Link: https://youtu.be/jMCavr3dVP0

Duration: 181 min

Short Summary

Former NSA research director Dr. Eric Hazelton and physician Dr. Chris Gilbert join the show to discuss their collaborative work applying intelligence community methodology to UFO phenomena, exploring Havana syndrome as a potential Russian directed energy weapon attack affecting over 1,000 US officials, extremophile biology demonstrating interstellar travel is biologically feasible, and speculative theories about extraterrestrial life in dark matter. The episode also covers advanced propulsion physics including warp drives, the ongoing cosmology crisis around Hubble tension and dark matter, their novel "The Shadow of Time," and Dr. Gilbert's "The Listening Cure" concept exploring organ intelligence. The guests argue that government UFO research has been suppressed due to career risks and advocate for increased funding of basic research, noting that quantum theory initially dismissed as useless now underlies one-third of the economy.

Key Quotes

1. "we probably know maybe 1% of what exists in the world. We think we know so much but we know so little and discovering everything is like oh it's wonderful even in in the in in a human body it's wonderful and but outside earth oh my god" (00:44:00)
2. "You can't explain something to a man whose salary depends on not understanding it." (01:00:05)
3. "Whenever you see something that doesn't fit what you know, a real scientist should get excited, not skeptical." (00:37:50)
4. "our framework is wrong. We're seeing something real. We don't understand it. So, we better start questioning our whole understanding of reality." (00:37:30)
5. "In every other case, we've had the information. We just didn't know what was staring us in the face." (00:39:56)

Detailed Summary

Detailed Podcast Summary: Intelligence Analysis, UFOs, Havana Syndrome, and the Limits of Science

This episode features Dr. Eric Hazelton, a former NSA director of research and CTO of the US intelligence community at ODNI with CIA experience, and Dr. Chris Gilbert, an MD/PhD with extensive international medical work. The guests discuss their co-authored books applying intelligence community analytic tradecraft to UFO phenomena, Havana syndrome as a potential directed energy weapon attack, and speculative theories about extraterrestrial life, ancient civilizations, and consciousness.

Intelligence Methodology Applied to UFO Analysis

The guests apply the "method of competing hypotheses" to UFO analysis, systematically listing all possible explanations—atmospheric effects, drones, classified technology, extraterrestrial—and weighing evidence for each option.

• Dr. Hazelton draws on intelligence hunting experience, using the "negative space" approach—searching where targets least expect to be found
• The human instrument is described as "highly flawed" due to optical illusions, emotional bias, and brain wiring that causes people to see what they expect
• After examining thousands of UAP reports including classified government data, only a few dozen are considered genuinely unexplained phenomena
• The "giggle factor" and career risk prevent most scientists from seriously studying UAPs, though exceptions exist at Harvard
• The book "The Psychology of Intelligence Analysis" by Richard Heuer teaches analysts about biases including confirmation bias

Havana Syndrome and Directed Energy Weapon Attacks

Over 1,000 US officials from the State Department and their families report anomalous health incidents across Cuba, Russia, China, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and near the White House.

• Symptoms include dizziness, headaches, directional sounds, cognitive problems, memory issues, and balance problems; ENT specialists consistently find otolith disruption
• Suspected cause is radio frequency microwave or directed energy using repetitive pulse trains with very short, high-peak power radiation delivered within line of sight
• The culprit device could fit in a backpack and use nanosecond-level radiation that current detection methods cannot identify
• CIA denies directed energy attacks can occur because they believe they would detect them, but they lack devices for nanosecond-level detection
• The "Voice of God" program modulates microwaves to project voice into someone's head; microwave hearing effect creates vibrations via thermoelastic explosions in the inner ear
• A 1976 SALT talks incident saw Kissinger demand the Soviets stop beaming the US embassy with microwaves after 12-hour exposure; Ambassador Walter Stoessel later died from rare blood cancer
• Luis Elizondo describes Russia's attacks on senior US officials as "an act of war" and suggests the CIA suppresses acknowledgment to avoid triggering broader conflict
• Russia is credited with inventing directed energy weapons and using "maskirovka" to project fake capabilities and erode will to fight

Government Suppression and Intelligence Cover-Ups

Investigating UFO phenomena is described as "career ending" within government; Navy aviators avoid reporting unexplained phenomena to protect their careers.

• James Clapper, as Director of National Intelligence, called NSA head Mike Rogers requesting all NSA files on UFOs be reviewed
• Luis Elizondo recounts that a senior NSA official prevented him from briefing Bush on a discovery, claiming the person was "crazy"
• Some UAP data may be withheld not to hide alien evidence but to protect advanced sensor capabilities from adversaries
• Intelligence failures like 9/11 and Pearl Harbor were failures of analysis not collection; the biggest problem is understanding what has been collected

Exopsychology and Extraterrestrial Hypotheses

The book explores exotic ET possibilities including non-animal/plant forms, immortal beings, no sexual reproduction, no language, non-social species, and digital AIs.

• Dr. Hazelton proposes "We might all be Martians," suggesting life evolved from extraterrestrial building blocks and that an advanced civilization may have existed on Earth hundreds of millions of years ago
• Life is estimated to exist 120 light years away; hypothetical space travelers could have used near-luminal travel, spending only years in space while returning hundreds of millions of years later due to time dilation
• Dark matter and dark energy are proposed as potential hiding places for nonhuman intelligence, comprising the majority of the universe
• The alternative to "mirroring" (projecting human motivations) is assuming extraterrestrials have none of human characteristics, as we would never think to look in those places

Consciousness, Noetics, and the Brain

Noetics describes consciousness as a property of the universe itself, with the brain as a "radio receiver" tuned to cosmic consciousness.

• The binding problem in neuroscience explains how disparate brain pathways create seamless experience, analogous to knowing a radio's components without understanding the frequency
• Jung's collective unconscious connects to Vedic/Hindu transcendentalism, suggesting consciousness is not tied to individual bodies
• The gut contains more neurons than a monkey's cerebral cortex, challenging assumptions about intelligence being brain-located
• Donald Hoffman proposes that humans did not evolve to see base reality and instead create mental icons; his mathematical theory is popular on podcast circuits

Quantum Physics and Higher Dimensions

Einstein's field equations treat time as another dimension valid as up, down, left, right; equations work the same forwards and backwards in time.

• The quantum eraser experiment shows something done in the present can influence how a particle behaved in the past
• Frame dragging around spinning black holes creates closed timelike curves where finishing an orbit means ending up at the same place in time
• Higher-dimensional reality intersecting our lower-dimensional perception could explain quantum phenomena appearing to pop in and out
• Sakharov proposed the Big Bang spawned a matter universe and simultaneous antimatter universe going in opposite time directions
• Multi-worlds hypothesis suggests parallel quantum realms splitting off constantly, with exotic phenomena possibly occurring in some branches

Extremophile Biology and Interstellar Travel

Deinococcus radiodurans survived 3 years in outer space on the ISS and resists radiation, cold, dehydration, vacuum, and acid.

• Tardigrades sustain 16,000 Gs, survive 30 years at 0°F, 10 years dehydrated, and 18 months in space vacuum
• Nematodes withstand 80,000 Gs; in 2023, one was revived after 46,000 years frozen in Siberian permafrost
• Certain ants sustain 5,000 Gs; fruit flies withstand up to 17,000 Gs
• The Mariana snailfish lives 5 miles below the ocean surface, surviving pressures that would crush humans
• These "existence proofs" demonstrate that surviving extreme conditions required for interstellar travel is biologically possible
• NASA funds "anything that isn't impossible" including warp drive research

Advanced Propulsion and Warp Physics

Sandia National Lab and White Sands researchers built a flying disc propelled by a pulse laser using photon pressure with no engine on the vehicle.

• Miguel Alcubieri proved theoretically that faster-than-light travel is possible within general relativity using negative energy, where the bubble of spacetime moves faster than light while the occupant remains stationary
• The EM drive has been repeatedly debunked but continues to receive funding, while the Biefeld-Brown effect reportedly produces more thrust in a vacuum than in air, suggesting it cannot be explained solely by ionized wind reaction
• Chemical combustion to Proxima Centauri would take 80,000 years; nuclear thermal propulsion could cut that time in half
• NASA has funded warp drive research because physicists cannot prove it is impossible
• Eric Davis worked on electronic fireworks at Disney using Q-switched neodymium YAG lasers to create plasma ball lightning that could be moved with mirrors
• Plasma theory for UFOs proposes zero-mass plasmas directed by laser could explain impossible-looking accelerations

Cosmology Crisis and Dark Matter

Cosmology is undergoing a crisis where bedrock assumptions like redshift are being questioned.

• Hubble tension shows completely incompatible but true measurements of the universe's expansion
• Dark matter has never been directly detected and dark energy is a mathematical placeholder defined only by universe inflation
• Fermat's theorem on light travel appears algorithmically optimized for shortest path, while Fibonacci sequences and golden ratios appear as consistent computational architectures in nature
• Dr. Hazelton proposes dark matter and dark energy as potential hiding places for nonhuman intelligence, comprising the majority of the universe

CIA Programs and Psychic Phenomena

The Stargate psychic spy program was declassified in 2017, representing CIA's exploration of mind-matter connections or consciousness transmission.

• Jessica Utts, President of the American Statistical Association, conducted a meta-study of CIA Stargate data and concluded p-values would prove validity without parapsychology stigma
• Russians take paranormal phenomena more seriously than Americans, even using mental energy tactics in chess matches
• Dan Sherman claims he communicated with non-human intelligence through tones at an NSA complex under "Project Preserve Destiny"
• The volume, velocity, and variety of information increases exponentially, creating massive challenges for intelligence analysis

The Shadow of Time and Fiction

The guests co-authored a novel featuring a paleontologist protagonist fired from UCLA, a genius African gray parrot named Walter, and themes exploring the "saluan hypothesis" (extraterrestrials cohabiting with humans).

• The book incorporates real intelligence tradecraft from the author who is a neuroscientist and former spy
• Ed Yong's "An Immense World" is recommended, noting mantis shrimp can see 12 colors humans cannot perceive
• The host notes the movie "Arrival" explores similar themes about reality being weirder than imagined, referencing Arthur C. Clarke
• The FBI director character in the book is concerned with protecting reputation at all costs, focused on optics and media spin

Defense Industry and Government Procurement

Defense contractors like Lockheed, Northrop, and RTX make only 10-15% maximum profit margins on cost-plus contracts.

• The US is falling behind China, Russia, and Iran in hypersonics
• Government procurement is slow and expensive by design, mandating specific processes that create overhead
• Military R&D is shifting to Silicon Valley companies like Palantir, Anduril, and Ursus Major Rockets using venture capital
• Defense companies operate as quasi-governmental entities following government rules

AI, Consciousness, and Brain-Computer Interfaces

The speaker's team at Disney invented "Rocky"—a rock that could be moved with the mind through EEG brain-computer interface using six sensor nodes (two frontal, two mastoid, two parietal), though it never reached market.

• Researchers at Duke University implant electrodes in paralyzed quadriplegics who control robot arms and train to walk using exoskeletons with neural implants
• AI is trained by humans and misses novel phenomena; at low and high sample sizes, classifiers make the same mistakes
• AI is compared to a Ferrari going a million miles an hour instead of 200—faster but still limited to its existing paradigm

Health: The Listening Cure and the Body

Dr. Chris Gilbert's book "The Listening Cure" proposes having dialogue between the brain and different body parts (back, stomach, liver, gut bacteria) like a board meeting.

• Dysbiosis may be responsible for the increased rate of colon cancer in people under 50
• People of European descent have approximately 3% Neanderthal genes
• Humans are collections of many different organisms with their own agendas that cooperate for mutual benefit but whose needs often collide
• The neural homunculus is a complete map of the body on the brain with separate areas for motor and sensory functions
• Paul Sarno argued that physical pain is adaptive because it's easier to process than emotional pain—an overhang remnant when emotional processing fails
• "The Body Keeps the Score" addresses how the body carries imprints of past emotional experiences

Life Origins and Panspermia

Asteroid Bennu study found all nucleic acid bases—the building blocks for RNA and DNA—providing existence proof these exist in outer space.

• Mars may have had a biosphere, water caverns, and a magnetosphere that was stripped away
• Mars had conditions for forming life abiogenetically before Earth did, suggesting we might all be Martians
• The number of known ancient hominin species has increased from 5-10 species a decade ago to now 21-30 species

Scientific Philosophy and Research Priorities

The speakers advocate for increasing research budgets, noting quantum theory—initially considered useless philosophical musing—is responsible for semiconductors and approximately one-third of the modern economy.

• Abraham Flexner wrote the charter essay for the Institute of Advanced Study arguing for funding research without immediate practical use
• The greatest discoveries come from observing the unexpected while pursuing intended goals
• Niels Bohr said quantum physics is not only weirder than we know but weirder than we can know
• Isaac Asimov: science proceeds not with "Eureka" but with "that's funny"—when something doesn't fit, a real scientist should get excited
• Upton Sinclair: "You can't explain something to a man whose salary depends on not understanding it"
• Only one-tenth of one percent of R&D projects ever make it to market

