Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
UFOs, UAPs, & TECH... UNVEILING MYSTERIES! 👽 The Aggregated Ep. 108
Recorded: April 11, 2025 Duration: 3:33:08Space Recording
Short Summary
In a riveting discussion, experts explored the intersection of technology, extraterrestrial phenomena, and the crypto community's role in advancing scientific understanding. Key topics included the potential for interstellar contact, the need for rigorous scientific investigation, and the implications of emerging technologies on our understanding of the universe.
Full Transcription
Thank you. I'm going to go to the next episode. Their Abbey Loan rolls up, Harvard Starman Says UFOs ain't this their a galaxy plan
Black holes play roulette, thin in Russian style
Dark energies laughing, then ghosting us a while
UAPs buzzin', they scoping our chains
Thinking crypto's their ticket for cosmic campaigns
No chains too small, no stars too far
Crypto meets cosmos, yeah that's who we are
And Oaks' brains so big. It's the Martian runway We're watching the comments, we're lit in the dark. Oh, oh, oh, we chase the globe.
In the other day, we steal the show.
Lights in the night, are they ships or a fam?
Astrophysics doesn't show, it's a cosmic jam.
Polygons linking chains, rocks stirring the pot.
Click swaps like EZ, you hodlin' or not.
Galaxy's wink, they're trolling our dreams.
Aliens DM in joke, they're trolling our dreams. Aliens DM in, Joe, they're memeing our schemes.
No chains too small, no stars too far.
We're so neat, cosmos, yeah, that's who we are.
No brains so big, it's a Martian runway.
Lights in the sky say, we lost up today.
Aggregated resource to the stars and beyond.
UFOs dropping hints, yo, we're getting on.
Unravel the weird, let the truth catch a spark.
From blockchain to comets, we'll live in the dark.
Oh, oh, oh, we chase the glow.
In the aggregating, we seal the show.
Cosmology's wild like a galactic spree.
Dark energy's flexing, what's it hiding from me?
Lots watching probes, polygons hacking the void.
Quick swaps, trading moons, ET's unemployed.
Are we alone?
Nah, that's old news.
Aggregated's where the aliens cruise.
Aggregated, we soar through the stars and beyond.
UFOs dropping hints, yo, we're getting it on.
Unravel the weird, let the truth catch a spark.
From blockchain to comets, we're lit in the dark.
Oh, oh, oh, oh, chase the glue.
In the aggregated, we steal the show.
Tune in, crank it up, the stars got our back.
Aggregated's the spot where the cosmos attack.
From crypto to comets, we're hunting the truth.
UFOs better hodl, yoets we're hunting the truth ufos better hodl yo we're
coming for proof you it does
zk ZKEDM is a theory.
You got a pump.
Pump it.
Pump it.
You got a pump.
Pump it.
Pump it.
You got a pump. Pump it. pump it. You gotta pump it, pump it, pump it.
You gotta pump it.
Yeah. Thank you. Good morning, everyone.
The first song had great audio the second one not not so much
happy friday pretty purple plentiful palpable people hey that was some alliteration
i started running out of words there. But everyone here is palpable.
The energy in the air is palpable.
Energy?
That's something we're going to talk about today a lot, I think.
Cool.
Hopefully we can find some alien source of energy for Puerto Rico
of energy for puerto rico because we get power outages here like constantly
because we get power outages here constantly.
yeah do you have a generator in your building yeah we do so we're uh we're pretty set there
um but it's still annoying when i'm on like a spaces or a call and it you know it'll it'll go
out for like 10 seconds five seconds and then the generator pops on but the wi-fi still resets
still not bad out for like 10 seconds, five seconds, and then the generator pops on, but the Wi-Fi still resets.
Still not bad. The benefits of Puerto Rico outweigh the crappy infrastructure.
All right. So we have some speakers joining. We're light on speakers at the moment, but I think we had a bunch of experts set up, correct?
I know that the main expert is coming for the second two hours of this show.
Dr. Avi Loeb from Harvard is kind of the main speaker from today.
He, you know, he's a cosmologist, you know, who writes a lot about dark energy and alien technology, and he's coming for the second two hours of the show.
Though we do have other speakers who are coming sooner.
Darren's telling me in the background that the people who are supposed to be speakers need to request to speak.
So I'm looking at the list right now. There's some
people who are supposed to be here. Blocks Media Group is supposed to be here. I'm just going to
call these people out. So if they're here, please do request to speak. Jordan Crowder is supposed Twellden, Nethermind, Disrupt Magazine, Axie Arena, and Vinnie Adams, and Reed Summers.
