced Study
because it's just there's no reason to
think that anything he knows about
string theory or physics could help. Um,
if if we gave Galileo, I don't know, uh,
an iPhone and we asked him to explain
how it works based on just the limited
principles of physics that he
understood, he would get absolutely
nowhere despite being the greatest
living physicist of his time or even to
Newton, he would get absolutely nowhere
with that. Um,
>> yeah. Well, you'd have an interface. You
could play around with the interface.
So,
>> maybe that and
>> yeah, but would you be able to know how
it works? It's like pro, you know,
probably not in your lifetime.
>> Yeah.
>> If you have the knowledge base at that
time.
>> Yeah. He would look at it under a
microscope. He wouldn't recognize what
he's uh seeing. He wouldn't know
anything about solid state physics,
quant basic quantum mechanics,
electricity, magnetism.
There's just too much cumulative
knowledge. And so, and they might not
even be able to turn it on if it was
like, let's say it was battery was dead.
H. So maybe these people in this, you
know, uh, presumed legacy program,
they've just assessed that there's
nothing in the cutting edge of
theoretical physics research that seems
like it could be useful at all to
actually getting these things to work.
And that might just be another reason
why they don't even bother to try.
That's my best guess. I mean, I But it's
as always, you can't really say until
you're, you know,
>> Yeah.
>> involved with these people.
>> Yeah. Well, Max, this has been a blast,
man. Uh, a lot of fun. I feel like it's
been like a comprehensive overview of
all the hard-headed evidence around
anomalies on the moon, Mars, with the
space program. And anybody who's
earnestly looking at this stuff should
should seriously look at your work
because it's seriously done in in good
faith. It's done rigorously, and I don't
really see a lot of clear and easy
debunks, you know, for it. I guess I
I'll end on a final question here, which
is you have all of this data now. A lot
of the data, you know, points to almost
things maybe happening live on the moon
right now. And then you obviously have
structures that seem sort of more
ancient when it comes to both the moon
and Mars,
>> right?
>> So, have you gone to the like theory
layer or like the you know what is the
what is the analysis of all of the data
>> and do you have like a a place where you
net out on alien life and its current
existence or past existence?
I think the abundance. So I I look at
this as a cumulative case. Maybe no one
particular anomaly say on the moon or
Mars is definitive.
It's a probabilistic cumulative case.
You add up all these particular lines of
evidence and you ask in light of all of
this evidence combined, what is the most
probable explanation? Is it that it's
all just paridolia natural geology
that's just like fooling us or um
or is there an intelligent cause
explanation of some kind or another? And
I think that the inference to the best
explanation of this cumulative data is
that there was a past extraterrestrial
presence of some kind or another on the
moon and on Mars in the solar system
more broadly. And we have some pretty
strong evidence that there have even
been um craft of some kind or probe of
some kind sent to the solar system. Here
I'm referring to STS48, STS80, the two
space shuttle cases that I mentioned
earlier. Probably the fast walkers that
the DSP.
>> So do you think those are probes or do
you think those are live? You know,
they're beings that are sentient on the
inside that represent, you know, some
other civilization. I I don't know for
sure, but my best guess would be that
probes probably of some kind if at least
if they're doing something really exotic
in terms of their propulsive
capabilities, but it could be something
much more exotic than that. Um, so I
keep an open mind about that. But what
I'm trying what I would like to do just
for the scientific community is to lay
out these anomalies, explain in detail
why the sort of remotely plausible
geological or natural explanations don't
make sense.
That's all you need to do to then say,
okay, there must be an intelligent cause
explanation. And if it's an intelligent
cause explanation, it's not from humans.
So you're only left with one
possibility, which is an
extraterrestrial in origin broadly
construed. Well, you do a very good job
of kind of logically walking someone
down that road. Um, and you're reminding
me when we were talking about, you know,
probes. I think there's a former NASA
guy named Steven Dick who's part of
Ovillobe's Galileo project who talks
about
>> uh this is sort of some sort of AI layer
like protective layer of Earth. And
there's another guy I think named
Patrick Jackson who has like a sphere
network theory. So yeah, I think I think
the right thing to do is definitely to
leave all options on the table. It's
it's so hard to say and so hard to sense
make around this. Again, going back to
the top of our conversation, if the
parasychology stuff is at all real, uh
all things are possible.
>> I agree.
>> Um but uh I really appreciate this uh
conversation, Max, and uh yeah,
hopefully we can run it back at some
point.
>> Yeah, it would be great. It was a great
honor. I'm big fan of your works.
>> It was my honor, man. Awesome. All
right, cool. All righty.
>> [music]
>> Hey, [music]
woo.
[music]