Full Transcript

Show transcript

Whenever you see something that doesn't
fit what you know, a real scientist
should get excited, not skeptical.
My two guests today have credentials
that are impossible to ignore.
Dr. Eric Hazeline was director of
research for the National Security
Agency. Basically, he was the tip of the
spear on science and innovation for the
US's most hardcore intelligence agency.
Before
that, he was an executive vice president
at Walt Disney Imagineering. He's a
neuroscientist, a futurist, and has over
70 patents to his name. He possibly has
one of the most intriguing resumes of
all time. When you look at all the many
thousands of reports, and we've looked
at all, and some I have guilty knowledge
of from when I was inside the
government, it's real, and it's
something we do not understand.
>> Dr. Dr. Chris Gilbert has an MD and PhD
from one of France's top medical
schools. She's worked with Doctors
Without Borders across four different
continents. And she's pioneered her own
incredibly unique methods in holistic
medicine
>> in our own body that we've studied so
much. There are things we're discovering
that we had no idea existed.
>> She also happens to be Eric's wife.
Together, they've co-authored several
books, including The New Science of UFOs
and The Shadow of Time, a book involving
ancient archaeological objects with
anomalous properties being
systematically excavated by private
corporations.
>> This thing's a cover up. So, when I
found out that a former NSA director of
research who is privy to just about
every sensitive piece of intelligence in
the United States wrote a book about
anomalous objects being recovered in the
desert, I had to reach out and learn
more. Do you guys have kind of a base
case for what's going on?
>> I think what we're seeing with these
credible real phenomena is something
really bizarre and out there.
We might all be Martians.
>> What is to say that life doesn't exist
120 uh light years away from us.
>> I think it's almost certain that we're
evolved from building blocks that are
extraterrestrial.
There was some advanced civilization on
Earth many hundreds of millions of years
ago that discovered near luminal travel.
This whole interview is a fun game of
cat and mouse. It's me basically trying
to figure out whether Eric and Chris's
fiction books were at all informed by
what Eric saw behind the curtain.
>> You can move something through the air
where there's no engine on it at all.
You're just pushing on it with photons.
>> Could you do that at a larger scale?
>> Yes. Wa.
>> So without further ado, sit back, relax,
and enjoy a mindexpanding conversation
with a bunch of rabbit holes you won't
want to climb out of with this week's
American Alchemists, Dr. Eric Hazelene
and Dr. Chris Gilbert.
>> Ignition sequence started.
>> How is this possible?
>> Nothing too unusual about that.
>> Their existence can no longer be denied.
>> Oh man, this is a total honor. I feel
very uh as is often the case, but maybe
especially today, uh intellectually
underqualified to be in this room. Uh
Dr. Chris Gilbert, Dr. Eric Hazelton,
you are the former director of research
uh at the NSA, the National Security
Agency. Uh and that role actually ended
up with you on an A&E history series,
Alien Files Reopened.
>> Having been at NSA and being one of
their senior leaders, I find that highly
unlikely,
>> which is fascinating. You guys
co-authored a book about UFOs together,
which I can't wait to get into. You also
worked at Hughes Aircraft, Disney
Imagineering, Dr. Chris Gilbert. You've
done amazing work around the world as a
a physician uh MD PhD and uh you guys
have co-authored a few books together
and I want to talk about those. You've
independently offered um
you know, a spy in Moscow station. Um
and uh you guys have just an incredible
background both individually and
together. So, it's an honor to be with
you today.
>> That's a great honor to be here.
>> Yeah. Thank you so much for having us.
>> I wanted to talk about your book, The
New Science of UFOs, because I think
it's a really great kind of survey level
overview of all of the possibilities. I
think often in this space there's a lot
of uh kind of mushyrained thinking and
and uh you know just almost people are
overindexed on intuition and you really
kind of lay out all of the possibilities
from spoofing techniques to man-made
craft to you know genuine non-human
intelligence and then you even get into
frameworks for thinking about the
non-human intelligence. So um yeah why
don't why don't we start there? what
what are the possibilities uh kind of
high level when it comes to UFOs?
>> Well, um I'll start and then you can
fill in where I miss things. First of
all, a little context for the book. Uh I
spent years at the CIA after leaving NSA
and the ODNI where I was basically the
CTO of the US intelligence community,
the whole thing. And I was a analyst for
a particular target
and was trained in analytic
tradecraftraft which is basically the
scientific method and we call it the
method of competing hypothesis. When we
see a phenomena or an event we say what
are all the different hypotheses for
what could be driving this and then we
go and we look for evidence that would
support or contradict each of those. And
at the end we weigh it and come out with
an assessment with a probability of what
we think is the most likely
>> of all of those with some confidence.
And so for example in Iran you have the
Iran group at the different agencies
doing that now saying okay we the
Iranians have a nuclear program. what is
our best guess and at what probability
about where they are in that program and
what their intent is right so that's an
example so with the UFOs UAPs we did the
same we said okay here are the reporting
what are all the different things it
could be and now let's examine them so
we have a matrix in there which is a
little bit geeky in that we present all
of them that we surfaced and then we
evaluate the plus or minus and at the
end we come up with a conclusion
So we start with the observer themsself.
Uh when you look at a phenomena, you
have to look at what's reporting it and
how accurate and biased is the thing
that's reporting it. So the human
instrument as a neuroscientist, as a
physician, we can both tell you the
human instrument is highly flawed,
right? Mhm.
>> And so we look at things like optical
illusions,
>> emotional bias that make you see what
you want to see, that make you see what
you expect to see. We get into how your
brain is wired to cut corners. And so we
explore optical illusions or other kind
of illusions. We explore atmospheric
effects, some of which are just now
being discovered like sprites at
southern latitudes. things really weird,
ball lightning, things like that. Um,
plasma type effects. We explore the
possibility that the mundane ones like
it's drones, balloons, things like that.
We explore
the possibility that it's of human
origin, highly classified and super
high-tech.
We explore the possibility that it's
of nonhuman
but of earthly origin.
>> I mean, we always assume if it's from
Earth that it has to be human. Well,
>> what we look at is the old Sherlock
Holmes thing. What isn't impossible.
Mhm. Um, and we'll get into this more,
but
at CIA, we used to have a saying in
analysts that says, "Do not look for
your keys under the lampost."
Right? Don't look only where you can
see.
>> So, if you're not seeing something, it's
probably because
you don't know where else to look.
>> So, one thing we used to do is say,
What do we know or think we know? What
can we see and not see? And if we're not
finding the answer, it must be the
opposite of what we can see. It's in the
negative space.
Right? So, I was once involved in the
hunt for a very senior
Islamic terrorist whose name I will not
mention. And I was employed by CIA when
I was at NSA. And I went to them and I
said, "You haven't found this guy. Where
do you expect him to be and where do you
not expect him? Where do you want him to
be and where do you not want him to be?
And I said, "Look for him where you
least expect and least want him to be
>> because that's where he's going to be
>> by definition." Well, my mind is now
going to like dark matter or concepts
like dark chemistry, parts of the
universe that are honestly the majority
of the universe which isn't, you know,
visible and and doesn't seem to interact
with light.
>> And so I don't know if you guys have
considered that as a possibility.
>> Yeah, we we we're talking also in the
book about exocsychology
which we kind of imagine what would that
be an extraterrestrial how what would
that be? So it could be made of dark
matter and feeding on dark energy. It
could be and we we we said that it could
be anything that we could not think
about. So what are we not thinking
about? What could we not predict? So we
could not predict that um they might not
derive from animal forms that uh they
might not derive from plants um that
they um they don't require food or water
to survive. Maybe that maybe they are
immortal that maybe they don't sexually
reproduce. We imagine that they they
sexually reproduce. Maybe not. Uh maybe
they have no written or spoken language.
Maybe they don't emotionally bond with
others. Maybe they're not a social
species.
Uh maybe they're not curious. M we think
they are aggressive. Maybe they're not
aggressive. What if they have all the
resources they can ever need? Uh what if
there is there are a collection of
single cells that origin develop and
live in space and not on a planet? Maybe
we're just surrounded in space, but we
don't see them. Um and and what if they
use a type of propulsion that is unknown
to us? Uh like we think about every
possible ways of of of moving, but
there's I'm sure there's ways that we
have no idea exist and what are they? Um
what if they don't derive directly from
biology and they're hyper advanced
digital AIs? I mean, we're we're trying
to think about all the the elements that
are completely out of the box that
nobody could think about, that nobody
can even imagine,
>> that our brain could not even compute.
>> And then you have to think, you know, we
discovered bacteria as late as the 19th
century. And uh AAM's razor is it's not
zero or one thing. It's, you know, zero
or a whole host or we're swimming in in
life that might be more advanced than
us. And
>> you never know it.
>> You never know it. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. The way I think of it is
we've all seen those cartoons where the
coyote goes through a door and you see
the silhouette, you know, where he went
through the door
>> and so you see where he went through and
that's the positive space. The negative
space is the door. We tend to always
focus on the positive space which in
human terms is in the intelligence world
we call this mirroring.
>> We look at a target and say they must be
like us. Therefore if they're doing X is
for motivation Y.
>> So what Dr. Gilbert just said is we did
the opposite of that. We said let's take
everything that humans are and assume
that extraterrestrials are none of
those. They're the opposite because we
would never think to look there and we
never think to understand the
motivation. So for example,
>> um let's take the tic tacs.
>> Mhm. Suppose the tic tacs are driven by
an extraterrestrial species that are
unlike us in every possible way in the
way she just described.
>> How then would you explain what they're
doing? You wouldn't explain it with
human motivations. Yeah,
>> you'd explain it with anti-motivations.
And when you do that, it's freeing.
>> It's kind of like in that movie Pirates
of the Caribbean,
someone says to Captain Barbosa when
they're looking for Captain Jack and
they say,
>> "Captain, we're lost." And he goes, "I
you have to get lost to find something
that can't be found."
>> And that's deep.
>> That is really deep. And that's why,
like I say, in the intelligence world,
when we're doing our job right,
>> we understand our own limitations.
>> And one very productive place to look is
where we know we're blind and then to
purposely try to look there. Oh, that's
so fascinating. Something I think about
a lot with this topic is we think about
mining resources. You know, we have this
whole conflict with China around rare
earth refinement, for example.
uh what if their resources like I think
about what's most interesting about
human beings and it's probably not the
material world that we're in. Maybe it's
our our consciousness. And so is there
something around our consciousness or
even our emotions or our thoughts that
are more interesting to these beings
than just, you know, they're here for
gold or copper or whatever cuz they're,
you know, maybe their atmosphere is
burning up. They need reflective
material. Well, now you're getting into
a really interesting field called no
edetics.
>> When we first started selling
merchandise at American
Alchemymerch.com,
we had no idea how complicated and
annoying selling merch could be. We
talked to a dozen different platforms
and companies comparing shipping tools,
payment options, website builders, and
it all felt like way more of a headache
and complicated than it should be. We
decided on Shopify, and within days, our
store was up. Shopify made it simple to
build a store that actually feels
authentic to us, which matters when your
brand lives in a niche like alternative
tech, UFOs, or fringe science, and when
you have a very clear brand vision.
Plus, their AI tools help write
descriptions, organize products, even
clean up photos. So, we can focus on
what matters and what we care about.
Building the best custom merch line
possible with the coolest designs like
our UFO cowboy te and the atomic age te.
Plus, Shopify handles all of the
unglamorous, more painful stuff.
Shipping, returns, email marketing, all
in one clean dashboard. It's like having
a silent partner who never sleeps. Bring
your next idea to life with Shopify
quietly handling everything behind it.
Sign up for your $1 per month trial and
start today at shopify.com/jesse.
Again, that's shopify.com/jessej
s for a $1 a month trial. It's just $1 a
month to try Shopify, the
state-of-the-art solution in e-commerce.
Well, now you're getting into a really
interesting field called Noetics.
And it's a fringe
field of neuroscience and biology where
for example
they believe that consciousness is a
property of the universe not of us
>> and that each of our brains is like a
radio receiver that's tuned in to
conscious cosmic uh consciousness.
>> Yes. Yes. And that uh this is kind of
the idea where the soul comes from.
>> That see consciousness isn't tied to our
bodies
anymore than radio waves are tied to a
radio.
>> I believe that because you have the
binding problem for example in
neuroscience which is this classic
problem of you have all these disperate
pathways. You have you know Woricki's
area for you know comprehension and you
have Broca's area for speech but they're
all disperate. And then we see this
perceptually seamless kind of movie. And
there's this question of how that is.
And I think about a radio and if you
have the radio's components, you take
away the battery, you take away, you
know, the capacitor, you take away the
antenna. Any one of those might break
the radio and the music might stop
playing, but none of those productively
explain why it's playing Vivaldi's Four
Seasons. You need to know the frequency
it's tapping into.
>> Yeah. So I'm not saying I'm a fan of
noetics, but what I'm saying is that
it's so interesting that these ideas
show up throughout human history in
terms of like if you look at the vdic
scriptures and the Hindu and the whole
notion of transcendentalism like
>> the deity whatever it is exists
everywhere in all things simultaneously.
And that led to transcendentalism. And
you could look at Jung
>> who believed in the collective
unconscious
as an example of the human instantiation
of that. So it is interesting when you
see these ideas
and I just like to make a comment and
then turn it over to Dr. Gilbert. If you
look at our language,
we say things like in our heart I
believe, in my gut I believe, right? or
I have this feeling those were
metaphorical
when we thought we thought they were
metaphorical. What we now know is they
may not be metaphorical
>> that
>> we have more neurons in our gut than the
cerebral cortex of a monkey
>> and they're pretty damn smart.
>> We have a huge number of neurons in our
heart
>> and now we know that cells themselves
can have perception and learning and we
have gut bacteria which are this whole
other hyper complex organism. And so I
think this is the subject of the
listening cure.
>> Uh where Dr. Gilbert has come up with
this idea of listen to your body because
all of these different
>> entities that we call our body actually
are not metaphorical.
>> Yeah. So the listening cure is one of
our books that talks about uh how our
body has a mind of its own. How each
organ has a mind of its own. how each
cell in the liver, each cell in the gut
uh can have a mind of its own and and a
purpose and and maybe feelings and and
connection to the brain and and vice
versa. Uh but there are so many things
that we don't know that we think we
know. So how is it that we can believe
we know everything about space about the
planets when even in the body in our own
body that we've studied so much there
are things we're discovering that we had
no idea existed. I'm going to give you
an example like Stanford University
researcher did a survey um of DNA
fragments circulating in the blood and
it suggests that microbes living within
us are vastly more diverse than
previously thought. In fact 99% of our
DNA has never been seen before. Um, and
then there's an entirely new class of
life that has been found in the human
digestive system called obelisks. And
there are obelisk microscopic rods made
of RNA that we had no idea existed and
we have no idea what they do. So, and
and also in the brain in the brain, I
mean, we think you talk about the broka
area, the ver Vernick area. We don't
think they're isolated. They're I think
we think they're really they're working
in conjunction of a multitude of other
kinds of cells that are necessary for
their function, but we don't know
exactly which ones. And and we're
studying this now. We we think that
everything is related. Every single item
is related to other items in ways that
we cannot comprehend yet. And and that's
the relationship. and and everything in
the universe might be that's my
assumption that's my belief that
everything in the universe is probably
also related interconnected.
>> Yes.
>> Um and and there's so much we don't know
and it is so fascinated to imagine and
to to discover what we don't know. We
probably know maybe 1% of what exists in
the world. We think we know so much but
we know so little and discovering
everything is like oh it's wonderful
even in in the in in a human body it's
wonderful and but outside earth oh my
god
>> so much
>> yeah so um I want to circle back to your
original question of which hypothesis
did we surface in the new science of UFO
because we didn't finish going into them
>> um
>> we talk about
erasing the difference between space and
time because Einstein didn't think of
them as separate.
>> Time is just another dimension
>> as valid as up, down, left, right, and
so forth. And uh it's interesting in all
of his field equations, time does not
have to move in one direction.
>> The laws of thermodynamics say it does,
but there is no physical equation that
says it has to. And we have some really
weird laboratory phenomena and
theoretical phenomena that suggests that
time. Uh for example, there's this
experiment called the quantum eraser.
It's a famous three slit experiment. And
uh where you can do something in the
present that influences which way a
particle or wave behaved in the past
and then you have the whole business of
non-locality
which has something in one part of the
universe instantly or nearly instantly.
We now know there's a speed to it but
it's faster than the speed of light
>> uh affects something on the other side.
And then we have the whole area of
quantum neuroscience
>> where is entanglement between quantum
states in one person's brain or one part
of the brain entangled in others in ways
that affect or influence you know. So um
what we do is let's take time.
Everyone assumes that if they're
nonhumans
coming in UFOs that it must be from
outside Earth. And that may be true. But
what if it weren't true? Let's let's
start with that fork and say what
happens if these things that we're
seeing are from Earth, but either from
the past, present, or future. You say,
"Well, time travel backwards is
impossible." Well,
in our current framework, most
physicists would say that. And yet there
are these weird phenomena that we talk
about in the book like frame dragging
where if you have a black hole that's
spinning really fast child black hole is
spinning really fast the black hole
itself isn't just spinning it's spinning
space time with it
right and so if you were orbiting
outside the event horizon of a spinning
black hole
there is this thing called a closed
timelike curve where when you started
the orbit and you finished it you'd end
up at the same place in time. So if you
end up where you started, you went back
in time. The math says that is
theoretically not impossible. And
there's a distinction. And so you're
going to hear this throughout our
discussion of what we like to explore is
the not impossible
>> because we think that's where the
answers are. So to get back to this time
thing, uh, one of the things we explore
is the possibility that there was some
advanced civilization on Earth many
hundreds of millions of years ago whose
evidence has been covered up by the
relentless reshaping of the surface of
the planet with tectonic and so forth.
uh various environmental things that
happened that we wouldn't necessarily
see evidence of it and they
>> likely not almost
>> unlikely given depending on where it was
and so forth and the earth's crust has
folded over on itself and got pushed
under and subducted and blah blah blah.
>> And so what if there were an ancient
species that discovered near luminal
travel speed of light or even faster and
we can get in to that later. you know,
what are the possibilities for faster
than light travel that aren't
impossible.
>> Um, and what where that takes you is
this civilization could have zipped out.
>> Yeah.
>> And to them only spend a few years in
space and come back a few hundred
million years later.
>> Yeah.
>> Right.
>> Yeah.
>> That could be what we're saying. It's Is
it likely? No.
>> But is it impossible? We can't say.
>> Yeah.
>> As she said, we know so little. To say
that something's impossible is somewhat
>> wrong. And then again, you look at the
future, right? And then you say, well,
what about the present? There's some
obvious mundane things like, okay, the
Chinese or the Russians have cool stuff
we don't understand, which is true. They
do. Um, but there are other more exotic
uh really exotic like, you know, the
multi-worlds hypothesis that there are
parallel quantum realms that are
splitting off all the time and in some
of those, could there be some weird
things happening? That one gets a little
dicey, I think. But but I think that the
more important thing is to
break out of the chains of expectation
and what we know
>> and just be humble and say there's so
much we don't know. Don't ever rule out
something unless you have really hard
laboratory proof. I love that. And I
think if at any point in history you
were to see, you know, a repeated
anomaly with an abundance of anecdotal
evidence, but it didn't comport with the
physics of the time, you'd get all these
people saying, "This can't be true
because of physics." And those people
would be wrong. And the people just
saying, "We got to follow the evidence
and look at the anomaly itself would end
up being vindicated." And there would be
some new theory that would come to
explain the anomaly. And per the kind of
um anthropocentric kind of bias and
where the extraterrestrial bias uh you
know versus time travel if you were in
you know kind of um North Sentinel
Island which is this remote island
that's totally uncontacted that's uh you
know technically uh part of India uh but