Those are the names on my list.
And then Van Ho, of course, who I saw is a speaker.
And yeah, she's already here.
Van Ho in the house.
Hey, guys.
It's been a really long time, but I'm super happy to be here today.
I miss you guys.
We miss you too.
Cool.
Why don't we start some introductions?
Looks like people are flowing in now.
There we go. We got a bunch of speakers up. Van Ho, can you introduce yourself? Give us like 20 seconds.
Yeah, absolutely. My name is Vincent Van Ho. I am a content creator in Web3 Gaming, partnered with Avalanche as a content creator, and right now just gaming, streaming, and making content for Web3 Games.
All right, cool, cool. Jordan Crowder.
Hey, guys. Thanks for having me on. This is awesome.
My name is Jordan. I'm just a regular dude who kind of had a near-death experience
and started exploring consciousness and reality,
and that sort of led me to all these little fringe topics that seem to be interconnected like future technology and
aliens and UFOs and all that fun stuff that we're gonna talk about today your
PFP your photo looks like you would know about this well hopefully I can live up
to that photo okay and we have Reid Summers.
Good morning, everyone.
Yeah, I write and speak on the UAP UFO topic, Disclosure, and I focus on decoding the origin, nature, motive, and intent of non-human intelligence using the evidential record and our human observing capabilities. So happy to be here. I'm the host of a podcast named Emergent and working on a book and I teach a course as well. So happy to be on the show with y'all.
What is the course that you teach and what is your book about?
The book, the course is Decoding the Intent of Non-Human Intelligence starts late May.
I try to offer that once a year and the book is on the same topic.
I try to offer that once a year.
And the book is on the same topic.
Can you expand?
What does that mean?
Decoding the intent of...
Sure.
What was it?
Yeah.
So, I mean, if you take as premise that we are observing structured craft under intelligent control,
and that that is a non-human intelligent control, there's a craft.
There's a craft, that means there's a controller. And I would argue that there is increasing evidence that it is a non-human intelligence present and operating these craft. And so we need to begin to decode the motivations and intentions of these potential entities, whatever their origin, nature, and being ends up, so that we can inform our human response to their presence and hopefully do so in a united fashion.
That means there's a controller.
So could this be like aliens or like AI or like other world, I don't know, or could it be God? Is it like intelligent design?
I mean, I think, you know, there are many non-human intelligences already present. We already know that, right?
is already present. We already know that, right? I think there is increasing evidence that there is
a physical alien, non-human intelligent presence, a set of entities, literal physical evolved
entities present in the world operating these craft, interacting with people. So that's the
focus of my work is decoding the motivations and intentions of entities of that form. Could there be other non-physical,
extratemporal, angelic or divine entities?
Of course.
I mean, I can't limit the possibilities
of the universe at all.
But I think we need to rule in
the physical alien visitor,
especially because if that's the case,
that means our species is engaged
in an interspecies contact event that could have massive implications at the level of technology, public safety, health, psychic well-being, mental well-being, etc.
So it's, you know, the implications roll pretty fast and pretty furious from that realization.
Man, I'm going to come back to you and dive into this.
Let's introduce, this sounds interesting. It's good we have some experts here because I don't know anything about aliens and I'm a skeptic. I'll start out with that. know thought process to me that's what I that's what I love Clint Weldon you're
super muffled 10% of what it should be let me see if I can fix that there you
go it's good now great to out, but okay, go ahead.
While he's doing that, Van Ho, what are your thoughts on aliens?
Let's get it out in the front.
I've been waiting for this.
I've been waiting for this.
Okay, so I actually have a family member, and I don't want to say which one just in case because you know that people crazy um but this family member was in special forces in the military and um in Florida there's like a you know a base there
they have like a special aircraft hangar inside of this space and it's well known like it's no secret like you
can look it up I don't know the actual name so I'm not going to like give the information
but they were saying that they were there for to help fix one of the planes that were in the
aircraft hangar and that there was a section open and that nobody in this section was wearing coats
but everybody in there was in special equipment to stay warm.
Like the military had given them coats and boots and just special line things.
He said it was like negative 30 degrees Celsius in there.
And that there were people walking around this giant tic-tac shaped type of aircraft.