you know has never been contacted
outside of a few missionaries uh where I
believe you know they've been trying to
evangelize Christianity you know these
missionaries you You know, I think in
certain cases of met tragic ends, they
go and, you know, they get speared or
something or, you know, shot with a bow
and arrow. And you always I wonder, you
know, do the North Sentinel have legends
of aliens coming and contacting them
when in fact it's just, you know, human
beings nearby. And so that
>> Oh, yeah.
>> just cuts to this perceptual bias. And I
to the time travel thing. Kurt Kurt
Girdle had this, you know, model for
time travel. And then um Frank Tipler
who is a contemporary of Wheeler and a
physicist uh shrunk down uh the girdle
time travel model and it was he had this
thing called the the Tippler disc and it
was it's a flying saucer. So I find that
fascinating too. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I
think the uh the main point we want to
make is that uh when we want to study
something, the first thing you study is
the thing that self is studying it
>> meaning us to look at that instrument
and be very clear about its limitations
and its strengths.
>> So that you are more tempered in the
conclusions that you reach. If you say
this instrument isn't seeing something
could be interpreted as the thing isn't
there or the instrument can't see it.
And there's too little of that kind of
thinking.
>> And I'll just give you an example. Uh
Hawking radiation. Okay, Hawking
radiation we believe is due to particle
anti-particle pairs popping out of the
void, whatever that is kind of the
vacuum quantum field that's seething
with energy. There is no such thing as
nothing according to modern cosmology.
And uh these particle anti-particle
pairs normally pop out of the void
whatever that is recombined where the
matter antimatter completely annihilate
leaving some residual energy which is
one of the theories of dark energy
that's pushing the universe apart. And
if these particle antiparticle pairs pop
out of nothingness on opposite sides of
the event horizon,
some of the energy escapes, which is why
there is a glow or hawking radiation
around a black hole and why they think
maybe black holes evaporate over time.
>> And it also solves some uh loss of
information paradoxes around black holes
>> where physics says you can't create or
destroy information. in the physics
sense and maybe this is how that's
conserved and through entanglement there
are things that go out well the point
I'm trying to get to is let's suppose
that we live in an n-dimensional
universe four that we can see but there
are many more so imagine the analogy of
a three-dimensional universe interacting
with someone who only lives in two
dimensions
>> so if all we saw was two dimensions
everything would be in a flat plane
there would be lines right so let's say
I'm a three-dimensional
uh person and I have the surface of the
water which is two dimensions and I put
my five fingers well four fingers and
one thumb through it the two-dimensional
being is going to experience me as five
circles
because that's where I intersect its
reality.
So when you look at these quantum things
popping in and out, that could be
something as simple as if we were a
plane
and there was something circling that
hit us every now and then, we would see
it pop in and pop out.
>> Yeah.
>> But it's only because we don't see the
three-dimensional reality. We only see
the two-dimensional reality of something
popping in and popping out. And so that
is where if we relax the assumption that
there are four dimensions M whatever a
dimension is and there are more a lot of
things now might make sense.
>> Mhm.
>> Like something moving in impossible
ways. Yes. In three dimensions or four
that could be impossible,
>> but in five or six or seven it could be
totally possible. And that's why we
really have to open up our minds when we
look at UFOs.
>> Yes.
>> And say it makes no sense in our
framework.
>> And that to me says our framework is
wrong.
We've talked a bit about longevity and
life extension on this show. Extending
your tieumirs, metabolic optimization,
and the throughine is always the same.
Most of what determines how long you
live comes down to really basic stuff,
not these more exotic treatments. I
think about that sometimes when I
realize it's 10 p.m. and I haven't eaten
all day because I was deep in prep for
the next episode, which is kind of the
story of my life since I moved to
Austin. Occasionally, I'll be so deep in
work that I'll forget to eat and then I
end up demolishing whatever's closest at
midnight. Guys, this solution is
amazing. It's a gamecher for anyone
who's busy. Meals show up ready to go.
You heat them up in 2 minutes and
they're actually made with real food.
Lean proteins, whole ingredients, no
seed oils, no refined sugar. Over 100
options that rotate weekly. I've been
doing it for a bit now, and it is
embarrassingly simple. I'm not a great
chef. I don't like overspending every
day on delivery. I really don't know why
I waited so long for this. Head to
factormeals.com/alchemy50
off and use code alchemy50 off. That's
alchemy50ff
to get 50% off and free breakfast for a
year. The offer is only valid for new
factor customers doing an autorenewing
subscription purchase. Do yourself a
favor now. Make healthier eating easy
with factor.
>> Our framework is wrong.
>> We're seeing something real.
>> We don't understand it. So, we better
start questioning our whole
understanding of reality.
>> There's a really cool professor named
James Madden who wrote a book called
unidentified
hyper objects. And hyperobject is a
platonic idea of, you know, objects that
exist in higher dimensional space like
tesseracts. and you would just see kind
of the shadow of these test racks. And
if you know, you take this pen, you put
it through, you know, 2D paper, all you
see is a disc. And so I wonder, you
know, in his model, it's like these
objects show up in order to almost break
your priors specifically like there is
this this the wow factor that is on the
human side is the intended effect and
the sort of there is some sort of like
almost intermittent reinforcement or
conditioning going on where it's there.
It appears it uh you know excites you
and then you keep going or something.
And it's it's this sort of synchronistic
thing and it's impossible to
um rem you know kind of separate the
observed and the observer which we you
obviously would do in traditional
science. Well, you know what's
fascinating about that and it gets back
to something Dr. Gilbert was saying
about the motivations.
What if I as I told you before the we
started I was a therapist and as
therapists we try never to tell a
patient anything. We need them to
discover it on themselves or they won't
quote get it in their gut.
>> People only understand that which they
themselves discover.
>> You can't tell people anything. There's
this great book called if you see the
Buddha on the road kill them. No one can
tell you anything. You have to discover
it for yourself. So, what if
extraterrestrials are here to teach us?
H, this is their mission. They want to
bring intelligent life in the universe
up to a kind of a standard level so we
can join a galactic federation. Or maybe
they just are altruistic missionaries or
something.
>> And these events are anomalies that they
keep introducing to say, "Hey, pay
attention. There's something over here
that tells you you're not looking at
things right."
>> Yes. like maybe there are end dimensions
and we're going to keep hitting you with
these things until someone says, "hm
maybe this is telling us about our own
ignorance on purpose."
>> Yeah.
>> So, I mean, I'm not saying that's a
case, but that's the kind of thing that
we would never
normally think about because we wouldn't
behave that way.
>> It's like in Star Trek, the Prime
Directive, you can't kind of openly
commune unless, you know, if you're
pre-warp drive or not up to a certain
consciousness level or whatever. And you
might use these tactics. Maybe it's like
cellular automata or something where
it's like, you know, this kind of uh
biological network and you're hitting a
little node with a little wow factor.
They tell their friends, you know, and
then it's sort of you're you're
influencing the teiology of the entire
kind of, you know, petri dish, you know,
with with these little appearances.
>> Well, it's funny. We'll get into this
later when we talk about the shadow of
time, but we talked about a hyper
intelligent entity who has learned the
hard way to have a very light touch
>> because the universe is very complicated
and the slightest thing you do here
could have a huge effect there.
>> And so this creature realizes that
>> and kind of works within the system to
cause something they want to happen. And
so uh there is some of that in our book.
Um but uh I think that again just to
kind of summarize the new science of
UFOs um what we try to do in there is
look into the negative space
>> and to take people at a place they've
never been before and also to expose
people not to the James Bond kind of
side of the spy business but the
analytic
academic kind of intellectual side of it
which is okay we have spies that collect
the information but then How do we make
sense of it? And when you look at
intelligence failures such as 9/11,
Pearl Harbor
>> and so forth, with one exception, which
is we missed the Indian nuclear program,
>> that was a failure of collection. We
just didn't have the data.
>> But in every other case, we've had the
information.
>> We just didn't know what was staring us
in the face.
>> That's what I mean to me, that's why
this whole idea of disclosure, I don't
know if you saw this, but uh the White
House just registered aliens.gov, gov,
which I found to be pretty funny. I
don't know if you guys have a take
there, but uh this whole idea of
disclosure is kind of a misnomer to me
because I think uh this space there's a
ton of data, there's a ton of asymmetric
data on the government side, but the
sensemaking is totally lacking. And so
you have all these file releases going
on now with JFK and MLK and Epstein and
stuff, but nobody, it's like finding a
needle in a hay stack and nobody knows
how to make sense of what's going on. To
me, if you can't make sense of those
things, which are like, you know,
conventional prosaic political things,
good luck with UFOs.
>> Well, I think AI is going to help that.
>> I I will tell you that the biggest
problem in the intelligence world is not
collecting.
>> It's understanding what you've
collected.
>> And you know, there's so many reasons
for that. There's the volume, velocity,
and variety of information goes up
exponentially every day, right? there's
a lot more information out there.
>> Yeah.
>> Um and then Yeah. So the real frontier
in intelligence is to understand.
>> Yeah. Except the problem with AI is that
AI is trained by humans. So if uh if any
AI is trained by humans to detect uh one
or two things, it's not going to see the
thing called X that will appear out of
nowhere.
>> That's right.
>> So it will miss it also.
>> That's right. Yes. Yeah. If at low
sample size, uh, an AI classifier is
going to mistake something, then at high
sample size, it's still going to mistake
it. And you need some sort of human
supervised learning component in the
loop to actually have good signal on the
anomalies that are correct and then you
train up the the model or something.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But um, a good intelligence
analyst will be humble and look outside
the lampost. In other words, be aware of
their own biases. There's this great
book called the psychology of
intelligence analysis by Richard
>> Toyers.
>> All analysts are taught to read it. It's
part of our training and it's to look at
our own instrument and he talks about
all the different biases, confirmation
bias, you know, and so forth. And uh
it's true that AI is just,
you know, it's like a Ferrari that'll go
now a million miles an hour instead of
200 miles an hour, but it's still a
Ferrari, right? you know, it's not going
to go into the air or go below the
water.
>> Yeah. And there are things like you
mentioned time. Time to me is so
interesting because it's like the, you
know, there's a David Foster Wallace
speech and it's like uh these goldfish
talking to each other and they're trying
to conceptualize water, but water is the
medium in which they swim. And that
feels like time in many ways. It's the
most used noun in the English language.
And yet it's always defined with respect
to something else. So macroscopically
the movement of bodies and then
microscopically you know oscillations on
on an electromagnetic wave. And you get
into things like you know Einstein you
know Einstein's equations or even
Maxwell's equations I believe work the
same way forwards as they do backwards.
And um you know uh uh uh you have time
treated as a formal axiom or as a
classical axiom rather in Troinger's
equation. And so it's but but but but
there's all sorts of possible time
weirdness and certain quantum
interpretations obviously of temporal
non-locality. And so it is that seems
like a very interesting foray into
studying the UFO stuff.
>> Yeah. I mean there is for example uh one
minority theory that the big bang
>> Mhm. spawned a matter universe which
went one direction in time and a
simultaneous equal one an antimatter
universe going in the other direction in
time. Is this a Sakarov? I
>> I don't know who is I I just remember
reading that and um there are other
theories. We live inside this huge super
massive black hole
>> and there's some weird paradoxes like
the more massive the black hole the less
likely tidal forces will stretch you
apart for
>> the math is very complicated but that
that's true. So it could be that what we
call the universe is just what we see
inside this big black hole. And how
would we know
>> right? I mean, I think that at the end
of the day, if we ever know the truth,
which I don't think we will,
>> you don't.
>> Well, no. This is a conversation I had
with Marvin Minsky.
>> Okay.
>> And I said, Marvin,
>> yeah.
>> Are we as humans
>> for the audience, by the way, Marvin
Minsky is kind of the the godfather of
modern artificial intelligence?
>> MIT.
>> MIT.
>> And uh I knew him quite well. And I I
love kind of BSing with him and you know
kind of like you did in the dorm, you
know, when you were a freshman like, "Oh
man, this thing's all connected to
everything." Well, I said, "Marvin, are
humans either collectively or
individually capable of understanding
nature in its entirety?" And he goes,
"Of course not.
>> I'll give you an example. My cat over
there is the smartest cat I know or have
even ever heard of. It is a genius cat.
I'll never teach it French,
>> right? And uh it turns out that was
wrong, too, because we now know that
some cats
>> uh can understand about 400 words of a
language.
>> But but the point is that it's hubris to
think that at whatever level of
intelligence we've achieved is enough to
understand nature.
>> Yeah.
>> Right.
>> Yeah. Well, it's like uh you know,
whales and dolphins and and elephants
and parrots are like way smarter than we
ever thought they were. Crows.
>> Mhm.
>> You know, a crow will remember your face
for two decades and come after you if
you pissed it off.
>> It's wild,
>> right? I mean, they're animals are way
smarter than we think they are.
>> But do we really think we can explain
partial differential equations to a
parrot? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not,
>> right? And so it stands to reason that
there's way more to be known than what
our brains could ever comprehend.
>> And to me, that's the exciting thing
about UAPs and UFOs.
>> It's it's nature's way of reminding us
how little we know.
>> And uh Isaac Asimov said, "Science
doesn't proceed with Eureka." I like,
"Oh, we get this great insight.
>> It proceeds with that's funny."
you know, um cuz that's funny means hm
that makes no sense compared to what I
think I know. And whenever you see
something that doesn't fit what you
know, a real scientist should get
excited.
>> Yeah.
>> Not skeptical.
>> Yeah.
>> But as Mox Plunk said, science proceeds
one funeral at a time.
>> Right. Right.
Yeah.
>> Well, accepting that caveat around kind
of having epistemic humility, you guys
have done this amazing survey level
overview. Do you guys have kind of a
base case for what's going on? Even if
it's a soup of things. Well, yes and no.
Yes. In that we believe when you look at
all the many thousands of reports and
we've looked at all and some I have
guilty knowledge of from when I was
inside the government
>> there is a tiny tiny tiny fraction
uh maybe a few dozen out of all the many
tens or hundreds of thousands where I
feel confident saying there's something
real there.
>> It's not an artifact of who observed it
of the instrument of some mistake. It's
real
>> and it's something we do not understand,
>> right? And so, uh, that to me is why we
are so passionate about this because as
scientists that excites us.
>> We are not threatened by it. We are not
repelled by it. We are drawn to it. M
>> and so I guess I shouldn't say this, but
you can comment for yourself, but I'm
kind of on a mission to get serious
scientists to take a look at this
>> because right now it's very hard because
there's the giggle factor, there's the
oh UFO, alien, little green man, and so
really the world's best scientist with a
few exceptions like Levy and Harvard and
places like that,
>> uh they're staying away from it because
it's a career killer. That's what it
seems like. And then simultaneously, you
have, you know, you obviously were as
high up as it gets in the US government
when it came to to science. You were
kind of the CTO of the country. And then
you have this movie, I don't know if
you've seen this, the age of disclosure
where you have guys like Jim Semian, you
know, high up at the CIA or uh Chris
Melon who is deputy assistant secretary
of defense for intelligence. um you know
also cleared do a lot of stuff and
they're saying we have a program that's
like reverse engineering this stuff what
do you guys think there do you think
that's legit or
>> well I got to be careful what I say here
um I was I had access to a whole lot of
stuff yeah
>> I never saw that
>> okay
>> I never saw anything like that I we we
have this thing we say yo explain yo
>> it's maybe yes maybe no you
>> yeah when presented Uh we we call it the
power of yo.
>> Okay.
>> When presented with something
>> Yeah.
>> Don't say yes, don't say no. Say yo.
>> Okay.
>> Maybe yes, maybe no. Keep an open mind.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> And so I don't have any illusions. Just
because I should have known everything
that I did. I know for a fact
>> that people hide things, right?
>> You know, and so the fact that I didn't
know it doesn't mean it wasn't there.
>> Yeah.
>> You see, this is a fascinating thing.
Your average lay person when they look
at the government saying we're not going
to release this UFO thing thinks ah
because they don't want us to know about
aliens. But they don't think about other
motivations. I'll give you one.
>> Let's say we have sensors of a certain
kind that are way better than we want
anyone to know they are.
>> Right? Because we don't want the
adversary to know, oh, we can see X, Y,
or Z.
>> That's called sources and methods.
>> And in the intelligence world, that's
what we protect more than anything. M
>> we can't let the adversary know what we
know we can know.
>> And so I have no doubt that some of the
reluctance to release some of the stuff
it was captured by a collection system
that we don't want people to know we
have.
>> Yeah, that makes sense.
>> They can see farther longer into
wavelengths that they didn't know that
we could and so forth. And I think some
of the data captures have been through
those kind of systems
>> and that just to reveal that can reveal
the capability that we have. And so I I
feel quite certain that there's some of
that going on.
>> Yeah. No, I mean that makes total sense.
Um you mentioned also Navy patents
around uh laser holography.
>> Oh yes. Yeah. Well, this is interesting
because in looking at the the
possibilities
>> um I just start from first principles of
physics. If something is moving really
really fast
>> with a super acceleration, the most
fundamental equation in physics is F=
ma. Force equals mass time acceleration,
right? And so if you look at a
extraordinary acceleration, there are
two ways to look at it. There's an
unbelievable force or there's very low
mass.
>> Mhm.
>> Or both.
>> And you say, well, what could do that?
Well, when I was at Disney, we were
developing electronic fireworks. And the
way we did it is we had a Q switch
neodyenium yag laser that we focused to
a spot in the atmosphere and we put so
much energy there that we ionized the
air and created ball lightning.
>> Okay? And then we moved it around with
mirrors and and lenses
>> so that we created voxels in open space
and we could move those around like
fireworks or like anything else. Okay,
those little plasmas reflect RF energy
and give off tremendous heat and
obviously a visual signature.
>> So, um I thought, well, that has
essentially zero mass. If I were going
to fake it on purpose, and that is, by
the way, uh one of the things we look at
in the book, if someone was consciously
going about faking something to make you
think there was a UFO.
>> Yep.
>> For whatever reason, like the Russians
do this all the time. They call it
muskovka. They make us think they can do
things that we never thought they could
do to deter us.
>> Right? And so, um, I asked, this is what
I used to do at Disney, fake things. And
I talked to, uh, this guy Cliff Wong,
who was the world's expert on drones,
and I said, "If you wanted to fake X, Y,
or Z, how would you do it?" And so he
told me,
>> he said, 'Well, what I do is I would
have a big a huge balloon here that was
towed by a little teeny drone
>> and you'd think it was this big orb when
in fact it wasn't.
>> Right? So, we get into all the ways of
fake. But getting back to the plasma,
>> I said these these glowing orbs could be
free uh free space plasmids that are
being directed by a laser,
>> right? Well, it turned out there's a
Navy patent to do exactly that, to draw
things in the shape of an airplane to
fool missiles.
>> And it would be it would look like it's
accelerating at, you know,
>> crazy G's and
>> Yeah. And it would it would do
everything that these orbs are doing.
>> Seems like it's breaking conservation
momentum, but it's just mass. It has
zero mass. If something is moving in a
way that no mass could, maybe it doesn't
have any mass.
>> Maybe it doesn't have mass. Maybe that's
the way to look at it. Well, if you were
to look at, let's say, the Nimtt's 2004
case, which I know you guys are pretty
familiar with,
>> and the Roosevelt and the Omaha and
Yeah. Yeah.
>> Exactly. Yeah. In 2015. So, in in 2004,
you have, you know, Nimmits off the
coast of San Diego, you have soul
carrier strike group, uh, you have
radar, you have, you know, eyewitness
observation, and then you have thermal
imaging that's been released, this
forward-looking infrared
>> and CCTV also.
>> And CCTV. And so would uh this sort of
plasma ball configuration be able to
account for all of that?
>> Yes, it would from a kinematic point of
view. But the visuals don't line up.
Those are tic tacs.
>> Mhm.
>> And the plasmas
actually can look like a tic tac because
they're not actual balls normally the
way you do them unless you really are
good with uh adaptive optics. But
generally what happens with these
plasmas, it's a laser beam coming to a
focus. Yeah.
>> And what happens is instead of just a
ball, you tend to get the actual costic
of the energy coming in like this. So
you'll see kind of a rope of energy like
this.
>> And that could look like a tic tac.
>> And then when you take into account
atmospheric scattering and stuff,
>> I would say possibly
>> it wouldn't be my first hypothesis
>> because they define it. they it looks
like it's, you know, made of white
plastic or something.
>> Uh, under normal conditions, these
plasmas wouldn't look that way.
>> Okay.
>> But they also are louder than hell. In
fact, when Michael Eisner, the CEO of
Disney, I first showed him these things.
He said, "Oh, we're not going to do
this. It's really impressive, but we're
not doing this." And I said, "Why?" He
said, "Eric, there's something
profoundly disturbing about the air over
your head catching fire." And yeah, we
like to stimulate our guests, but we
don't want them running screaming out of
the building. And it's really loud.
Yeah,
>> it's really loud because it creates
sonic booms,
>> you know, and so uh
>> you know, it's it's part of it. But what
I do what we do in the book is
>> But that sounds like a pretty good
capability for a like a scop or
something. Well, it is. you want to do
something on foreign land, you know, ace
in the old tech or whatever, you you you
know, fire in the sky and, you know,
some plasma projection balls everywhere
and things like that.
>> Well, that's right. I mean, um, let's
get back to the faking theory. Someone
isn't doing it and you're noticing it.
>> Yeah.
>> They're doing it on purpose to mess with
your head.
>> Uhhuh.
>> And the Russians in particular really do
a lot of this.
>> Do they? And because
Patton said it, weapons change, but man
who uses them changes not at all. To
defeat an enemy, you don't defeat their
weapons. You defend you defeat their
brain and their heart.
>> You erode their will to fight.
>> The Russians know this. They don't have
the resources we do.
>> So, one of the things they do is make us
think they can do things that make us
think twice about messing with them.
>> And so, it is in I'm not saying they're
doing this. I'm saying it would be
consistent with their modus operandi to
be messing with our heads. And by the
way, when it comes to directed energy,
there's no one better in the world than
the Russians.
>> You know, Bosoff and the laser, you
could say they invented it,
>> you know, and they are really good at
directed energy. I mean, that's what
Havana syndrome's all about, directed
energy. So,
>> I think it's entirely possible that some
of these phenomena are a foreign actor
deliberately messing with our head.
Interesting. Yeah, there's um I think
it's 1976 salt uh talks and it's uh
Kissinger is talking to Door Brinan
who's the you know foreign minister uh
from the Soviets and he's saying stop
beaming our embassy with microwaves.
You've been you know blasting it for you
know 12 hours straight and Walter
Staceil who's the American ambassador
was you know not only hurt by this he
ends up dying of kind of a rare form of
blood cancer. And so if that's going on
in the 70s and then it feels like we've
had all this like honestly gaslighting
on the part of you know CIA with a lot
of people a lot of diplomats who are
stationed abroad who are experiencing
these things that you know they're
consistently called psychosmatic or
crazy or whatever and then you have this
dear Spiegel 60 Minutes you know report
saying no this is all real and the
Soviets have been doing it for decades.
Well you really it's something
>> we're deep into that. I mean, I've been
I can't say exactly, but I'm very much
part of that investigation and so is Dr.
Gilbert.
>> Yeah. We've been interviewing victims of
Havana syndrome. Yeah.
>> Uh and uh it's spectacular because
nobody understands that there there are
a series of symptoms that are all linked
together that people don't understand
that are just unique. M
>> uh but there are a lot of people there
are like over 1,000 US officials you
know from state department and other
American personnel there are family
members there are children also that
that have reported it's called uh
anomalous health incidents now a ahi
which is Havana syndrome you know and
and people are usually in their 20s 30s
40s they're in great physical shape um
And but the the the the symptoms started
when they were u stationed in Cuba or
Russia or China, Austria, Germany,
Switzerland and there are a lot of them
in the United States and near the White
House also and and people are staying at
hotels, apartment offices or sometimes
in their in their cars. But but there
are puzzling combinations of symptoms
that we we've never seen before. So a
few people described um like dizziness,
combination of dizziness, headache, uh
hearing loud, high frequency, very
directional sounds that seem to come
from a specific location. And both
sounds and symptoms disappear when
victims leave the room and they reappear
when victims re-enter the room, you
know. And some um Havana syndrome
victims describe disabling cognitive
problems like memory problems and slow
processing speed, balance problem,
hearing loss, ear pain, tonitis,
insomnia, irritability and sometimes
depression and and the physicians
uh could not understand what was going
on. So we did a lot of studies and we
find ENT specialists found that the it's
the ottolith inside the inner ear that
get affected consistently in most of
those cases. And now
>> what is it in the inner ear? the O the
little little uh teeny O uh bony bony
structures inside the inner ear that are
responsible for balance and those get
disrupted uh and it's very difficult to
find to find what it is. I mean people
do they do MRIs and they can't find
anything. It's only when you study the
auto of the ears of the inner ear.
That's the one uh cluster of symptoms
that seems to be in common with many of
them. And uh I I'll just say again, I
have to be careful
>> picking my words.
>> But I think there was not unonymity
within the community, the intelligence
community on what was going on.
>> You had one side saying it's real and we
know what it is with very high
likelihood and here it is. M and then
you had the other which was the official
version is there's no there there
nothing to see here folks.
>> And those of us who are tightly
connected on the one side who heard that
were shocked, mortified,
angry. Yeah.
>> But you saw Dr. Realman for example.
>> Yeah.
>> The Stanford MD.
>> Um
>> uh I think he said it best.
>> Yeah. And uh in an essay I just
published, I really talk about again the
psychology of how that could happen. And
I believe that the people in the
intelligence community at State
Department and CIA who say there's
nothing there there, I don't think they
know it and they're covering it up.
>> I think they don't believe it
>> because I have seen that over and over
and over again. And at the end of the
essay, I quote Upton Sinclair who said,
"You can't explain something to a man
whose salary depends on not
understanding it."
>> Right.
>> Again, it gets back to the common theme
you've heard us talk about, which is
whenever you have an instrument
reporting something, ask about the
instrument itself.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. So the people who aren't
believing it can't believe it.
>> Yeah.
>> They because if they believed it, their
whole ego structure would fall apart.
>> Right.
>> Right. So they have to believe it. Yeah.
And so I think they truly think there's
nothing there. Speaking of which, yeah,
go for it.
>> They don't believe that something can
happen that they don't understand. They
think they have to understand
everything. And if they don't understand
it, it doesn't exist. But but but it it
it sure does exist. I mean, we have
interviewed a number of victims. And
this is not fake. This really really
exists. And it's it's devastating for
for the people.
>> One of them used to work for me. I know
him extremely well. Jesus.
>> And uh we had a long conversation with
him recently. I can't mention his name
or where he worked,
>> but what bothers us the most about it is
the victimizations of the victims.
Imagine serving your country,
>> being wounded in service of your
country, and your country says, "No, you
didn't have that happen." And you're
crazy. It's
>> scary.
>> It's awful. I mean, it to me actually,
and a lot of them will tell you that's
the worst part. Mark Poly Moropoulos,
who was on the 60 Minutes piece, said it
very well. It's like he loves the CIA,
but
>> they've betrayed him.
>> Yeah.
>> So, we think what what it is now, what
we think it is, it's a radio frequency
microwave or directed energy using
repetitive
pulse train, very short, very high peak
power radiation that could be sent from
anywhere within line of sight. Now, how
big or small can the culprit device be?
Well, it could probably be as small
enough to fit in a backpack
>> and and how can we detect something that
is really very short. It could be a nano
second of radiation very high intense um
um repetitive. We have no way to detect
this nanocond very high pulse rate and
that's that's what is it we the the all
those organism the CIA doesn't think
that this can happen because they think
they would detect it and interestingly
enough they would not we don't have the
devices that could detect that
>> well uh or well
>> gonna pick my words carefully here uh I
think that to detect something, you
first have to be open to where it might
be. And so, let's take this radiation,
this directed energy. Um, microwaves are
one possibility because there is this
thing called the microwave hearing
effect where you can beam a microwave at
someone and cause them to hear things
because of thermmoelastic explosions in
the endolymph of the inner ear that
create vibrations like sound. And in
fact there's a program to modulate that
with voice. We call it the voice of God
where you can project the voice into
someone
>> using this. And in fact in our book the
shadow of time we talk about that is how
one set of creatures who have hearing
could talk to another set that don't
using that phenomena.
>> But again let's open up what isn't
impossible.
>> Remember I said we can do things with
lasers and free air plasmas. Well,
remember I said that lasers can interact
and create shock waves in the
atmosphere. And so it is possible that
you could create local shock waves very
very precisely located that would cause
some of this kind of damage
acoustically. But the origin wasn't a
speaker or an acoustic system. It was a
laser.
>> It could be a terraertz laser.
>> It could be, you know, an a near
ultraviolet. It could it could be all
kinds of different kinds of directed
energy. It could be millimeter wave. It
could be terraertz. I mean
>> I worry about the other side of this the
extremely low frequency
>> that I'm less interested in because
>> uh you know f equals h new which is to
say that the lower the frequency the
less energy it carries right and also
ultrasound the wavelength is so large
it's like many miles long. So what that
means is the gradient of energy from
here to here
>> across something like your head is
extremely it's basically flat.
>> Uh now you have resonance in your body.
Your body is a cavity resonator
>> and if you hit it with something like 6
to 12 hertz
>> you can maybe cause yourself to have to
go to the bathroom.
>> Yeah.
>> But it wouldn't create these kind of
effects.
>> Uh it's probably something way higher. M
>> I wouldn't rule out acoustic, but that
doesn't mean it's an acoustic source.
>> It could mean it's a directed energy
source that creates an acoustic effect.
>> I don't think that's what's happening. I
think it's straight up RF.
>> But again, uh I'm somewhat humble in
that we can't say we know for sure.
>> Yeah.
>> Um and I think if we too quickly reach a
conclusion
>> Yeah. uh we're we're not doing anybody
any favors.
>> On the UFO front, one of the kind of
data sets, so to speak, that I think I
hold in highest esteem is this idea of
UFOs showing up around nuclear uh
weapons facilities and installations all
over the world. Uh civilian energy grids
even. There seems to be something there.
Have you looked at any of those cases?
We have. And uh we're trying to be
honest and say, "Yo, maybe yes, maybe
no." First of all, there's a lot more
sensors around nuclear plants.
>> Yeah.
>> And so you're going to see a lot more
stuff because you have a lot more things
looking at it. So you see more
frequency, but is that due to things
showing up more frequency or because you
have more stuff looking at it?
>> It seem to me it seems beyond sensor
bias.
>> Could be. Yeah.
>> But um maybe. But then you have to ask,
well, what happens around nuclear
plants? M you have very high
electromagnetic fields like for example
the high power
>> so you may have extremely high voltages
>> right because power is transmitted at
very high voltage to reduce resistance
losses
>> right because of Ohm's law
>> and so when you have extremely high uh
uh slope high gradient electromagnetic
fields you can have plasma generation
>> if you have aerosols in the air you can
charge them up. Maybe you can cause some
fluoresence and some weird effect. So,
uh
>> you if you're going to be intellectually
honest,
>> yeah,
>> don't look at what you'd like to be
true. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah. They're
interested in our nuclear. Well, maybe.
>> Yeah.
>> But if it's nuclear, what else is it
about the nuclear
>> that might lead to other phenomena?
>> Yeah.
>> And this is where um we try to be
objective because we want to kind of
send a message to the world that
hardcore objective scientists Yeah. who
are more interested in the truth than
their particular agenda who have
rigorous
>> scientific process are taking this
seriously.
>> And so we that's why we think it's
really important to be hyper rigorous.
>> Yeah.
>> And look at all possibilities. Yep.
>> So again about the nuclear
>> maybe yes, maybe no. I I wouldn't come
down hard yet and what I think is
happening there.
>> I think but the thing is really hardcore
serious scientists with resources really
don't look at these issues. M m.
>> Now, the government is prone to say,
"Oh, yeah, we've got this eight team
looking at it, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah." Don't believe it.
>> They have someone looking at it to some
degree,
>> but are the best of the best really
going to risk their careers to look at
this and volunteer for it? seems like
the most important thing you know to
you know it's the frontier and it's and
it's can be so much interesting
productive useful stuff outside of
obviously it being the nature of reality
and kind of ultimate truth seeeking
which I think is very valuable unto
itself but I think you know you could
end up with you know new propulsion
modalities and you know possibly new
energy modalities all these things could
come from studying this stuff
>> see I gotta say I'm not objective here
Yeah, because I've seen so many times
being inside the government
>> where for what we call in Washington the
optics,
>> Congress wants us to look into this.
>> Let's look into it and let's form a team
and let's put scientists on it.
>> Yeah.
>> But you saw in 60 minutes that guy who
said he quit said uh uh that woman came
to him and said, "We got to turn down
the temperature on this thing."
>> Right. And so people inside the
intelligence community told me
>> like I was starting to work in my own
lab to reproduce it and to come up with
a sensor to sense this stuff.
>> And I said, "I'm making progress, but
it's on my own dime.
>> Um, I'll continue on my own dime, but I
have to know if I succeed you'd want
it." And he goes, "Forget it.
>> It is career ending here.
>> If you even ask these questions,
>> it's just optics. They don't really
care. They already know the answer they
want. This isn't serious." Yeah.
>> And so when it comes to UFOs and all
this other stuff,
>> if I had to be a betting man,
>> I'd say they don't really take it
seriously.
>> There are Yeah. I don't know. I imagine
you worked with James Clapper. Uh
>> Oh, yes. He was the guy who uh gave me
my intelligence distinguished service
medal when I uh left.
>> Okay. Well, there you go. So, he he um
publicly in the age of disclosure was
like at Area 51, we had some sensor
program. when we were looking for for
UFOs and then Mike Rogers who you
probably also know
>> which one the uh the Mike Rogers the
congressman or Mike Rogers the head of
NSA
>> head of NSA he said Clapper called him
and in in a public interview he said
Clapper called him and asked for all the
UFO data from the NSA
>> the director of national intelligence
James Clapper calls me Mike I need you
to go through all of I need the team to
go through all of NSA's holding all of
its files and I need everything that you
have on UFOs and I'm like what sir
>> so it seems like there's some, you know,
internal movement, like even if you
don't accept at face value all of the,
you know, kind of UFO crash retrieval
and reverse engineering, which
I I think there's some evidence around
that that's like pretty good, too. But
like, you know, even if you don't take
that at face value, there is some
internal interest around this stuff.
>> Oh, yeah. There's some, but it's all uh
not official.
>> Yeah. We talked to uh uh pilots on the
Navy base,
>> aviators. They like to be called
aviators.
They aren't mere pilots on a navy in an
nonofficial manner um on a navy base. Uh
and they told us that they saw they were
seeing uh phenomena that they couldn't
understand on a very regular basis but
they were not talking about that. They
were not mentioning that because it was
career ending would have been career
ending. They say all of us have seen a
lot of stuff and none of us say anything
because we want to keep flying.
>> Yeah. And that's the same thing as the
the Havana syndrome also. Um the people
don't the officials the government
doesn't acknowledge
uh the fact because if we acknow I think
my personal opinion if we acknowledge
the fact then it's going to scare
people. Who else is going to go abroad
and work for state department? Nobody
will want to do that because they know
they will risk their life. If we
acknowledge there is something we don't
know, the same thing in UFOs. Uh who is
going to go on missions, aerial
missions, they they won't want to do it
also because they will risk their lives.
So it's a it's a big scare factor. It's
going to scare a lot of people and I
think they don't want our government
doesn't want to do that. Plus, they
don't understand it. They don't
understand it and they don't want to
scare people, so it doesn't exist.
>> Interesting. And in the intelligence
world, there's a really unfortunate
thing that happens. It really bothers me
a lot, and I've had it happen to me
personally in the war in Iraq and the
connection between Iraq and uh al-Qaeda.
>> Um,
in intelligence, we're supposed to speak
truth to power. Mhm.
>> We're supposed to be objective reporters
who report what we think is happening
with what confidence and to never let
our own political agendas
color what we tell policy makers.
But you heard on the 60 Minutes
interview where they said, "Well, look,
if it's the Russians doing it to us,
that's an act of war because they've
done it and against very senior US
officials, national security officials
on our own soil.
>> They've attacked us. It's an act of
war." And it is. I think that is exactly
what it is because the Russians look at
war differently. They're always at war.
They call it gray war
>> or active measures. and their
intelligence services are more about
making things happen than reporting what
happens.
>> Very different philosophy than ours.
>> And so, um, it's very inconvenient to
have to tell the Russians, you just
declared war on us.
>> And the guys at CIA don't want that.
They don't want a nuclear war. They
don't want because what are we really
going to do to the Russians because
they've been doing this to us? Really?
Are we supposed to launch a nuclear war
against them? Are we supposed to start
killing their intelligence operatives?
What are we supposed to do about it?
>> Well, not only not only that, but it's
so embarrassing cuz it's been going on
since 1980s. So, we're started the 1980s
and we haven't done anything. There was
a war declar What?
>> Yeah. So, so um the fact of the matter
is the Russians know very well that if
they keep the aggression below a certain
threshold, we're going to do nothing.
Yeah.
>> Right. And so they know that and so they
keep doing it. And if we say to the
American voters, we know the Russians
have been
uh at war with us and we're just going
to sit here and take it.
>> Well, how would the voters like that?
>> But on the other hand, if we get too
aggressive and react to the Russians,
>> we're going to turn up the heat. So you
have an example there of CIA saying,
"We're going to control the narrative to
keep us from going to war with Russia."
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. That may actually be at the end of
the day a good thing, but they don't get
to decide that. That's not and I've seen
this inside where I see exactly that
happened in other contexts. And I said
to a very senior person at NSA, not the
director, someone below them. I said,
"You don't." We were going to tell Bush
something we had discovered.
And she said, "Nope, I'm not going to
let you do that." And he said, "Why?"
And he said, "Well, this guy's crazy.
You know, he'll go do anything." And I
said, "That's not your call."
>> Yeah, it's not.
>> You know, she said, "Well, we we can't
let him go off on a, you know, a
tangent."
>> I said, "But that's not your call." She
said, "Well, yeah, it is."
>> And that's the reality. And you see,
when that happens, people's trust in the
intelligence apparatus starts to erode.
And I will tell you, I didn't see a lot
of that.
>> Yeah.
>> But it happens.
>> Yeah. And if it's something coming from
outside Earth, it's the same thing cuz
those pilots were describing a lot of
near misses when they were flying. They
almost missed something.
>> Their worry was flight safety over
everything
>> and and they were worried. So if it's
the same thing and and it's something
coming from outside Earth that we don't
understand, if officials acknowledge
that this is what is happening, it's
going to scare the Jesus out of
everybody, right? them and and they
don't want to do that because first
again they don't understand it. So it
doesn't exist cuz cuz otherwise it will
make them look incompetent and it's been
going on for several years also. So how
come they've let this happen for several
years without doing anything and the
only way is to say it doesn't exist?
>> Yeah. Not good. Not the right uh not the
right orientation towards this whole
subject. And another thing sort of like
that, and I actually think it's more
acknowledged probably by CIA than it is
by the civilian world, but there was a
psychic spy program. This is
>> MK Ultra.
>> Well, there's MK Ultra, but there's also
Stargate. Do you know about this?
>> Yeah. And so there's to me a bunch of
evidence from CIA circles that there is
some sort of mind matter connection or
there's maybe we're talking about kind
of transmission theory of consciousness
something else going on as far as our
epistemological circuitry than anybody
in academia would ever admit. And
something that I I feel very passionate
about is like science should not be
locked up in any of these agencies. To
the extent that there's some trade
secret that confers a tactical warfare
advantage, fine. But the idea that like
something that fundamental is just, you
know, kind of stuck in these agencies.
And I mean, this is all, by the way,
this is foyad in 2017. These programs
are public now. But that's pretty wild,
right? And like no one in academia would
they'd all laugh at this if we're you
know they'd laugh at the conversation
we're having right now. But then the
people in aerospace and in these
agencies that like need every advantage
they get with intelligence modalities
use it.
>> Well I I don't know. I would I wouldn't
go that far. Um I will tell you this.
The Russians take this stuff way more
seriously than we do. to the extent that
in chess matches they would have
summoning like beaming negative mental
energy at a opponent of a Russian,
>> you know, and uh the Russians are much
more open to things that we aren't.
>> Um, both good and bad
>> and things that don't cost anything as
because they don't have very much the
resources.
>> No, that's true. Yeah.
>> And I think I think that some of the
biggest discoveries in this area
probably will be the Russians because
they have much more open minds than we
do.
>> I think they tend to be more spiritual
and mystical maybe than we do because of
their history.
>> But um
>> uh you know
let's talk about this remote