And he said that the people that were working in this section were wearing just regular
clothing like regular everyday like like like military clothing but they were not cold they
did not have any special anything on and so they you know you're saying in the general area of
wherever whatever city state they were in it was very cold and everyone needed to wear coats but in this area inside this hangar inside this um building that they were in it was freezing cold they had it like negative 30
degrees celsius in this hangar and so it's like you said someone had coats and some didn't have
coats i didn't understand yeah so so his squadron had to go in to work on an aircraft and they were all given special lined warm clothes to wear inside of this building.
Like military grade.
Like this is with the military.
And so they went in to fix this aircraft but saw in the other section that there were people wearing just regular clothing.
No special clothing.
No special warm gear.
That they were in regular military clothes.
And that they were working on
this giant tic tac sized thing and that they made eye contact with the people that were working in
there and they were told to never speak about it which they weren't allowed to until the ufo
information from the government came out but they weren't allowed to talk about it they weren't
allowed to speak with it to each other about it about it. And they said that the next day they went in, it was completely patched up and patched over.
Like they had completely put a wall up over that section and like drywalled it in.
I don't know.
Just different and weird and interesting.
But I totally believe that.
Somebody said that they had a near-death experience.
Like I died before. And so I don't know. Just like after that had a near-death experience. I died before,
and so I don't know, just after that event, maybe I've lost some marbles, but that was an
interesting story to me, so I was excited. You died before? Yeah, giving birth.
Whoa, what happened? I just had preeclampsia. My blood pressure got too high and as i was having my son just i mean it wasn't very long but it felt longer than it was so that's what she said okay did
you make like the fortnight noise where it just went like people no there was no sounds it was
just like i just saw myself over my body and i just see my husband holding our son and it's weird
it's like you don't.
I heard something, but I didn't hear it was like a feeling of just like everything's going to be OK.
I don't know.
It was just such a weird experience.
And I'll definitely share more about that another time.
And the doctors confirmed that to them you were dead.
Well, I mean, it was like less than a minute.
So, I mean, it wasn't like confirmed dead on table.
You know, I was like.
But your heart stopped or something.
Yeah.
Wow.
It's crazy.
When you come back, it's like the most painful thing in the world.
Jesus.
Clint, back to you.
Let's check your mic.
Think back.
Can you?
Yep.
All right. Guys, thanks for having me on i'm gonna host a podcast youtube channel called okay i'm sorry i'm gonna pause you your volume
is good now but you're choppy oh boy is he choppy for others yeah uh let me see a little bit yeah you sound good now yeah try again is it okay now let's try one
more time it seems good it seems good to me i can hear you guys loud
uh-oh did we lose him again yeah he dropped off he dropped off okay no worries jack you
want to introduce yourself brother yeah sure so my name Jack. I work in the Web3 startup space.
The reason for the vague intro there is just in case there's folks here that have nothing to do with crypto.
But yeah, Web3 startup space is chief launcher of the Digital Assets and also head of BDR, a fintech startup called Stratix.
Stratix. In relation to this, I, for a long, well, I guess for a few years, have been quite
deep into this in terms of research. Like many of us kind of started around the time
David Grush came out with his revelation, started taking it very seriously then.
I want to make a distinction before we start going ahead here which is just let's let's refer to you know like
aliens or whatever let's refer to them as nhi because like that's non-human intelligence it
covers a much wider swath of what is possible rather than just saying aliens as in like literally
they come from another planet or another star system uh non-human intelligence gives you a lot
more of a wide berth to discuss essentially like you know more advanced versions of us humans or something else that lives on the
planet with us that we're not aware of or anything else you want to discuss um in terms of my personal
experience with this i do have a personal experience with this um but i don't know if we
want to get into that on this space or not. I don't think I've ever heard this, Jack.
No, it's not.
I actually DMed Darren about it.
Maybe a little later because we're doing intros right now.
It's not something I spoke about publicly, but it's an interesting one. And that was one of the things that kind of got me really started on this serious thing.
on this like a serious thing so let's let's uh let's keep in mind so after the first hour we have
So let's keep in mind.
a an astrophysicist and you know like a real expert in dark matter and what did you say non-human
intelligence coming on the show maybe we have people who are real experts here but so it might
be best to get out like personal anecdotal stories and things like that in this first hour, actually.
Cool.
Yeah, we can do that.
Let's.
OK, Clint is not back.
So let's go back.
I want to.
We lost the guy I wanted to double click on.
Or was that Reed Summers? Yeah, that was that was decoding. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.
So Reed, yeah.
Maybe you could just tell us a little more about like what your either
personal thoughts are on this or how you,
how you look at all this as a professor of this stuff.