consciousness thing and and these
phenomena where a psychic can tell you
there's a body buried under a bridge and
they go there and yeah the body's there.
>> Yeah. Um, one explanation is ESP or
clairvoyance or non-local consciousness
and that's possible. But then let's look
at the other possibilities. We know
there are some humans that are savant.
>> Mhm.
>> You know, someone who you could say what
day of the week is, you know, 505
uh rain
>> October. Yeah.
>> And so there are some people with
unbelievable
weird genius capabilities.
>> Yes. You know, who's to say that someone
couldn't have absorbed all the news and
everything about the human condition and
reached the conclusion that a serial
killer of a certain kind is going to put
a body in a certain place in a certain
date,
>> right?
>> That this is not ESP. It's just
elevating an analytic skills to a genius
level,
>> right? And so to me, something like that
is more likely explanation than
something that's totally outside any
range. So
>> I would disagree with you.
>> Well, but I always look at
>> you have to respect what we don't know.
And I'm not going to say impossible.
>> Yeah,
>> I would go that far. But at the same
time I am a scientist and I look at
evaluate possibilities based on the best
tools we have available
>> to come up with
>> is there an explanation within the
science we do know
>> and I would start there
>> and then to posit a science we don't
know
>> is such an unknown realm it's almost not
worth looking at because there's no way
of evaluating that information. You
don't rule it out
>> and we say maybe there's something
there. But um
>> but then you become the cat that doesn't
want that cannot learn French.
>> Maybe.
>> No, no. I'm saying look this is a
fascinating thing about the scientific
method.
>> We assume it's the end all.
>> But clearly it isn't because it fails us
over and over again.
>> Yeah.
>> And so uh I went to a hundth reunion on
my PhD program at Indiana University,
you know, where BF Skinner was there,
you know, these luminaries. And I I was
in industry and I said, you know, I've
been out 10 years and I think the
scientific method is really flawed and
limited.
>> And they said, 'Wh I said because in
science you have to narrow things down
so tiny and so narrow to reach a real
robust conclusion. You have to control
so much that it becomes inapplicable to
the real world where nothing is
controlled. M and I said in my world
where I'm in the fighter simulation
business and I have to figure out how to
make a pilot think he's flying at 20 ft
off the ground
>> with very limited cues. There's no
science for that. I just have to try a
bunch of and see what works.
>> Yeah.
>> And I said I think the the method is
seriously flawed and limited. Oh my god.
>> So I think that I will give you this.
The scientific method itself is limited.
>> Agree. It's the same thing as, you know,
when you're looking for the a body
that's buried. Maybe that person has an
extra sense of smell that could smell
what it is. Maybe that person has an
extra sense of
>> something that we don't know ex we don't
acknowledge that exists and we don't
have the tools to evaluate. So I think
it is very possible that that that
particular person has a capability
capacity of finding a body somewhere and
we don't know and we don't know um we
don't know how to evaluate that possible
capability. So I I do agree. I think
it's there's it's something we don't
know and we have no idea and we should
be open in in
>> I'll give you both a big yo.
>> I like it. I like it. Yeah. It is one of
those things where it's a paradigm
shifting thing if real and then we don't
know if it's real. But you have you have
this woman Jessica UTS who is president
of the American Statistical Association.
She looked at all the CIA data around
Stargate did a meta study and she came
out saying if this were any other field
and not parasychology which has this
inherent kind of stigma stench attached
to it. It would be beyond a shadow of
doubt with the p values she was looking
at that this is totally real. And then
to me it's like okay it's like black
body radiation in the late 19th century
where you can say it's fake because of
the prevailing theory at the time or
let's like try to find a theory and I I
don't know but
>> but like I say maybe
>> Yeah. Maybe. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> But you see the thing is one reason
you'll find me to be such a stickler
>> Yeah.
>> is I kind of have to be to have
credibility because
>> I want hardcore scientists
>> to look at someone like me and someone
like Dr. Gilbert and say they're not
wildeyed crazies.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> They are they are disciplined.
>> Sure.
>> And so I'm purposely that way. You know
that I want to maintain healthy
skepticism
at the same time. Oh, because the very
best scientists realize that we're we're
much more limited than we want to admit.
M
>> and so what I want to do is speak to
those scientists and say play in this
space because there's some exciting
stuff here. I have no idea what it is,
>> but I know what it isn't
>> and what it isn't is something we
understand.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Was there any while
you were at NSA or ODNI anything that's
now declassified around the UFO stuff
that came across your desk? Any signals
intelligence or
>> No. And I'll tell you that inside the
highest levels of the intelligence
community, this is not something we
spent a fth second thinking about
>> anytime.
>> I don't think there was any point
>> I did get involved in some foyer
requests at NSA as a senior executive,
>> but
>> I none of us spend any time on this.
There's one guy I interviewed who's his
name is Dan Sherman and he said he was
taken to an NSA complex and he was like
kind of humming these like tones with
this headphones and then it was that was
all meant to so he could communicate
with non-human intelligence.
>> And he said, "I'm going to play a tone
and I want you to mentally hum that
tone." And he said that you will
eventually feel a connection. the line
will change.
>> When I saw the sine wave move,
>> I went, "Oh, okay. Oh, I heard about
something like that." Yeah.
>> It's called Above Black is the book he
wrote. Project Preserve Destiny. Do you
have a take on that?
>> No. No. I I I heard about it. I I No,
but uh but I will tell you that uh look,
at that level, you're interested in
budgets
>> and policy, right? and I'm trying to get
more money to do high-risk, highreward
research. Yeah. In the community that
consumed 100% of my time. And I except
when I was going to be interviewed by 60
Minutes and they wanted to ask me about
this,
>> it never even came up. Mm-m. In thinking
about um kind of terrestrial propulsion
modalities that could explain what we're
seeing, cuz this is part of your book,
is there anything you guys are aware of
or think could be possible uh that
transcends chemical combustion?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Yes. Um, I'm glad you brought that
up because we go through NASA's
innovative uh, propulsion program which
I think is fantastic because it's one
part of the government that's saying we
will fund anything that isn't
impossible.
>> I love that approach
>> and they give you a little funding if
you can play with it. And an example of
that is a warp drive.
And u again in our book the shadow of
time we get into the possibilities of uh
you know what people don't talk about
when you talk about traveling near the
speed of light is the acceleration and
deceleration
>> right you've got to accelerate from
nothing to the near the speed of light
and then you've got to slow down to get
where you're going to go. Well, either
those take a really long time, which
gets rid of a lot of the advantage of
traveling that fast, or you have an
organism that can withstand unbelievable
G's, which
>> Yeah. which
>> yeah, we studied there were there were
some studies done on on on that because
for um for uh organisms to be able to
travel uh from outer space to earth for
example uh they need to be able to
resist extreme cold, extreme heat,
extremely long journeys uh so extreme
accelerations, extreme decelerations and
intense radiation, cosmic radiation. So
is it possible is has there been any any
anything like this where there has been
um so the we've we've done studies on on
um like for example when we're talking
about nuclear nuclear
nuclear plants. So there is an organism
a bacterium called docus radiourance
which can uh resist intense radiation.
It can actually thrive on intense
radiation, but also it can survive cold,
dehydration,
vacuum, and acid. So, it's it's a
extreopile. And we've got a few that are
extreophiles. And this one, the donakus
radio has been found to survive three
years in outer space based on the
studies conducted on the uh on the
International Space Station.
Now, we've done studies on ants. There's
certain type of ants that can sustain
5,000 gs. So 5,000 times the force of
gravity. Wow.
>> Um they're tardigrades. What are
tardigrades? They're little little bears
that are from half a millimeter to 1.2
mill mm that have eight legs and they're
found on moss or fresh or seawater
sediment. And they can sustain 16,000
gs, like 16,000 times the force of
gravity. when a human will be killed
with a sustained exposure to 12 G's 12.
So, and and those little tardigrades can
survive 30 years at 0° Fahrenheit can
survive 10 years in a dehydrated state
and NASA did an experiment where they
survived 18 months in the vacuum of
space. Same thing outside the
International Space Station. Now, there
are fruit flies. fruit flies.
Surprisingly, the little those little
teeny things are able to withstand up to
17,000
gs. 17,000 times the the the the force
of gravity. There are round worms. Um
round worms, they're parasite. They can
be parasite in animals or also in
humans. They can withstand 80,000 gs. Um
and in 2023 it was reported that an
individual uh nematodes was has been
revived after 46,000 years in the
Siberian perafrost.
Uh and talking about uh organism that
are uh resistant to extreme conditions
like in the bottom of the ocean near the
bottom of the ocean um at 5 miles below
the ocean which is 26,000 ft below the
surface near hydrothermal vents um uh
there are cells that can uh survive.
There's the the an ocean worm um that
the home is located near hydrothermal
vents and it it's not it's not crushed.
There's a Mariana snailfish that can
live near the Mariana or in the Mariana
trench uh in the western Pacific Ocean.
So imagine an organism that is under
five miles uh of of water. that heavy
heavy weight that would crush any kind
of organ would crush us and it does not
crush uh a snail fish. It doesn't crush
a little worm. Why is that? How is that?
You know,
>> so I think the bottom line of everything
that she's saying is we should never say
never when it comes to nothing could
sustain interstellar travel. nothing
could sustain the kind of G's that we
see with the tic tac that uh we actually
have existence proofs that those things
are possible. But getting back to the
question you asked about propulsion
which this is relevant because some of
these propulsions get to extreme
accelerations and radiation even
>> um the ones that I think are the most
interesting are where you're not putting
the power source on the vehicle. M
>> so for example um we have this video and
we know the guy who did it at Sandia
National Lab and White Sands where you
take a disc
>> a flying saucer basically and you put a
pulse laser just like I said and you
shoot it up and you propel it with laser
energy.
>> Whoa.
>> Right. So you can move something through
the air where there's no engine on it at
all. You're just pushing on it with
photons.
>> Did you do that at larger scale?
>> Yes.
>> Whoa. In fact, this guy that uh we've
talked to did it for the government and
he's been forever trying to say, "Look,
you want clean energy, you don't need
any fuel at all. You just use a laser
beam or a microwave to push it."
>> What's the Can you say the guy's name or
>> um I'd have to look it up. Um
>> he and I don't know he'd want himself.
He's a little private. Okay. But but uh
you can go online and you can look at uh
laser propelled disc and you can see a
video and it looks exactly like a flying
saucer just levitating up.
>> Why are we investing heavily in this? If
you could do that at high
>> No. Okay.
>> Well, this gets into another thing and
this is his frustration.
>> Yeah. Yeah. um is that if this were
successful, it would threaten a huge
established, you know, jet engine and uh
Sure. And uh he he wants to use it for
civil aviation,
>> right? And he's done the math. And now
with adaptive optics, at the time he
first doing this, you could only do it
at short distances. Yeah.
>> But we have adaptive optics now where we
can control for atmospheric losses and
distortion of the beam and stuff like
that. And uh I think when it comes to
getting things into low earth orbit in
particular, this ought to really be
looked at. Yeah. But but in NASA's
program, they look at a lot of things
from uh laser propulsion in space, light
sails, and they also look at uh fusion
reactors
>> where you basically create a fusion
reaction and you spew gamma rays out the
back. And again, it's photon pressure.
You know, a photon doesn't have any
mass, but it has momentum.
>> So, when a photon hits something, it
imparts its momentum to it and it will
move it,
>> right? And um so, uh I think that to me
those are some of the more interesting,
but there are some other really weird
ones like magnetic levitation,
>> right? For example, did you know it's
possible for me to levitate you with a
super strong magnet?
>> Levitate me?
>> Yeah.
>> No, I didn't. We've done it with birds
and frogs and spiders.
>> What?
>> Yeah. And uh here's the way it works.
Magnetism isn't just what you think of
as a uh uh like a piece of iron or a
rare earth magnet or something like
that. This what we call ferroagnetism.
There are a zillion other kinds of
magnetism. There's ferimomagnetism,
there's diamagnetism, there's
paramagnetism.
And these all have to do with if you
have a charged particle that's spinning
it will create a magnetic field. Okay.
Sometimes that magnetic field works in
the direction of the inducing magnetic
field. Sometimes as with diamagnetic
it's the opposite. So you get you get
instead of things being attracted they
get pushed away
>> like bismouth.
>> Yes. Yeah.
>> Exactly.
>> Yes. And that was found maybe with a UFO
and they think maybe so you could have
magnetic levitation. Yeah. And that's
possible. And you can take non- metallic
things and you can tractor beam them
basically,
>> right? There's also such a thing as
optical tweezers.
>> Wow.
>> Where if you create a very very strong
electromagnetic field with a laser
that's very precise. You can move
particles of dust around with this
laser. It's called an optical tweezer.
>> So remote force fields, if you will, are
absolutely possible. M
>> now when you do the math of how big a
magnetic field you would need
>> to
control something many miles away
>> it gets to be but I wouldn't say it's
impossible what I'm saying is
>> magnetic fields decrease as the cube of
the distance as you go away it's not
inverse square it's inverse cubed
>> because they're dipoles there's no such
thing as a magnetic monopole so at the
same time you have one magnetic field
reinforcing you have the opposite end
taking away So
>> this is in Maxwell's equations, right?
So essentially to a first order is goes
off as a cube.
>> So uh to have a steep magnetic gradient
that would cause this
>> at a very long distance, we have no idea
how to do that, but we can't say it's
impossible. So um pushing and pulling
with magnetic fields
>> is possible. Um these fusion drives are
kind of interesting.
>> And uh the most interesting of all is
the warp drive.
>> Okay. So now this is when you get into
NASA has funded this.
>> Okay. Even though they don't know that
it's possible, they don't know that it's
impossible.
>> Okay.
>> Some physicists have postulated what
they call negative energy, which isn't
the same as uh the energy we see, you
know, black uh dark energy. It's not the
same as dark energy.
>> Yeah.
>> Negative energy
uh because energy and mass are basically
the same thing.
>> Yeah.
>> They create gravitational effects. So
pure energy has a gravitational effect
and so forth. Um slows down spaceime all
that. But what happens with this energy
is that it it it creates a repulsion. So
>> the albakuri drive.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Right. Is basically you have a huge
mass or energy in front which is
positive mass or energy and you have a
huge negative in back and so you create
a wave of spaceime that's moved. So the
way the warp drive works is imagine a
surfer
>> who's on a wave and is stationary with
respect to the wave but the wave is
moving
>> and we know that spaceime can move at
faster than the speed of light.
>> Yeah. Because the hyperinflation that
happened after the big bang or some
think that happened uh which is a pretty
good evidence for it is that spacetime
itself can move faster than the speed of
light
>> which means that if you're in a bubble
of spaceime that's moving faster than
the speed of light, you're not going to
experience any acceleration or
deceleration because you're not moving
in that frame.
>> Yeah. Seems like a really hard
engineering problem.
>> Oh yeah. Well, first of all, we don't
know that negative energy exists. It's
the same kind of thing that would have
to keep a wormhole open.
>> Yeah. Right. Right.
>> Right. The only way a wormhole works is
if you have that in the middle to to
keep things from collapsing.
>> But it is interesting because Miguel
Alcubieri did this proof that
theoretically, even within general
relativity, you could get faster than
light travel if you do have negative
energy. And so,
>> yeah. Yeah. So, so again, um, and in our
book, The Shadow of Time, we explore
this
>> as a kind of a plot point, you know, uh,
and, um, so that that's the kind of
thing that I find kind of exciting. And
here's kind of what I think is going to
happen. Someone's going to keep looking
at that and they won't find that.
>> That'll turn out not to be possible or
not to be true, but they'll discover
something else.
>> Yeah. Exactly.
>> And this is why the study of UFOs is so
important.
>> Yes. You know, if we don't make any
other point, I want to make this point
that in all of science,
the biggest discoveries are by
definition those we don't expect. And
why is that? You know, if I ask you to
imagine a color you've never seen
before, it's really hard to do.
>> Right. But if you saw it, you could
recognize it.
>> Mhm.
>> And because when we imagine something,
we have to do it from the building
blocks of our experience. If we have no
experience, we can't imagine it. But if
we put oursel in a position to observe
something new,
>> yeah,
>> we may see something we could never have
imagined. And that's where the biggest
breakthroughs almost always come from. I
set out to do A.
>> I looked while I was doing it in my
peripheral vision and I saw B and I go,
"Ooh, that's more interesting."
>> Yeah.
>> And I think the reason for people to
really get serious about studying what's
going on here is we're going to see B,
C, D, and E. M we shoot for the stars
you land on the moon then the moon's
pretty
>> you land somewhere unexpected.
>> Yeah
>> and again remember that's where
discovery has to happen
>> where by definition you can't imagine
it.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. Um I love the reeberg son quote
which is the eyes can only see what the
mind can comprehend and you need a
hypothesis in order to see something to
begin with. And so I think that's
probably actually the most underrated um
aspect of the phenomena is that our
vision is I mean this is kind of an
iconized virtual reality interface and
we superimpose our we have like a meme
library in our heads and we superimpose
these pre-existing building blocks onto
the thing and so in the 1890s people
would see airship which were like on the
edge of what was even possible at the
time. you had like zeppelins and stuff
and now we're seeing these like faster
than light you know saucers and that
sort of thing. So it's there's something
going on where we are using what's
available to us and superimposing it. I
think
>> that's right
>> and that's why AI is so important but
I'm not worried about AI uh supplant or
being there instead of our brain. I
think AI will always be important in the
future in addition to our brain because
it can only work uh together because the
AI will not be trained on anything else
that that that it doesn't know but the
brain will be able to detect something
that is different and will be able to
train the AI. So it will always have to
be uh an augmented brain that will be
allowed with the AI but I think the our
brain will always be necessary. Uh we
should not rely on
>> yours will I don't know about mine.
>> Well we shouldn't rely but we should
never rely on AI solely AI because it
will never see anything else.
>> I think there's something very powerful
though in what she said if you extend it
>> and take into account what I said about
the negative space. We should train up
an AI that is the opposite of us
>> in every way.
>> Not like us,
>> but the opposite of us and ask it to
look at these questions.
>> That's a great Yeah. I love that.
>> We need an anti- AI.
>> Yeah. Right.
>> Right. Train it on everything that
isn't.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I love that.
>> And see what it says because I mean
that's a clear implication of what she's
saying where you know an AI that can
just do what we do only better. Okay,
that's useful. Um, but an AI that can do
things we cannot do and would not ever
do. Yeah. Is the one that's really gonna
pay off. Yeah. The question is, would we
ever believe it?
>> Yeah. Exactly. Well, that's the problem
with LLMs is they kind of
>> inherently triangulate actually the
consensus. So, they're going for usually
the middle of the road kind of most
acceptable answer. And so if you could
train a more kind of heretical thinking
AI or some, you know, some an AI on the
bleeding edge of what's acceptable and
maybe decamp it from the instinct that
you were talking about, you know, even I
think before we were filming, Eric,
where people are socialized and ideas
are fashion statements and uh you know,
it's hard to truly think in a heterodox
way. If you could train an AI to do
that, that would be amazing.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. And that's why we need an increase
in the research budget and not a
decrease in research budget.
>> Yeah. Get me started. Yeah. Yeah.
>> But but I think research uh all over the
world research is going to increase and
and a lot of
>> governments are going to discover a lot
of interesting things.
>> Yeah. Well, there's um a great essay um
called the the usefulness of useless
things. I don't know if you're familiar
with it. It's by this guy Abraham
Flexner and it was kind of the charter
for the Institute of Advanced Study at
Princeton back in the day and it was all
about we should pour a ton of money into
things that don't have immediate use. If
you think about you know quantum theory
which is responsible for semiconductors
and you know a third plus of our economy
today it was like people philosophy you
know thinking about the kookiest
weirdest stuff and then it turns into
something that's super productive. And
so I I agree with you. I think the idea
that, you know, we should only spend
money on things that are super locally
useful is not only counterproductive,
not only myopic, but it's it's actually
counterproductive from like a even a GDP
boosting perspective. Like it's dumb
politics, too.
>> Yep.
>> Yeah. That's what we love to do with
Eric. We love looking at completely
outside the box of the weirdest things
that are happening because we think that
in the weirdest things are the clue of
the the clues of the future.
>> Azimovs that's funny. We're always
interested in that's funny but again
we're hardcore scientists so our
interest is there but we try to be
disciplined when we look at those things