Yeah. I would never profess to be a professor, but, um,
I have had experiences. I've been looking at it for a long time, several decades, and thinking through the implications of the disclosure of non-human intelligence, the activity and behavior of a potential NHI in the context of historic UFO activity and UFO-related phenomena.
in the context of historic UFO activity and UFO-related phenomena.
So yeah, I've had a lot of time to think about this,
especially as I've traveled the world, 40 countries,
many different career educational settings and professions.
I've talked to a lot of different people in a lot of different cultural settings
and religious settings about this topic,
and it's been fascinating to see how people kind of ontologically process
the possibility that we're not alone in the universe, but also that we're not alone in our
own world, that we are not necessarily the only sentience, the only sentient organized civilization,
even in our close human earth system. And what it might mean to have our apex status as a species be challenged
or even possibly contested. And by and large, I find that people engage in what you could call
first principles thinking pretty readily, which is they reason from the bottom up.
They reason from the bottom up.
And instead of leaping towards hopeful or fearful, reactive kind of stances regarding
what might be up in the sky or what might be reported intimately by experiencers, people
generally reason from the ground up pretty well, which is interesting because, you know,
Because the argument against disclosure is, well, the world can't handle it.
the argument against disclosure is, well, the world can't handle it.
People, their belief structure, their sense of human origins or human centrality in a divine universe will collapse.
They just can't handle it.
By and large, I find people can't handle it.
And to engage in first principles thinking would be to say, well, we don't know what's out there.
thinking would be to say, well, you know, we don't know what's out there. We don't know what
habitable planetary systems might exist and what kind of life they might give rise to. But we do
know this, that the Earth gave rise to Earth. I'm sorry, the universe gave rise to this Earth
and this Earth gave rise to us and another 4 billion species that have existed across the
roughly 4, 4.5 billion years of Earth's
existence. So it's like there's a proclivity in the universe for life to arise under the
right conditions. And I think it's just plausible that those conditions exist elsewhere. And so
as people reason from the ground up further, you might surmise that competition between species over billions of years gives rise to adaptive
strategies that prefer certain kinds of behavior and certain kinds of traits that enable a species
to replicate and to evolve and to find its ecological niche in whatever planetary system
that might be. And that there is a collaboration, but a competition
for environment and for resource in a non-post-scarcity universe, meaning the universe,
resource and environment are still scarce. They're not 100% abundant. There's no need to
compete at all. Species do compete. And so here we are on this beautiful planet to kind of go to
the other side of the first principles reasoning. Here we are on this beautiful planet to kind of go to the other side
of the first principles reasoning. Here we are on this amazing planet of diverse biology,
definitely more rare than common, Earth-like worlds like our own. And in the last roughly
100 years, we have engaged in a variety of self-destructive acts in the form of global world conflicts, the use of nuclear weapons, the destruction
of the biosphere, another mass extinction event initiated by us, the apex species.
And lo and behold, guess what happens in that same century?
The sudden appearance of structured craft interacting with human power centers, civilians, military sites,
nuclear sites. And so I think there is definitely these two phenomena map on top of each other,
the first being our species' activities, its civilizational growth and development,
its technological strides, which is truly a hockey stick in the history of
Earth. I mean, we're in, you know, seconds of the Earth system clock. We're right before midnight,
right? But even in the history of the human species evolution and the hominid evolution,
we are in, you know, maybe a minute, if not still seconds. We're in this massive hockey stick.
And surrounding these major events in the development of our civilization, our technology, these structured craft have appeared in the form of the UFO phenomenon.
And they are responsive to our activity on the ground and in the air.
They are secretive, operating in covert fashion, in a state of
nondisclosure. And they are attempting, it appears, to interact and potentially to communicate with
human beings. And I think, you know, this is where we really need to look close and hard at, you know,
what are the implications of interspecies contact, especially in the 20th century and the 21st centuries. And if this is a non-human
intelligent, physical non-human intelligent entity, we have to begin to ask, you know,
what would their motivations and intentions be for entering into this engagement with humanity
in a programmatic fashion, which appears to be the case when you look at all of the UFO-related
phenomena. So I'll stop there, but feel free to pepper me with more questions.
Yeah, I have a question on my list actually related to something that you have just said,
and that's like if we've ever received a radio transmission from an alien or from a non-human intelligence, right? Like if that's more likely than potentially that
aliens are walking among us. I would say, you know, based on just pure reasoning, it must
most certainly be more likely, you know, that we would receive a transmission versus the actual
physical interaction itself. I don't think there's reason to believe that an NHI would necessarily use radio transmission
or would communicate in a way that our receiving devices could pick up.