and most of them
>> you know are unlikely but there are a
few and those are the ones that really
excite us like those tic tacs. There's
something real going on there. I mean,
there's just too many independent
parallel Yeah.
>> sensors on that thing by people who
didn't want to see it but saw it anyhow.
And so, uh, those in particular and and
so that's why in our book, The Shadow of
Time, the novel, that's why the Tic Tacs
show up because those in particular, we
come up with a narrative of what could
really be going on there.
>> Yeah. Well, I can't wait to get to The
Shadow of Time because in many ways it
is the maybe uh best conclusion but
embodied in fiction of this survey level
overview of what you guys talk about in
the new science of UFOs. And so it's
this really cool thing. But I wanted to
talk real quick on on the propulsion
front.
>> I'm particularly high conviction in this
thing called the Biffield Brown effect.
Have you ever heard of that or
>> Tell us more. So it's this idea that you
take a capacitor and um you have a
negative electrode, a positive electrode
and you have a high K dialectric in the
middle which is you know the ability to
store you know high electric fields.
>> Love it when you talk dirty.
And uh I I think there's all this
interesting, you know, data around this
mid-century inventor Towns and Brown and
his ability to transcend, you know,
chemical combustion and this very cool
way with these high voltage experiments
that he was doing with this capacitor
experiment, which to me would lead to
stuff that leads us beyond SpaceX. And
I'm just very passionate about the idea
that I think SpaceX is just limited. You
know, it's takes with chemical
combustion, it's 80,000 years to the
next habitable planet, Proxima Centauri,
and that's unacceptable. And nuclear
thermal propulsion maybe cuts that in
half or something. And so you you need
something like this. And I I think it's
I think it's legit. So I don't I don't
know if you guys have a take there or
>> Well, okay. I know how capacitors work.
I know how dialectrics work. Um and so
in what way could this be used for
propulsion?
So you get thrust from the negative
electrode to the positive electrode. And
you could do this apparently you get
more thrust actually in a vacuum than
you do uh in air. And a lot of people
try to explain it away because of the
the ionized air uh bombards, you know,
the ionized wind bombards the air and
then you get this equal and opposite
reaction and you get thrust. Uh, but I
think you see even more thrust in a
vacuum and so you could end up with all
sorts of cool space propulsion
modalities and then and then Yeah.
>> Oh, they there have been things like the
EM drive.
>> The EM drive. Sure.
>> Yeah.
>> But the EM drive got debunked, but I
think by
>> Yeah, it keeps getting debunked, but uh
they people keep throwing money at it
anyhow. Um Yeah. And I think this thing
you're talking about has that quality
because conservation of energy says that
can't happen or Newton's
>> yes
>> Newton's law where you have to have a
reaction mass in order to get thrust you
in other words you have to throw mass or
energy out the back in order to move in
a particular direction
>> 100%. Yeah.
>> And and the reason I think I put it in
the parasychology
the thing we were talking about earlier.
I put it in that camp of there's a lot
of evidence that these high electric
field strength differentials result in
thrust and then we just don't have good
theory around it. Like there maybe
there's something quantum electronamics
we don't understand. But well there's
something interesting um
>> where there's this effect where if you
take two plates
>> kind of like a capacitor and um they're
very very flat and very very close
together because of quantum field you
will get the the plates moving with
respect to each other a tiny amount and
this has been observed in the
laboratory.
>> Yeah. Casemir effect.
>> The cimera effect. Exactly. And um but
that only works in one direction.
>> Yeah. And it's uh but yeah, I mean it's
it's one of these weird quantum things
that is moving in the direction you're
saying because okay, the thing were
attracted to each other, but what was
the force? It's a quantum field and that
starts to get outside of you the quantum
realm is so bizarre.
>> That's so bizarre. Exactly. You have
this guy Sunny White out here who's at
NASA Eagle Works and he claims that he
can power up 1.5 kilovolts microchip
with the Casemir effect and so it's biz
and he's published this and so I think
that's so cool you know I don't know if
it's right but
>> yo
>> yeah yo there you go um and then one
other thing on the astrobiology front is
you were mentioning tardigrades and all
the extreophiles have you guys thought
of um fungi or mushrooms as candidates
you know they've been found on the
International Space Station. And uh
Francis Crick, who of course discovered
the double helical structure of DNA, his
whole thing was like, you know, the 100
million years on Earth for DNA synthesis
was impossible. Nobody's ever replicated
this primordial soup experiment to
create it. And so maybe you would send
fungi across long distances in some sort
of spaceship or something. Maybe you'd
feed it algae and CO2. And the thing I
like about fungi, it's so interesting.
If you were to think about like a
cardartesev three or four scale
civilization,
you wouldn't create this kind of like
biological meat suit. You know, you show
up as this, you know, gangly, you know,
you know, bipedal being uh, you know, in
some other planet and you're immediately
treated as a foreign invader. You would
send an extreophile, which is like a zip
file of consciousness. Humans all have
microbiomes, but we have microbiomes as
well. So it affects our thinking and
they're extreophiles that you have, you
know, cortisep mushrooms in the Amazon
kind of co-opting the actions of bullet
ants. And so there's something I think
very interesting about and then human
human tissue is very susceptible to
fungal disease because it's so similar,
you know, we're actually more similar to
fungi than we are to uh most other
plants and animals phoggenetically. And
so it's this really interesting thing of
like you would send this thing off that
would like merge with the host, you
know, and then it would affect their
consciousness. And so,
>> well, if they came here, it would be a
fun guy.
>> There you go.
>> He'd be a load of fun.
>> Yeah, it would. Yeah. There you go.
>> Yeah. I mean, uh, but I want to follow
that thread just a little bit.
>> Yeah.
>> And, um,
>> you know, just as we should never say
they would do it the way we do it,
>> we have to say maybe they would. And
when we see in space probes,
>> Mhm.
>> we don't send intentionally organisms,
>> we send automated probes.
>> And now with our AI, you know what's
going to happen. We're going to be
sending AIs out there because we don't
have to have a life support system. We
don't have to worry about any of that.
And as our AI gets better and better and
better,
>> I think because, you know, Elon Musk
said, "Oh, we're not going to Mars after
all." Right? More or less. And I'm on
the explore Mars Foundation group and
that was big. That was depressing for us
because we want to explore Mars, but the
fact is we don't know how to send a
human to Mars and bring him back in good
shape with the radiation, low G's and
hazards on Mars and so forth.
>> And so where all that takes you is the
first thing you're going to do is not
going to be biological. It's going to be
AI. Mhm.
>> And so that tells us that if something
has come here from another civilization,
it's probably not certainly it's
probably a machine.
>> That's right. It's probably some sort of
vonoman replicator probe or something
>> or something. And um and that doesn't
mean it's not alive because now you're
getting into what is life,
>> you know, and could an AI in a machine
be alive?
>> And this gets into what is life? And uh
the biologists I know say it's simple.
If a ball rolls downhill, it's dead. If
it rolls uphill, it's alive.
>> Meaning life is locally negotropic.
>> It behaves. It rolls uphill. Right.
>> I love that definition. That's
interesting.
>> Yeah. And so could you have an
artificial machine that to all intents
and purposes, you know, had maybe
emotions, had feelings? Probably. Yeah.
We kind of have an existence proof that
it could be done with atoms. Yeah. It's
us. So I think that um
>> it's like Maxwell's demons.
>> Yeah.
>> Microscopic Maxwell's demon.
>> Yes.
>> Oh yeah. Yeah. Exactly.
>> Me negotropic.
>> Oh yeah. I mean
>> entropy reducers.
>> The low Exactly. Oh. Yeah. Exactly. So
So the point is that when you look at
these tic tacs
>> and you see them moving around, you say,
"Well, no
>> biological being could do that." Well,
maybe that's true. Maybe it's not
biological. Maybe it's hardened
electronics of some kind or bio, you
know, something. M
>> um but to me if we're being visited by a
probe from another civilization it's
probably technology not biology.
>> Well there's all this lore in UFO world
that the crafts are alive and that uh
even David Fraver Commander David Favor
said the crafts seem to be like
breathing or something like
>> that's another possibility like that
movie Nope which I loved.
>> Oh yeah Jordan Peele. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Where it's a cloud
>> and the cloud just doesn't move and you
go hm. But uh yeah or you know as she
was saying as Dr. Gilbert was saying
what if this is worth thinking about
>> dark matter is dark to us because it
doesn't interact with us except very
weakly right or maybe not at all.
>> Um so here's a flip it around. What do
we look like to dark matter?
>> We look dark
>> if we it doesn't interact with us we
don't interact with it.
>> Yes.
>> And so to it we are dark matter.
>> Yes. Yes.
>> Right. And we're alive.
>> Yes.
>> So, what's to say it can't be alive?
>> Right. Totally. And
>> Right. And so there's an example of a
mind expanding idea. Yeah. It's like way
outside what a normal human is going to
think about
>> or I sometimes think about the ideas
that we live in a kind of a
computational universe like some sort of
simulation and then you look at
Vermont's theorem which is the travel of
light and it looks algorithmically
optimized for you know kind of shortest
path between two observers. Uh yeah, but
that's kind of the path of least
resistance. And you see that it's a
fascinating subject of fractals and how
the veins of a tree or capillaries in
your body or filaments of mega
structures in outer space all look the
same, the highest level down to the
lowest level. And it's the path of least
resistance.
>> Yes.
>> That's why those structures exist
because if you're trying to move atoms
of water Yeah. from A to B in the most
efficient path with the least energy.
That is the path. But then all I don't
know, you think of if I were simulating
something, I would I would copy code
chunks and then you'd get Fibonacci
sequences and golden ratios and some of
these things that seem like consistent
architectures. And
>> see, that is so fascinating. these
mathematical things like Fibonacci and
fractals and holography and things like
that
>> where math isn't a property of the un is
doesn't describe the universe it is the
universe
>> right I mean but now you're getting into
wolf from philosophical kind of stuff
and that's that's above my pay grade
>> me too well I want to talk about this uh
amazing book the shadow of time which
you guys should all go out and get um it
is just fascinating And I don't want to
spoil it for people. So I think high
level it talks about an object that
should not be found in the desert. Um
that is a total kind of anacronism and
uh involves kind of seemingly like uh
you know elements or things that like
you know shouldn't exist on Earth and
look more advanced than you know the
carbon dating. and a very uh kind of
doggedly persistent paleontologist who
is kind of pursuing this stuff and finds
himself honestly in like a mafia war or
something like it's this wild wild west
landscape of people fighting for this
forbidden archaeology and as somebody
who's mired in UFO world I think there
might be some truth in fiction here
>> well what was our motivation I think
that's very important for the readers to
understand. We finished the new science
of UFOs which was a kind of intellectual
exercise in the art of the possible and
not impossible.
>> And what we wanted to do is basically
tell that same story in a way that would
be more accessible to people. Mhm.
>> And to
tell it from the point of view of
interesting people and characters who
had problems in their lives and make the
science part of the story so that it
became clues. And so as scientists, we
will tell you that there's nothing more
exciting than embarking on a scientific
journey of discovery, solving a mystery
and peeling back the lay onion one layer
at a time and seeing something new and
unexpected beneath which only takes you
deeper and deeper and deeper. So in
addition to exploring the science of
UFOs, we wanted to give the readers the
feeling of what it's like to go on a
journey of scientific discovery.
And so one thing that happens in this
book you might remember especially at
the end is there's a bunch of twists and
turns like switchbacks up Mount Everest,
right? It's like it's kind of like a
whiplash like whoa that's true, that's
true. Well, in science that's what
really happens where you dig deep and
you get answers that you weren't looking
for that lead you to questions you
weren't going to ask. And so at the end
there's this kind of rapid fire series
of reveals of deeper and deeper truths
where what you thought just a week ago
is now today's illusion and you turn one
illusion into one fact until you finally
get to something that's close to the
truth. And that's what science is like.
>> So we have a lot of twists and turns on
purpose and all of those are
science-driven. M
>> so there's a pretty much most of the
science that was in the new science of
UFOs is in here but it's used to tell a
story about people who are trying to
overcome obstacles and rise above
themselves.
>> Yeah. So we we wanted to put a lot of
science in there, but we wanted it to be
exciting and we wanted it to be a
mystery and we wanted to we wanted the
the the reader to dis do the discovery
themselves and to be the like to be
completely caught in the action say
what's going to happen next what's going
to happen next and this is all this is
deep into the science that we have
studied for the other book and it's
>> yeah and there's a lot of biology in
there a a lot of exobiology. There's a
lot of neuroscience. Neuroscience is
very important. I am a neuroscientist.
And I'm really interested in species
that are radically different from us.
>> And uh I would commend to people to read
this book called An immense World by Ed
Young in which he describes what he
calls the envelse
exotic creatures like fish that have
electric fields and sense electric
fields. Snakes. I got my PhD on snakes,
rattlesnakes and pythons that see
infrared. They see in the dark. Um the
mantis shrimp that see 12 different
colors that we don't see, you know. And
uh I've been especially interested in
that phenomena of organisms whose
worldview and way of thinking and
neuroanatomy is so radically different
from ours. They cannot be like us.
>> And so that's exploring the negative
space of the human condition. So the
main I guess villain you want to call it
in this story, not exactly a villain,
but uh is about as opposite a human as
you could get.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. I mean in every way this creature
is is about as different from us as you
can get. and the
interactions between these completely
alien us and them kinds of organisms.
Um,
uh, contrast creates conflict which
makes things interesting
>> when each discovers
their own limitations when looking
through the world through the other's
eyes. And so um we we spent a lot of
time and there's a lot of hardcore
neuroscience in the way this creature is
defined and in some of the other
characters there's there's a lot of u
the kind of animal dimension I studied
in my PhD work and later a lot of animal
uh intelligence and my conclusion from
studying animals is that they're way
smarter
>> than we think they are. They're just not
smart in ways that we're smart. M
>> right.
>> And this is what Ed Young is saying in
his book. And so um there are two
creatures in this story. One is a genius
parrot named Walter.
>> That's right.
>> Who is not a nice character.
>> No.
>> No. Kind of like Iago in Aladdin, right?
Kind of like that kind of character.
>> And Walter is this genius parrot. And if
you think about it, humans can be
geniuses
>> relative to other humans. Why couldn't
an African gray parrot be a genius
relative to other parrots? And where
would that take you?
>> Yeah.
>> So, that's what you have in Walter. And
then there's this other creature we
won't say too much about who's the kind
of the villain who's a fascinating
uh study in what we are not.
>> That that other creature which yeah, we
won't talk too much about is just
fascinating. And I think what you said
is so true that um questions grow at an
exponent of your knowledge. So you
continue on the search, you build up
these kind of layers of of knowledge,
but then the questions grow
exponentially more. And I think it
really touches on the idea with the
phenomenon that that this book and the
movie Arrival also kind of it does a
good job of this. It's weirder than you
can think and it's not only weirder than
you can think and I think there's an
Arthur C. Clark quote about this. It's
weirder than you can think. It's weirder
than you can even imagine. And you also
explore a hypothesis that I'm pretty
sympathetic to, which is the saluran
hypothesis. This idea of uh these alien
what we're calling aliens, we're calling
them extraterrestrials, but maybe
they've been cohabiting with us on Earth
for a while.
>> That's a possibility. Or maybe not. And
you know really any story is about a
person who sets out to do something they
want only to discover that what they
need is something very different
>> and to confront and overcome their own
limitations.
>> And this is what the story is really
about. It's about this paleontologist
who starts off in deep trouble. He's
been fired from his job at UCLA. He's
got no money. His mother is got a severe
chronic illness. He lives in the way
back of beyond trrona which is where I
was born and near where I grew up. Cool.
So I'm very familiar with what it's like
to to come from nothing in that part of
the world. And um he finds in pursuit of
the science of what he's pursuing
because he makes a discovery. He goes
into the garage because he wants to sell
his dad's collection of Native American
art just to get a little money. And he
discovers something there that's like
whoa. He discovers an artifact that a
dealer tells him is priceless, but he
can't sell it because of various
reasons. And so his science brain kicks
in and it leads him on this journey of
external discovery. But more important,
it takes him on a journey of internal
discovery. And I want to emphasize that
because what we want the readers to come
out of this at the end and one reason we
have so many reveals at the end is to
make people question their own
perception of reality in their own
lives. M
>> to have a healthy dose of yo
>> maybe yes, maybe no. Because in all of
our lives, we see things and assume
things that just aren't true.
>> And so, uh, in a sense, the book is
about a character, but in a sense, it's
about all of the readers, too.
>> Because each reader is going to bring
their own needs and wants, their own
obstacles, and we want to leave them
with a gift. M
>> we want to leave them with that ability
to look at the world very differently
than when they started the book.
>> Well, I think it achieves that and uh
for I was just I loved it. I I I I
couldn't uh take my eyes away and was
just fascinated by I mean you're asking
these kind of second and third order
questions. It's not your garden variety,
you know, book about uh these topics.
Um, another thing you kind of touch on,
another theme, uh, without giving away
too much is this idea that there's like
there are these like almost gang wars
going on for this forbidden archaeology
and there's like a blackmail network
involved and this stuff go, you know,
around, you know, these these kind of
mystical objects aren't um they're not
being retrieved in these sort of above
board ways, which to me again kind of
comports with a lot of my study of the
UFO stuff in the open source world is
like it is the wild wild west. There's a
lot of private mercenary action around
this stuff and it is it's not and it's a
lot of plausible deniability where you
have the fingertips aren't attached to
the arm so to speak and they can get
severed at any time and it's way weirder
than you'd ever expect.
>> It's weird and and it you know that text
gritty texture of reality is how weird
it is. M um there's a lot of the
intelligence world in this cuz you know
they say write about what you know and
I'm a neuroscientist and I was a spy and
so it's really an espionage novel too
>> and the intelligence tradecraftraft
that's in there is real
>> right and the way intelligence officers
think of problems and also when you get
to the very top because one of the
characters is the FBI director and what
is the FBI director in this story
concerned with protecting the FBI high
at all costs,
>> right?
>> And I will tell you, having been at that
level in the government,
>> you know what we really spend our time
on
>> is optics.
>> Okay, this thing happened.
>> How do we spin it to the Wall Street
Journal and the Washington Post? How do
we spin it and turn a negative into a
positive with Congress? What are we
going to tell the OM, the Office of
Management and Budget, so they grow our
budget?
>> Right.
>> Right. And how do we take down a rival
using this?
>> Yeah. That's all we spend our time on at
the very top of the government. I
guarantee you that is what happens.
>> Bureaucracy.
>> So that's what happens with the FBI
director.
>> Yeah.
>> You know, when you see that woman and
how she interacts and how cynically how
cynical she is and how pragmatic and
self-serving.
>> That is real. That is a synthesis of
real people that I have known.
>> Um it's very real. And so it's a glimpse
just like the new science of UFO is a
glimpse inside the mind of an
intelligence analyst
>> and any other time that was all open
source data. Yeah.
>> So it's unclassified. But you're seeing
exactly what happens in the super secret
world of intelligence analysis. I've
exposed it in that book. And in the
novel I expose the politics and the
sausage making and all the dirty dealing
that happens under the hood in the
intelligence world. It's fascinating.
Yeah. Go for it.
>> And there is a lot of psychology in
there. Um because we we also like
psychology and we like to put our um our
people in trouble. So uh our
paleontologist is also a troubled person
in inside himself. The love interest has
also some flaws and she's also in her
own way troubled. They're lay there are
layer under layer under layer in um the
way they are who they are and also the
creature is also has also layers inside
itself. Um so there's a lot of
psychology in there. We love psychology.
So it's very it's a very complex uh
intricate bit with all those flavors in
there. It's
>> well uh I should also say I was a
psychotherapist for a while and Freud
said something really true. What you see
on the outside is the opposite of what's
on the inside. If you see a really hard
tough exterior, it's protecting a soft
inner side.
>> Where someone who's very centered and
isn't very aggressive or doesn't have to
talk a lot or whatever, they're very
solid inside very often. They're very
centered. And so we have these two
characters, the main character and his
love interest, and they both present
kind of the opposite on the outside of
what's really going on. And so through
their relationship, you start to see
that the the layers peeled back.
>> And at the end, at the climax, if you
will, both metaphorically and um they
kind of expose the vulnerable side of
themsel to each other,