I know the efforts are out there, SETI, METI, two organizations working on different sides of that coin.
I think we're, I would argue, beyond the point of waiting for
a signal to show up. And we have to be looking at what are the implications of structured craft,
UAP, capable of performance and flight characteristics that are just so far
surpass our own known human ability, and that there's really no developmental track for us to achieve those
capabilities. There's no evidence that anywhere in the 20th century, we have organically developed
technologies that can go 44,000 miles per hour, that can make 1,000 or 2,000 G-force turns at
said speeds, or that can loiter for weeks in the air. And we're talking about capabilities like that going back to the 60s and 70s, not just
in our current time.
So I think we're at the point of really having to ask, if this is non-human technology, if
it is under intelligent control, and if it's demonstrating intelligence, responsiveness,
evasiveness, cloaking, interactivity, possible
communication through, you know, flight pattern, lighting, and even other psionic or telepathic
forms of communication. You know, there's an intelligent controller. And this kind of punches
Before you go on, could I pause you and double click on some stuff? So first, the radio waves is a good question, Nicole.
I mean, you would think there would be some kind of wave, radio wave, a light wave, something.
I don't know, you know, on the spectrum of wave, the wave spectrum, there would be something
because like us, you would think any other intelligent species, whatever, wherever, would want to contact.
If they're going to come to our planet with physical ships, you would think they would have first.
The easier thing is just send out a wave into the universe to say, hey, we're here.
But we don't have anything like that yet.
It depends on their intent, though.
So, like, for example, something that I've heard theorized in this space a lot and something
that i definitely agree with is that if you again thinking from first principles right you know when
you whenever you go whenever we have ever visited anywhere we basically do so for a few reasons one
is to explore one is to conquer and then another one might be to share wisdom or technology with a less advanced group of people.
Or a trade with an equally advanced people, if we're not sure.
So we're definitely not equally advanced,
so we can just put that one to one side.
We're nowhere near as advanced.
The conquer, for me, doesn't quite fit with the actions that we've observed
because these craft seem absolutely capable of causing damage to human beings and human craft and though there has been some incidents reported that seem
to suggest that that is what they're doing it's by no means the general experience that happens
with these craft it could be the case that what this is kind of like um more like a puzzle or to coax our own intelligence and our own development out of us.
Going back to when these things first appeared, like you mentioned, the hockey stick moment around the time of, well, we say first appeared, but in modern times, first documented around the time of the 1930s and 40s.
There was a time of global conflict.
You start to see these things appearing. They referenced as foo fighters in the second world
war and that's when you get the first reports of crash craft it was one so that's what the band
well i don't know but um but yeah that's where the reference came from um and um you know there
was this thing allegedly that crafted magenta it, Italy, that's been referenced by David Grush and others
as one of the first documented cases of crash retrieval.
But the thing for me is, like, these things seem to be interacting with us.
Some of the pilots that have interacted with them
have said that they seem to be interacting in a way that's sort of playful almost.
They want to be chased, they want to be observed,
but not in so much as
like sending a message like hey you know here we are like look at us um my personal feeling with
this is um that it's they they want us to develop and they want us to they're they're sort of
reaching out and saying hey look you know the universe is big and wide here we are but you've
got to work for it and they don't necessarily want to give us technology you know think about the crash craft as an example like you know all
these this is a highly advanced species or group of or you know potential uh ai or whatever like
some some kind of entity it's very advanced compared to our own tech and yet their systems
seem to malfunction at a rate that's quite astonishing.
Could it be that sometimes we're being gifted tech or like, you know, they crash something and see if we can figure it out?
I don't know.
But that's just one thing that I'm for.
It would be kind of interesting if their intent was to let us develop our own technologies and see if we take a different path than they took.
That would be kind of an interesting experiment.
But it feels like, even me saying this,
it just feels like kind of grasping at straws,
but that's just my opinion.
Another possibility.
Can you guys hear me?
There's a curveball in here.
Oh, come on, it's back.
Sorry, Jordan. Try three. Can you hear me all? Is there a curveball in here? Oh, come on, it's back. Oh. Sorry, Jordan.
Try three.
Can you hear me all right?
Yeah.
Okay.
I think another possible scenario that we may be looking at, and I tend to see very much eye to eye with what Reed has to say regarding the intentions of the NHI, but it's also possible
that they share the biosphere with us, or they exist in some form of a shadow biosphere
here on earth and they became concerned about our presence at the time we developed nuclear weapons
and started testing them underground it could be that we're disturbing their biosphere in some way
and maybe they're numerically far fewer than us but they have to remain covert to basically
ensure their safety on a planet with you know we're war-hungry apes with nuclear weapons now
so it's kind of scary up on the surface maybe they're down below or as some people have suggested
at the bottom of the ocean there could be bases spread throughout where we can't really access and get to.
It could be a previous precursor civilization
that evolved to a point beyond where we are
and right here on Earth
and then retreated to or evolved under the ocean.
There's a number of different possibilities
that could feed into why it's so
hard and it's so slippery to get a hold of. You can't really like grab onto the phenomenon and
figure it out. It's just out of reach. And it seems like there is a gradual experiment or process
or program to reveal a lot of this information in a very controlled way to the general public.
And I think to Reid's point, it's very interesting that this is happening now. We're starting to see
sustained, continued focus in the public sphere on this topic. People are talking about it more.
We're seeing more visuals of some of these craft from a
distance but we're getting better pictures of what we're looking at and the narrative
is somehow being managed i can't quite figure out who's managing it but it seems like this is all
being rolled out in a methodical way so the question then becomes, is there some event, is there some thing that is pushing this or motivating this topic forward at the pace that it's at now and accelerating it?
Is there something that we're set up to face or deal with maybe in the next decade, 20 years, that they need to get the public up to speed?
Certainly, they could have kept us in the dark.
The cover-up that was in place worked really well for 75 years.
That's not the case anymore.
So the questions of what's changed and why are really critical.
And I think, to Reid's credit,
he's one of the few people asking those questions right now
about what are they doing here? What do they want?
And why are things happening right now the way that they're going down?
I think that's a really interesting question.
Yeah, thanks, Clint.
You know, the word decoding, I think, is somewhat important, but also somewhat problematic.
I think is somewhat important, but also somewhat problematic.
You know, why do we have to decode?
You know, why do we have to decode?
Why can't we simply study, analyze, and come to rock-solid conclusions?
Well, it's because in Jacques Vallée's terms,
there seems to be some sort of control system at play.
The trickster phenomena, the deceptive phenomena,
the phenomena seems to evade and resist our ready assessment of it. So,
why is that? Again, I think some assessing of nature and origin is important because
if we're just at sea surmising that they, quote, they are an ever-widening basket of divine and
demonic and angelic, interdimensional, trans-poral. Okay. You know, there's kind of like problem of category inflation there where
we're never going to assess anything because the thing has become everything.
And so that's the problem with this word phenomena or phenomenon is it's all phenomena.
And that's why I would argue, you know, yes, we need to understand the universe
at all levels. And we need to understand the universe at all levels.
And we need to explore the dimensionality of that universe for sure.
The thing is, is that we've not discovered another dimension yet.
So to surmise that this hard physical phenomena of craft in sky, on land, in water, interacting with real people on the ground in close approach comes from another dimension,
we don't need to rule that out. It's not impossible, but it is less probable than going into the experiencer accounts, the direct close approach accounts, and looking at what is
being reported, what is being observed, and anchoring our assessment
or our decoding effort, such as it is, on those observations.
So I know there's kind of an exploration of possibility that we need to do.
That's a long-term project.
Short-term project, we're 80 to 100 years in to a programmatic engagement with the human
species by physical craft and potentially physical entities. And that is a earth shattering realization for the global community or for the geopolitical space or the technology space.
Oh, that is such a critical. Can I jump in, Reid?
Yes, that is such a critical point. And I'm so glad you've gone there because just recently this has been on my mind so much you talk about the phenomenon
going back to uh 1947 crash disc in roswell flying saucer the headlines go out there's pieces of
debris there's a paper trail to all of this there's witnesses we have physical crafts then you have
uh colonel phil corso comes out and says in his book, The Day After Roswell, I was the intelligence
officer in charge of giving this material to these other companies in our industrial base so that we
could begin reverse engineering this craft. They started the program probably before that with the
magenta craft, but there was already a framework in place for this. Then you come forward to Bob
Lazar. What does he say in 1988?
He worked at S4 in the building, in the room.
He's been inside the disc.
He knows what it looks like on the inside.
They gained access to the craft.
All of this detail, all of this history,
in just the last 18 months,
has quietly kind of been pushed to the side.