>> which is an emotional growth for the two
of them.
>> Yeah. But um uh I think uh and what this
comes out in the we'll call them the
romantic scenes.
>> Yeah. And the the love story is
something very unique between the two of
them. Something like I've seldom seen
anywhere uh described the progression of
the love story, the beats. Uh it's very
unique, but it's very tasty. There's a
lot of subtle tastes in there cuz there
taste of extraterrestrials of of uh love
of psychology of what's happening in the
intelligence world. Um how to pull how
to aim at somebody with a gun. I mean
there's so many there's so many
different details, different flavors. I
think it's very very
>> well what she's referring to is I took
this uh long novel writing class which I
had to produce a novel and the teacher
says the number one thing you have to do
is create a character that the reader
instantly cares about and put them in
trouble so they care about what happens
and want to turn the page
>> and that's absolutely what we do. But
she says you have to put texture in
there the gritty feel of reality to make
it authentic.
>> And so things I learned in the
intelligence world I put in there that I
could. For example,
um I had to carry a weapon,
>> right? And so I had to qualify on the
range and I had to shoot three or four
times to keep my scores up a week,
>> right? And so I'm over at CIA and this
case officer, hardcore what you'd think
of as a spy, he goes, "Eric, that's
You're going downrange me." I
was going to Iraq and I had to carry an
M4 and a Beretta. And he said, "Don't
use any of that." He said, "Two things.
The first time you shoot for real
because you've shot on the range, you
don't hear it and you hear it and you're
going to be shocked at the moment. You
most need to have your senses with you.
>> So, you need to shoot without your
hearing so that you're not shocked the
first time you hear it.
>> He said, "That's the real world." He
said, "The second thing is this business
of a Weber stance and lining up the rear
sight." He said, "No, here's what you
do. You take your pointing finger and
you lay it along the barrel. And you
take your index finger and you put it in
the trigger. So when you want to point
at something to shoot at it, you point
with your pointing finger because you've
done that your whole life. You're going
to be really accurate. And don't worry
about squeezing. Just pull off as many
as you can. Center of mass. And he said,
"That's the real world."
>> And so that's something I learned in my
intelligence training that I share with
the readers.
>> That's the real world. That's what
really happens. Like if you get in a
gunfight,
>> um, which is more than in Iraq we would
shoot just to keep their heads down to
create muzzle flashes. If you really
have to shoot at something,
>> you don't shoot at it the way you do on
the range.
>> So, it's details like that that we put
in there. Yeah.
>> That are, I guess, what I'd call
bonuses.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, they're all these
clearly nuggets just based on your own
uh realworld experience. And but then
it's also just fascinating through a
fiction lens. though. I mean, the the
other thing that resonated with me was
this idea of sort of breakaway science
or forbidden archaeology being housed in
private corporations. I found that very
interesting and possibly dovetailing
with things we've seen in the real
world.
>> Well, it's funny you mentioned that
because I'm still very connected to the
national security world and there's
something happening there that's
extraordinary, which is instead of the
government saying, "Here's what we need.
We're going to pay you defense companies
to invent it. Yeah.
>> You're getting companies like Palunteer
and Andrew and uh Ursus rockets, Ursa
Major Rockets, where they're saying,
"We're going to get venture capital
money. We're going to invent cool stuff
way faster than you could, and we're
going to say, "Here it is. You want it?"
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> And so the military R&D that's going on
>> is happening outside the military in
Silicon Valley.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. Right. And um
you're seeing this happen with you know
Anthropic and the defense department and
so forth. And so that is exactly what's
happening right now.
>> Yeah. No, it's it's fascinating. I think
those companies you mentioned like
Anderil for example is a reaction to
Lockheed and Northrup where they have
their cost plus models and so they will
you know charge extra for for doing you
know less sometimes. And so Andreel's
like, "We're going to actually take the
the risk burden and the financial
burden. We're going to innovate and
build something you don't even know you
need and you know uh try to make it work
which in some ways I think if you're a
taxpayer you should be kind of grateful
for and then yeah maybe there are some
other you know issues we have to we have
to think about when it comes to it." But
>> so truth in advertising. I have a
relationship with Lockheed. I must
disclose.
>> Yeah.
>> Which makes me, you know, I have to be
careful about what I say. But there's
two sides to every story.
>> Yeah.
>> Um if a defense contractor like Lockheed
or Northrup or RTX is doing something,
it's for one reason and one reason only.
Their customer told them to do it.
>> They don't do things just to uh you know
add to their profit and so forth. In
fact, those businesses aren't very
profitable when you look at profit
margin. They have to only make between
10 and 15% maximum on a cost plus. Their
profit margins are not good at all.
>> The return on capital can be pretty big
because the government can pay for some
of the capital,
>> but generally speaking, they're not
>> um high multiples. They're very low
multiples.
>> That's right. That's for sure true.
>> Right. And the reason is they're not big
growth.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. And so uh so they don't really
rip off people consciously. That's not
at all what happens is the government
says
>> when you do uh procurement you have to
do it this way
>> and when you do cost accounting you have
to do it this way
>> and you have to do this that and the
other and when you add up the slowness
>> and the cost it's because that's what
the government is. It's slow and it's
expensive. And really, you could kind of
look at these companies and say they're
more like part of the government. Yeah.
>> In the way Miko Yan or Kalishnikov or
Sukcoy
>> Sure.
>> is really part of the Russian,
>> you know, and so they're really just
replicas of the government.
>> Yeah.
>> And so the problem is that the US is
falling behind China and Russia and Iran
in some cases like in hypersonics and
they're saying we can't have this. We
can't fall behind China.
>> Yeah.
>> Who everything is dual use because the
government is everything. So they're
turning to Silicon Valley to do faster.
>> Yeah.
>> And they're relaxing the rules for them.
They don't have to follow the same
rules, right, that the the lock keys do.
So I wouldn't be so harsh on on the
defense companies cuz they basically are
doing what they're told to do.
>> Sure. Well, I also think they have a lot
of really interesting frameworks and
things they've discovered that they
maybe haven't successfully scaled up all
the time, but because they have decades
of, you know, a head start on a lot of
these kind of new Silicon Valley
companies, I'd love to see kind of less
loss of information between some of
these aerospace graveyards at those
companies and some of these newer
companies. I think that's, you know,
>> you know how that's happening.
>> How is that happening? Who where do you
think Andrew's hire?
>> I don't know where.
>> I'll just say this. Technology walks on
two legs.
>> Okay.
>> Like if you want a rocket scientist.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh you know, and you can pay them, you
know, double what Lheed can pay them.
>> So they're just poaching.
>> Gee, where do you think those people
>> contractors? Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Yeah.
>> Yeah. And and that's not all a bad
thing.
>> Yeah. No, no, no, no. I mean
>> um so you know I think that uh the
bottom line of all human behavior is you
get the behavior you reward.
>> Yeah.
>> And if you look at the way our defense
industry behaves today is cuz that's
what they get rewarded for. And if they
don't they get punished.
>> Yeah.
>> And so it's completely you know they are
so exquisitly tuned into their customer
>> that's all they're going to do is what
their customer wants them to do. What on
the UFO front, you have all this lore of
like the Lockheeds and Northreps
engaging in crash retrievalss and not
having proper supervision or oversight
when it comes to the government. Do you
take any of that stuff seriously or
>> I'll just say it's beyond my experience.
I know nothing about any of that and I'm
not just saying that. I really don't.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> So, I can't comment. I I've never heard
anything.
>> There's this funny thing where I I
interview, you know, I interviewed this
guy Ralph Moat Lararsson who we spoke
about. I think you know him and um you
know I interviewed you and I interview a
bunch of people who I respect from
government circles and they know nothing
about the UFO stuff and I take at face
value that they know nothing about the
UFO stuff and sometimes they'll go even
farther like Ralph did and he said if I
did know I would like a thousand% you
know publicize my knowledge on this
stuff and to me it's like cuz a lot of
the people I do interview seem to know a
ton about this stuff and I would love
some wave function collapse to occur
where it's like let's get in a room or
something. I don't know what it is, but
I'd love to understand ground truth on
this on this whole thing. And I'm sure
games are being played. I think the the
issue where I would challenge my
audience is they assume that games are
being played from the people that take
your stance and I think they should
actively be thinking about possible
games being played on the pro- UFO side
you know and I that's I don't know you
know
>> well look the way things are
compartmented inside the government it
is entirely
>> probable that there were things I had no
idea were going on so the fact that I in
theory could have known. Yeah. Means
nothing.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> You know, for one thing, you know, I
once I was a super user, so I had to get
exposed to all these compartmented
programs at the Pentagon, and it was
like Clockwork Orange where they clamped
open my eyelids and made me look at this
stuff for a whole day, and I don't
remember any of it, but there was
nothing about UFOs in there.
>> Yeah. Well, they should have recruited
you because this book, it feels like
you're as deep as anyone on this stuff.
>> Well, yeah. I mean, uh, I I've made it
my, uh, well, both of us have kind of
we, you know, fascinated by this, but
it's because we're drawn to, uh, the
That's funny.
>> Uhhuh.
>> Right. And like I say, uh, this book,
The Shadow of Time, is really, um, kind
of taking people on a journey that they
wouldn't ordinarily go on like in other
science fiction because we're not really
science fiction writers. We're hardcore
scientists. Yeah. I mean, hardcore
scientists. And so, uh, although there's
some speculation in here about what
isn't impossible.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh, the journey is very authentic, the
the, you know, cuz all of us in science
who've gotten really into things. We
have whiplash from thinking, "Oh, well,
that's the case." And we run toward that
and go, "Okay, that's true. Oops." We
get closer to it. We go, "Oo, that isn't
true. Well, then this is the case." And
go back and forth. So, this whiplash
that happens in the last chapter
>> is real. That's what happens to real
scientists who are really open to what's
happening.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's I mean the truth
is always much stranger than fiction
often. So, um, we were mentioning
actually before we were rolling that,
you know, you worked at Hughes Aircraft
and you were doing stuff around flight
simulation and, uh, you obviously have a
neuroscience background and I brought up
Donald Hoffman and you were like, "Oh,
yeah. I worked with that guy." And he's
now, I don't know if you know this, he's
like all the rage on podcast circuits
for his uh, idea that we don't, it's not
adaptive evolutionarily for us to see
uh, base reality. And so we create these
icons in our mind and he's created this
whole kind of math, you know,
underpinning to that. Um, so I found
that fascinating. Have you ever heard of
um anything around like being able to
fly a craft with with your mind? I would
think that that would be
>> innovated. It's funny you mentioned
that.
>> Yeah. Um, up until 2020, I was still
working for Disney as a contractor
>> and I worked in their accelerator where
we funded startups
>> and owned a piece of them and then
nurtured and coached them. And one of
them was a uh
a brain sensing company
>> that uh had uh a game. Well, it was for
health. For they had it for health, but
what we wanted to do is have brain
control game experiences.
>> And so, uh, do you remember rocking the
rock that rocks?
>> Yeah, I remember. Yeah.
>> So, I worked with them and in the lab we
invented a rock that you could move with
your mind
>> and steer around on the floor.
>> Whoa.
>> We called him Rocky.
>> And it worked.
>> Wild.
>> Yeah. I mean, that never made it to
market. Like, you know, onetenth of 1%
of the stuff we do in R&D ever gets
>> What was the neuroscience behind it?
Well, it was basically uh AI or really
more machine learning looking at uh
surface potentials, EEG type potentials,
not even evoke response, but just
basically
kind of consciously controlled EEG.
>> Mhm.
And um so you put this thing on which uh
you know kind of looks like the old
Superman brainiac thing,
>> you know, with a with a little sensor
pods, two frontal, two men um mastoid
and then I think there were two over the
uh parietal lobe. So I think a total of
six nodes and um you know you go through
the normal calibration and then I guess
it's kind of like BOF feedback training.
Yes, exactly.
>> Where you look at the rock and then you
will the rock to move forward and the
the machine learning interprets your
signals and then over time you could
have it go forward and back, left and
right.
>> Yeah.
>> And uh you know it was cool. I mean it
was freaky. I'll tell you something. You
know when I see a rock move when I told
it to move only with my mind.
>> Yeah.
>> Now here's the thing. you were picking
up brain wave signals, but we're also
picking up electromyio from scalp
muscles
>> and from maybe eye muscles and and and
facial muscles. So, was it brain waves
or was it muscle action
>> or both? We can't say.
>> That's so interesting.
>> The the in a way it didn't matter
because we didn't care. We just wanted
to create an experience where someone
could actually and now there have been
toys sold on the market like there's the
levitating pingpong ball toy
>> where there's a air column with a little
fan.
>> Mhm.
>> And you control the fan velocity with
your brain.
>> Whoa.
>> And so you put on this EEG thing and you
think rise rise and you train and you
your brain learns how to levitate the
ping pong ball.
>> Whoa. you know, at one time you could
buy that on the market.
>> Those exist.
>> Wild.
>> So, there you have it. Um, could you do
this with a drone? Absolutely you could
do it with a drone. Now, if you used a
magneto insephilography,
>> yeah,
>> like these squid based things.
>> Mhm.
>> You could really do it.
>> Whoa.
>> You could definitely control pretty much
anything. Um there was this guy um who I
had give a talk at the Aspen Institute
who uh there's two there's Dano and this
guy at um Duke who um implant electrodes
in the brain of people who uh are
paralyzed.
>> Mhm.
>> Uh quadripollegics and they control a
robot arm with their brain
>> and they train him to play video games
and they train the guy to uh walk. with
an exoskeleton, with a neural implant.
>> So, wow.
>> This is the future.
>> So, absolutely. Absolutely. Uh
>> this can be done today.
>> Wow.
>> That's so amazing. That's incredible.
Where where do you guys, you know, net
out on the UFO issue? Obviously, there
are themes in the shadow of time that to
me might represent your kind of net
assessment on what you think is going
on, but I also don't want to assume
that. So, what do you what do you think
is going on? Well, I will say the shadow
of time is first and foremost
entertainment.
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> Okay. We have to be very clear.
>> Yeah.
>> It's to get an emotional journey.
>> Where there's suspense, there's mystery,
there's oh no, that can't happen. And
there's there's romance and there's
discovery and curiosity. So really, it's
it's meant to create emotions in the
readers and insight and maybe some
self-discovery. It's not its intent is
not science. So I don't think that you
can say that what we say in this
scenario here is what we think is the
most likely. We think it's the most
entertaining of the not impossible.
>> I will speak for myself and that let you
comment. Uh my belief is that there's
something real going on.
>> And whether that's atmospheric physics
we just don't understand. Mh. Whether
it's um some other not atmospheric but
some physics phenomena that we don't
understand. Uh there's something very
real in a few of these reports.
>> How would you probability weight the
kind of prosaic explanations atmospheric
stuff versus the more exotic stuff? I
really have no way of saying I I would
tend to think that
it's something beyond what our science
can even imagine right now is what I
really think it is.
>> It's something like this. There are more
dimensions than we think or some weird
physics that hasn't yet be discovered is
what I really think.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> It's it shows more the limitation of our
understanding of physics than anything.
>> Yeah, I believe that too.
>> And so I don't think it's mostly
atmospheric or any of these other
things. I think is something even more
fundamental. I think it's something
>> that we're going to have to completely
redefine. And for those of you in the
audience who don't know this, cosmology
today is undergoing this exact
crisis.
>> Yeah.
>> Where I don't think there's any other
field of science that I know of
>> that really bedrock assumptions are
being
>> questioned and crumbled
>> like
>> redshift. Mhm. Um well, everyone knows
that red shift is the farther something
away is, the faster away it's moving, so
the more it gets stretched, so the red
shift is greater, right? So you can see
how far away something is by the amount
of red shift, assuming you have a
standard star with a standard emission
spectrum, which is an assumption, which
may not be true because the things that
are farther away, maybe they had
different chemistry or something at that
time. Then there's somebody say, "Well,
no, maybe light gets tired after
traveling for x billion years. Maybe it
loses some energy." Well, that's been
quote disproven. But then some people
say, "Well, may maybe it hasn't been
disproved." But you have the Hubble
tension.
>> You have different measurements of the
expansion of the universe which are
completely incompatible but both true
>> which tells you
some basic things we understood about
the universe cannot be true.
dark energy, dark matter. And so I think
that um we know
because of things like dark energy and
dark matter and hawking radiation and
things like that, we know we're very
limited really in what we know. And so
because we know that we don't know, I
think that's where these things are. I
think they are most likely some really
shocking fundamental physics that we
just can't get our heads around right
now.
>> I think that even some of the
cosmological concepts that we treat as
onlogically true like dark matter and
dark energy are they're just
mathematical placeholders. We've never
really detected dark matter. And then if
you dark energy is just defined by the
you know inflation of the universe. But
if you like even if you put it through
like a you know an AI engine, you say
what is this? It goes well it's not one
of the four fundamental forces but it's
a force that it's like this is
anti-gravity is what it tells you.
>> We know what it's not.
>> Yeah.
>> We don't know what it is.
>> We don't know what it is. Which means
it's a placeholder. You know
>> it may not be true. I mean there are
some theories that say that it's just
gravity isn't constant across the whole
universe in time. Like maybe the laws of
physics actually change. I believe it's
I believe that the big G is an averaging
of a bunch of stuff.
>> Well, yeah, maybe. Who says that plank's
constant has to say the same throughout
all time? Totally. Do we understand why
it is what it is? Why is C exactly what
C is?
>> Mhm.
>> You know, well, Einstein would say it's
a property of spacetime.
>> You can only measure C, by the way, one
way. You can't measure it both ways
there and back.
>> Well, yeah. I depending how you define
it. That's true. But but I guess the
point is that um you ask me what I
think. I think that it's both baffling
and at for the same reason incredibly
exciting that I think what we're seeing
with these credible real phenomena of
which there are some is something really
bizarre and out there that is so far
different than what we think is
happening in the universe that uh we
just don't know. We're looking at it but
we don't know what we're looking at. So,
what do you think? Because you have all
this talk of disclosure now and Trump
is, you know, Trump and Obama engaged in
some sort of bizarre mimetic warfare
like a couple months ago and Trump's now
saying we're looking into the UFO issue.
What do you think comes of that? The
aliens.gov has been registered. I mean
if it is this fundamental physics thing
there are limits to what you can
disclose but presumably
maybe in just an unofficial context but
there is data on the the government side
and so do you think all of that gets
released some of it gets released? Do
you think it it's used as a distraction?
>> They're never going to release
everything.
>> Mhm.
>> I mean I mean for lots of reasons that I
won't go into but certainly some of it
where sources and methods are involved.
They're not going to release that. Yeah.
Um, but they won't do it because you
know they're I I'll tell you a story.
Yeah.
>> Oh, wait. Before you tell a story, I
want to say what I think.
>> Jump in.
>> Sorry about that. I always ask her to do
that. So, go ahead.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um, I cannot stay silent too
long. I've got to
>> Nor would we want you to.
>> That's right.
So um what I think is that there are so
many there's a bunch of different
phenomena that don't have that might not
have anything to do with each other.
They could be very separate. So we need
to distinguish what are those that are
due to weather or atmospheric uh
atmosphere um atmospheric uh uh stuff uh
or the ones that will have no
explanations. And the ones that have no
explanations I do think that you're
right there is something that we don't
know about that is fundamentally
different than we know. But we need to
acknowledge
that they exist. We need to acknowledge
that this is a puzzling thing and we
need to acknowledge this in government
in the whole world which we don't. So in
psychology when we have a problem the
first thing is be aware of it and I
don't think we're aware of it enough to
look for the origin of what it is. So
first thing is awareness. So I would
urge all our uh listeners to be aware of
what is happening in the sky. Film
whatever is happening in the sky if they
see anything abnormal or different and
then report it because the more people
we have that report this thing that um
that
that are part of us to increase our
awareness is really important. That's
it. you back to
>> Well, I'm really glad you you stood up
for yourself for a lot of reasons. But,
uh, she makes a point that I feel
horrible I didn't make. Uh, I I feel