And there's this whole new discussion
that's happening right now and it's about orbs and balls of lights that just look weird from a
distance or all these other crafts everything but a disc we're not talking about those anymore and
it seems to me there is a effort i don't know know. I can't say this for sure. And it
sounds a little conspiratorial, but there seems to be an effort to divert the conversation or
dilute the conversation to your point, Reed, with a lot of other interesting, but sort of left field or far out ideas of what we could be dealing with when we, we have this documented history of real physical craft. was groundbreaking. Bipartisan Bill mentioned non-human intelligence over 60, 70 times in that
bill and was specifically written for the purpose of going into these companies and putting hands on
the actual technology so that we could once and for all put this conversation to rest about what
it is that we're actually dealing with. And not only did that not pass, but then this whole other shift started to happen,
and we're seeing a move in this other sort of, are they interdimensional? Are they some kind of
weird, esoteric, strange form of life? It just seems like very sudden. And I'm wondering if
anybody else has picked up on that let's uh intro mind your biz we
have three new speakers uh mine yeah uh quick intro and then like do you have any opinions on
the stuff that's being said right now yeah absolutely first off thanks so much for inviting
me always a pleasure love the conversations and uh and i wanted to use my uh use the darker skin tone hand,
but monochrome, that's just a darker shade of gray.
I'm here all week.
So as far as a quick opinion on all this phenomenon,
I appreciate all the opinions being given so far.
Moneypenny, great to see you.
I have been following your work very closely.
Just know that.
So we should talk.
But keep it secret, keep it secret. Keep it safe.
As far as there being any kind of conversation surrounding the why, Simon Sinek, right?
Phenomenal book. Let's get back to some human values really fast.
Starting with why. Let's help each other from an ontological perspective, wrap our heads around this just a little bit.
Why? Why would there be a slowness to uncover this?
Perhaps it's because with some of the technology that would be available,
look at what we're already doing, as was mentioned before, with the splitting of the atom.
And now with the reproduction of the neuron in silicon,
and we haven't even begun to replicate the neuron in quantum substrates yet,
to be able to start really accelerating that or throwing exponents on that.
I don't think we really understand
that the proliferation of intelligence could lead to,
but here's one possible scenario.
Just briefly, one possible scenario.
There's already people who are working in the meat space,
M-E-A-T space,
who are concerned about what it means to have so
much automation applied to traditional roles that were held by humans. And imagine if we had
accelerated that 75 years ago, would you exist in your genomic fashion right now? Would your
phenotype exist? I don't know. I don't know. I'm not smart enough to know those kinds of things.
There are genuine experts on the panel. And I invited my good friend, the cat, to say something more intelligent than I can.
But I think that it's a slowing of the timeline precisely so that we can enjoy a couple more little seasons on Earth as humans.
Yeah, potentially to see how we evolve and make decisions, but primarily just to let us exist.
That could be one reason.
Anyway, my name's Seth.
I go over to HandleMindYourBiz.
I'm out.
Kat, segue to you then.
Do you want to introduce yourself
and any opinions on this stuff?
Yeah, so can you hear me?
Are we able to hear me?
Yep.
All right, cool.
Awesome.
So I actually met U.S. Major general albert stubblebein in 2013 and um
he discussed this whole entire topic with me and what they did when he was uh inscom head of army
intelligence and he said that he had expanded the project moon dust program into the army
that he had expanded the Project Moondust program into the Army with U.S. Air Force General James Pafotz.
And on top of that, he also was the source for Howard Blum, a journalist back in the 1990s who wrote a book called Out There.
And within that book, it details what was taking place in 1987. It was known as
the UFO Working Group. And basically, it was similar to ASAP, what they were doing in 2008,
but it was non-official and it wasn't governmental. And it was run out of BDM International's SCIF for,
it was from 1987 to, I think, when Stubblemean left the company in 1989.
But basically, to summarize kind of what has been kind of going on,
is that they're preparing us for a potential threat, and they've been doing this for the past couple of years.
They prepared themselves in the 1980s under what was known as the Air Force Space Command and currently right now it's known as the Guardians, also known as the Space Force.
Space Force came out in 2019.
It was not created in 2019.
It was actually in existence since the 1980s, and there's provable, documentable evidence of this.
And there's no reason to have a Space Force in the 1980s, whether was um rudimentary or advanced i don't know but
they did have at the very least egger fichet in the 1990s came out on the scene and said that they
had the tr3b or the aurora astra also known as the lockheed pulsar craft which is the flying
triangle that everybody sees all the time.
And the Aurora Project was a billion dollar project by the U.S. Air Force.
And there was a budget that was allocated towards the Aurora Project.
And you can read the contract and it's billions and billions of dollars.