very certain that we're not looking at
one phenomena.
>> I think we're looking at multiple
phenomena.
>> And I think that they're different
enough in the way they're described. You
know, the glowing spheres are maybe not
the same thing as the tic tacs and so
forth.
>> Um, the triangular ones that people have
reported. Yeah,
>> with some consistency. Those flying kind
of uh fireballs that were seen over
Washington DC in the 50s that seem to
have some credibility.
>> I think at the end of the day when
they're going to find out it isn't one
phenomena.
>> It's multiple.
>> Yes.
>> And maybe unrelated.
>> I totally agree.
>> So that I think that's a really
important point that that she made.
>> Yeah. I think there's something going on
in our oceans that feels more
ultraterrestrial or, you know, curian
hypothesis and then there's something
that feels more of like a mental
interface thing where people get into
these heightened states and things show
up and uh those two things feel like
probably of a different variety. Like
I'd imagine the ultraterrestrial thing
is more, you know, in the same
biological meat space as as us, but I
don't know.
>> We don't know. And uh yeah, I mean uh
and there are some people who believe
that uh panspermia, tell them about
panspermia and that we're basically all
aliens,
>> right? Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. That that life could be we assume
that there is life only on earth, but it
could be that panspermia is a theory
that says that life can exist could
exist anywhere in the universe. Uh what
is to say that life doesn't exist
120 uh light years away from us like we
we found some dimethyl sulfide the
dimethyl dulfide
122 or 240
uh uh light years away from us on
exoplanets.
So, it's very possible and we're
starting to to to discover longchain
carbon uh structures that are on Mars
that are on on different planets. So,
it's very possible that there is life in
a lot of different places in the
universe and it's possible
>> it could have come here on asteroids.
>> It could have come here on asteroids on
>> could have come from Mars. You know, we
got bombarded by a lot of stuff from
Mars and it turns out conditions for uh
forming life abiogenetically on Mars
were there before on Earth. So, we might
all be Martians or we might be multiple.
It could be pansermia, meaning organisms
from different places all came here.
>> Yeah. And Mars, most conventional
astronomers would say that Mars might
have had a biosphere. there kind of
water caverns all over it. It might have
had a magneettosphere that it was
stripped of.
>> Oh, it did have one.
>> It did have one.
>> You have um
>> Argon 40 and Xenon 129. So, there's this
one friend of mine who's uh he's uh was
at Lawrence Livermore in Sandia and he
thinks that there was a nuclear
holocaust on Mars. And it's, you know,
who knows? He's definitely like, you
know, in a in a camp on his own in
believing this, but I think it's really
interesting cuz he says that these exist
in excess of what you would ever expect
uh with just normal, you know,
radioactive isotope decay and that the
only explanation is that. And so I found
and digested the isotopic evidence
and when it all kind of sitting in my
office, it all hit me. It looked like a
thermonuclear holocaust and had happened
there and uh we were so afraid it would
happen on Earth.
>> And he's he's got the the chops to say
something like that where where I feel
like I have to listen. So
>> well on Mars there's a lot of lava tubes
that we've never been inside those lava
tubes. So what is there inside? They
could be that's a very protective uh
area. There's no or much less radiation
in those lava tubes. But we've never had
anybody going or any machine go inside
those lava tubes. So,
>> but the the panspermia thing meaning uh
is it likely that we're all evolved from
some extraterrestrial life form or
>> I think it's almost certain that we're
evolved from building blocks that are
extraterrestrial if they did that study
of that um asteroid Bennu.
>> Yes.
>> In which they found all of the nucleic
bases which are the formation for RNA
and DNA. So I go, hm, okay. Well, so we
have an existence proof that those
really important building blocks, uh,
nucleic acids are, you know, in outer
space. So the law of parsimony says they
probably came here from outer space or
came here and we co-evolved them. See,
what we're finding in evol in
anthropology when it looks at how did
humans get to be humans where they are,
it's turning out that it's unbelievably
complicated. There were many waves of
migration out of Africa before and after
homo sapiens. There was interbreeding
between Denisovians and Neanderthalss
and you know Cromanion and you know Homo
erectus and you it's like we're this
mongrelized weird mishmash hybrid of a
lot of different innerbreeding
>> and so there is no clean simple story of
how modern humans came to be modern
humans. M
>> you're European in background, so you
have probably 3% Neanderthal genes.
>> As do I. As do. Well, she she's really
an alien. I don't know how many uh
>> um but but I think that the point is
that um I think what we're going to find
is that in the origin of life on Earth,
it's going to be messy, complicated.
Yeah.
>> Uh a mishmash of a zillion different
things.
>> Yeah. And it seems like an archaeology
is only 200 years old and the further we
go archaeology is like a product of the
19th century finding ancient you know
Assyrian and Babylonian cities and the
the the longer we go the older things
get and the longer we go in anthropology
uh the more homminid species we find and
so I think we have you know it was like
5 to 10 10 years ago now it's 21 to 30
the this is depending on your
stringentness with you know pure review
and you know what your definitions are,
but there are a lot of ancient hominets
that we just didn't even know or
anticipate. I don't think we ever
thought that Neanderthalss are as smart
as we now think they were. Um, and so,
you know, maybe it was somewhat of a,
you know, obviously, uh, our
intelligence and prefrontal cortex was
adaptive, but more of an accident than
we think it is that we won. Um, so yeah,
there are all these open questions that
I think we're just going to get a lot
more more data on hopefully.
>> So I think if uh uh if you sum up what
both of us said about where we come down
on UFOs, it's it isn't one phenomena,
it's multiple.
>> Yes.
>> Um some of it might be understandable
within our current science. Some of it
almost certainly is not.
>> Yes.
>> But bottom line, it's real.
>> Yeah. Well, there there is some tiny
percent that's absolutely real and uh
science should take it seriously. We
should do a lot more hardcore research
into that subject.
>> It's cool to see the former uh CTO of
the intelligence community and director
of research at the NSA say that that's a
big deal.
>> Well, I think that any scientist who is
worth their salt will tell you there's
so much more that we don't know. She
said we know 1% of what there is to
know. Um I wanted to say maybe onetenth
of onetenth of one10enth of 1%.
>> Yeah.
>> You know I think that um
some problems are too small to see some
are too big.
>> And it's too big for the human mind to
get their mind around just how
incomprehensible the universe probably
is. And this is the point that uh uh I
think it was Neils Boore or Fineman or
someone like that said. Yeah. Quantum
physics is not only weirder than we
know, than wirder than we can know.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Boore was like, you you
know, you can't understand this stuff.
And he was he would debate with Einstein
because Einstein was trying to
understand the ontological implications
of the spooky action at a distance
stuff. And Bore was like, good luck, you
know.
>> Well, he also said, Boris also said
prediction is very difficult, especially
of the future.
>> There you go. I love that. That's
hilarious. That's awesome. I I want to
actually, you know, uh wrap up here on
the the listening cure because this is a
book um really uh kind of based on uh
your long work uh Dr. Chris Gilbert. Uh
that was my introduction to both of you,
which is funny cuz I'm obsessed with
UFOs in a lot of the top topics you're
into. But I find it to be fascinating
that intelligence might not be just
concentrated in the mind, but might be
kind of embodied. And you know, we might
have be holding information all over.
And really the premise of this book is
like uh if you have an ailment, you have
to listen to it and form a dialogue with
it. Is that right?
>> Yeah, absolutely. So if you have an
ailment, if you have a like a lower back
pain for example, you can have a
dialogue between your brain, your mind
and your back. Sometimes your your mind
is going to tell you, "Oh, you need to
lift those heavy bags and and uh you
need to walk for your 10,000 steps a
day." And your bag is going to say,
"Well, that's too heavy for me or that's
too many steps for me. This is not this
is not right. I don't it doesn't work
for me. So, you've got to take into
account uh into account every part of
your body that might not follow the
brain. And now we're discovering there
is the gut bacteria. What kind of bact
gut bacteria do you have? And is there a
dialogue to have between your brain and
your gut bacteria? There probably is.
Why are you drawn to certain foods and
not to others? That could be the gut
bacteria. Now, we're discovering that
disbiosis, which is the the again the
the back what gut bacteria you have,
could be responsible for maybe the
increased amount of cancer or digestive
cancer that we have in people that are
45 years old or at least less than 50
years old. we've got an increase of uh
colon cancer in less than 50 years old.
Why is that? We're thinking maybe
dispiosis, maybe the gut bacteria is
very different. So maybe the that that
dialogue between um that part of our
body and the brain and it's fantastic to
for me it's fantastic to create a
dialogue between uh the like um
several parts of the body like you have
a meeting a conference meeting between a
board meeting between different seats.
The stomach will have a seat. The back
will have a seat. The liver will have a
seat. The brain will have a seat. Gut
bacteria will have a seat. And listen to
what they each of them will have to say.
And then you will be able to understand
yourself better, deeper understanding.
It's also very interesting to have a
dialogue between my body and Eric's
body, for example. So if you have a a
mate, your partner, and forget about the
brain, don't have the brain talk to each
other, but have their body the body talk
to each other. What are they going to
say? And they could say something very
different than what the mind will say.
Um there there's fascinating things that
happen when you give the body a voice.
>> But you know, this brings up a
fascinating difference between the two
of us, which I regard as a strength. and
that we look at the world very
differently.
>> She is a clinician.
>> She wants to make her patients bodies
heal.
>> So she's not into mindbody medicine in
the sense of uh understanding the brain
and the mind for its own sake. But she
wants to uh heal the body by you know
understanding the brain. So her goal is
healing the body right.
>> Yeah. Is actually healing the body and
mind. and the mind
>> and the mind because they're completely
related.
>> So, but but I I think what I wanted to
say is the difference is she's very
practical and pragmatic. She has a very
concrete end result health, right? Where
I'm more of a bench scientist than a
clinician, right? And so I'm interested
in the deep why. M
>> so in the book the the few parts that I
wrote because it's really her book and
I'm just throwing in a few pieces of
neuroscience that uh if I had to rewrite
my that book my part again I'd read very
different because I interpreted the body
the way a neuroscientist would which is
the map of the body on the brain
>> we have the you mentioned the the
vernickis and braas area for speech but
there's similar areas for motor and
sensory in which you have this little
human version of you called the
homunculus
which is a complete map of your body on
your brain one half each for both motor
and sensory right and so if you've ever
taken a psychology book you've seen this
thing with huge lips and huge hands and
so I talked about the body in that sense
it's a neural incarnation of bodily
sensation
but I believe I was very limited now in
I should have gone way beyond that
because now we know that um there's a
ton of neurons in your body in the
peripheral nervous system like in the
gut nervous system and uh in the heart.
So when we say we feel in our gut, there
could be learning and perception and
emotion
literally in your gut, not
metaphorically.
>> Because think about where you feel
emotions, they are physical sensations.
>> Right? Almost every emotion you have,
you can map it on to a physical part of
your body. And that may be because that
is literally where you're consciously
experiencing it,
>> not in your brain.
>> And so there's this thing called
cellular cognition now where it turns
out that you can classically condition
plants and single cell organisms and you
can take a pleneria, cut it in half
after you've trained it in a maze, it
regrows the front half where the back
half had no neurons and it now knows the
maze even. So it's what we call cellular
cognition. And so I now believe that
when she says you're talking to your
back, it's literal. It's not
metaphorical.
>> That your back has a constituency as it
were
>> that that it represents the cells in
your back muscle and and your back and
it has a point of view that it as the
cellular clusters there individually
have and it's talking to the brain
through who knows what. M and so I think
that what is fascinating to me about
this very practical clinical idea that
she came up with is that there might be
some literal scientific truth to what
she's saying that goes far beyond the
metaphorical.
>> It's literal. Yes.
>> Yeah. And and I think it's important to
and I say in the book, it's very
important to listen to the body. And
sometimes the body will tell you, "Oh,
no, no, no, don't do that." Or you've
you've got sensations like tingling
sensations or or or
um like um knot in the throat when
you're about to do something. Like if
you're about to marry somebody, if
somebody's going about to marry somebody
that maybe you're not meant to marry,
somebody could have a a knot in the
throat or or trembling or it it's
important to listen to what the body is
feeling because the body knows usually
and sometimes the body will know if it's
the wrong person to marry for example.
So uh before being before taking very
important steps in life I say listen to
what your body is saying because if your
body doesn't want to or or if it's
before uh taking an assignment if you
have a promotion and it's a huge
promotion that will be a a a completely
different like it will be a lot of work.
It will be very good for you but a lot
of work and sometimes the body will
tense up. People say, "Oh,
listen to that." Cuz I've seen people
accepting a promotion, accepting this
immense stress uh that they will take on
and then coming afterwards with cancer
with and they will die with cancer
because the body knew the body knows
it's too much, too much, too much, too
stressful. So listen to your body. At
the end of each chapter of the of the
listening cure, there are exercises that
everybody can take. Um, and that will
make them more aware of what's going on.
It's a fascinating world. It's
completely different, completely
different than UFOs. Uh, but it's a
fascinating world instead of the outside
world of the universe. It's the inside
world of our body and our brain and what
we're meant to who we're meant to be and
who we're not meant to be.
>> Absolutely. Well, one one comment about
different from our book. Yes and no. The
main kind of anti- character in the
shadow of time has cognition in its body
distributed very differently than a
human.
>> Yes.
>> And that turns out to be really
important to the story and that how is
this different. So some of that did make
its way
>> and and the biology of this particular
class of organism as far as we
understand it is so radically different
than humans.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. um that uh that and
that's why we we made this character the
way we made it. But some of the listen
to your body is in there and that we
constructed this this creature
>> from uh our understanding of of you know
how consciousness can be distributed in
different parts of the body. I think
this is especially relevant for people
who um don't have acute injuries or
acute illnesses. So, like if you get the
flu, there's like a clear protocol of
what you're supposed to do if you injure
your knee or something. Pretty pretty
clear. Um, but there are a lot of
people, especially in Western society,
that feel very uh kind of unheard or
gaslit by the medical system who deal
with chronic illnesses, things that just
persist throughout their their life. And
so, yeah, this technique of kind of
anthropomorphizing the symptoms and
speaking to it that it's very
interesting. I think it's going to be
very novel for a lot of people, but uh
the idea that that could be cathartic
like there's actually another book that
I I love. I recommend your book all the
time and I recommend this other book
called Healing Back Pain by a guy Paul
Sarno.
>> Oh yes, we know about him.
>> He's awesome. And he says that the
physical pain you feel is actually
adaptive because it's easier for you to
process physical pain than emotional
pain. So it's it's like this overhang
remnant of what was adaptive because you
couldn't process an emotional thing.
There's other books like body keeps the
score about this stuff too, but it's
that the the body is sort of an imprint
of past, you know, maybe the word trauma
is overused these days, but past, you
know, emotional experiences that people
have had in their lifetime. and you can
actually go back in, find the, you know,
have a dialogue, find the root cause,
and kind of rep-propagate back up into a
more healthier version of yourself,
which is that's fascinating. Well, you
know, it's interesting to think about
the evolution and how we came to have
these bodies that we have
>> and the mind that we have. And if you
think about those first leaps between
single cell and multisellular organisms,
which clearly we made in evolution, you
start to understand what she's saying
even deeper.
>> Look at a pond scum
>> or a slime mold.
>> What you find is that's a collection of
individuals
that start to behave in concert. Like
you have certain ones that are used for
digestion,
>> certain ones that move the slime mold
around towards new food or away from
threats. And so um you also have gene
swapping among individual single cell
organisms so that a multisellular
organism might form from multiple what
used to be different species that became
one. Right? So if you now fast forward
that process over 4 billion years, you
end up with us. But we've retained that
original form of multisellular where
really we're different organisms. M
>> and that is literally true with our
biome.
>> Mhm.
>> Right. Most of your DNA isn't yours.
It's all your biome.
>> Right. And so, um, one way to think
about the body from the standpoint of
evolution is we're really not
individuals. We're a collection of many
different organisms, each with their own
agenda, that have cooperated for mutual
benefit, but whose needs often collide.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> And anyone who's felt an urge to do
something like eat a donut or maybe do
something amorous that they shouldn't
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> knows that life isn't pure.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> One part of you wants to do it and the
other part says no don't do that.
>> So it's it's almost like this um thesis
antithesis synthesis. It's a what you
described almost sounded like you know
internal family systems where you create
this dialogue but it's with components
of the body and then you you the output
is this sort of compromise or something
between them which is that's such a
fascinating concept.
>> Well it it's fractal when you think
about it.
>> When you think about the way your body
is you have specialists
evolution has decided that a collection
of specialists will outperform an equal
mass of generalists. Mhm.
>> So when you look at your body, you know,
your toenail does a very different
function from your liver, from your
brain. And within your brain, you see
hypers specialization. There's different
nuclei that have different shapes. And
so
>> so um diversity of uh function and
narrowness of specialization
is what biology has decided works best.
And look at human evolution. We went
from a society of generalists where
everybody hunted and everybody gathered
to now you look at a corporation where
or even medicine
>> like I'm an internist but I do
nephrology in adolescence with we slice
things narrower and narrower and so with
multisellular organisms as with human
civilization and businesses we go toward
bigger and bigger and bigger with hyper
and hyper and hyper specialization
>> that don't know anything about each
other. Ask a dermatologist how to treat
high blood pressure, he will not know,
he or she will not know how to treat
high blood pressure. So it's hyper
specialized and they don't connect with
each other.
>> Yeah. And it's also looking for uh it's
sick care in my opinion. and it's
waiting for the very, you know, margins
of, you know, extreme like you're in the
the the bad 5% let's give you surgery or
something and it's not this this complex
is building up over time. You have some
tension and then that creates, you know,
yeah, dispiosis and then that leads to
cancer. It's not these like long
buildups which are occurring in
everybody, you know, and so it's
important to, I think, treat the root
the root cause. And there's another
another element that complicates stuff
is the aging. The aging process is not
the same in each organ or in each part
of us. Like the brain might not see the
aging as much as the you know the the
back or as the knee or you know it's
every so you have to take into account
each part of our body that ages
differently and have a dialogue with
those. M
>> gee, that wouldn't have anything to do
with saying my uh troanter berscitis is
due to me being 74 years old and not
realizing it.
>> I'm not saying
>> you're in great shape for 74.
>> Well, thank you. Thank you. I I'll take
that as a compliment. Um but uh yeah,
no, I mean uh it it is fascinating to
though, you know, when you look at the
health care system and say, "How come
we're sick treatmentoriented?"
Well, remember I said you get the
behavior reward. Money might have
something to do with that. It may be
more profitable to treat sick people
than to stop them from being sick in the
first place. Yeah. I mean, I'm just
saying.
>> I'm just a guy asking questions.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think you might be
on to something.
>> Well, it's been such a pleasure and such
a wide-ranging conversation with you
both. And uh I hope people buy all of
the books, but um yeah, the new science
of UFOs, obviously, we have The Shadow
of Time, which is the new book here. Uh
fascinating and really fun to read. And
then of course the listening here which
is my entry point uh to you guys. Um
really appreciate your time.
>> Well, thank you. This has been a whole
lot of fun. And to the listeners uh
viewers out there, we hope we haven't
given you whiplash from moving around to
all these different topics.
>> Oh, they're used to it. It's uh we all
have ADD in our gener.
>> Oh, thank you again for the opportunity.
This has been a lot of fun.
>> Oh, yeah. No,
>> thank you. Thank you. Absolutely.
>> It's been a total blast.
>> It's been a lot of fun.
>> All All my favorite topics in one. Yeah,
>> great.
>> Cool.
>> Head to americanmmerch.com
to grab official American Alchemy merch
and support the show directly. And while
you're there, the cowboy UFO tea is a
fan favorite we always keep in stock
along with the atomic age design. Thank
you all so much for following and
supporting the show.