So, one more more thing real quick.
The 1940s, they had the IPU, also known as the Interplanetary Phenomena Unit, which was ran by George Marshall and Douglas MacArthur.
So MacArthur was the lead for that.
NICAP in the 1980s,
they actually exposed the existence of the
IPU, which was under the Army Air Force,
prior to the
division of the Army and the Air Force,
and I think it was 1948.
So there's plenty of evidence out there.
There's also a New York Times article that came out in 1979
called UFOs, the Untold Story.
And in that, the CIA, there's a CIA document
that talks about a reverse engineering program.
And they're talking about how they have UFO material
and that they're trying to reverse engineer it,
but not on an official level.
So there's a lot of evidence out there
that people are unaware of um and
the the whole entire thing like the the whole entire narrative has always been that ufos are
a threat it's always been that way since since the 1990s when jack um or i'm sorry not is it jack
when Jack, or I'm sorry, not, is it Jack?
I can't remember his name.
Yeah.
John, John, what the fuck's his name?
John, not Hopkins.
John Mack.
Mack, John Mack, thank you.
John Mack, yeah, yeah, yeah.
So John Mack, yeah, Bud Hopkins was the other name I wanted to get to.
So Stubble Bean in 1989 ran a conference known as the TREAT Conference or the TREAT Abductee Conference.
And they ran this conference in 1989 until 1992 when the conference was actually picked up by MIT, John Mack, and David Jacobs.
and Stubble Bean helped fund the FUFO, or Fund for UFO, organization with Bob Bigelow and the Prince of Lichtenstein II.
And on top of that, you have Stubble Bean and Bob Bigelow funding an organization known as the Invaders Foundation by Bud Hopkins.
So you have two things there. an organization known as the Invaders Foundation by Bud Hopkins.
So you have two things there. It was actually called the Intruders Foundation.
The Intruders Foundation? No, it was called the...
David Jacobs. That was David Jacobs and Bud Hopkins' organization,
Intruders, not Invaders.
No, Bud Hopkins had an organization that was funded by Bob Bigelow and the Prince of Lichtenstein.
Bob Bigelow actually funded NIDS because he couldn't do it under the FUFO organization because they didn't have enough power.
But anyway, so the 1992 MIT conference that they held, they held a private conference for abductees where during this conference, they actually exposed five implants that were removed from abductees.
And they had physical proof of these implants and they were shown to a select number of doctors and people who were invited to the conference.
So it was fully VIP.
Nobody was allowed in that conference that wasn't invited.
But my point being is if you have Stubbleveen as INSCOM head
and he's funding defense organizations with ATP Group in 1983.
And then in 1987, they're funding UFO Working Group after the 1986 Japan Airlines incident,
which is still classified to this day, by the way.
And then after he gets out of the military and he goes into funding civilian organizations,
like the Bud Hopkins Invaders
Foundation and then
you have
the work that was funded from John
Mack from Bob Bigelow and
David Jacobs and you have David Jacobs writing
a book called The Threat
I mean I don't
know how much more information you guys
want because
if I could just cut in there.
I've read all those books, and they're great, by the way.
One thing that we sometimes do in this space is,
because this is a very, very rich history of research and stuff, basically,
that's happened, documented things,
and people that have created companies and foundations around this stuff,
and there's a ton of research that's been done we sometimes lead with that and sometimes i think it's worth like just zooming out
and saying like okay so what what are the basic indisputable facts about this situation now for
anybody that's just come to the conversation in 2024 2025 or you know around the time
crush came out and just like kind of new to the space.
One thing that's worth remembering
is I think there was
a physicist, Michio
Kaku, an American physicist
who said that
basically the gold standard for observing
anything is multiple sightings
or multiple observations from multiple
modes of sighting.
If you see something, you might use your naked eye then you might use a you know some kind of detector radar
system or whatever and when you have multiple independently very verifiable pieces of technology
that observe something then you know that it has happened for sure the way that you think that it
happened and we now and you know this physicist actually admitted this that we now have that
like indisputable evidence that something is happening craft of some kind are interacting
with humanity for whatever reason we've got um you know on the record testimony in congress
that urge everybody to go and watch with pilots that have been you know in in aerospace for 20
plus years in the military um that were operating off aircraft carriers
off the coast of the US that have observed this.
They've got sensor data that proves it.
They've got video that proves it.
And so just from a, like,
if you just take a step back for a second
and just go, okay, so we know for sure
that something is happening.
For a while, for many years,
that was the disputed fact that like,
you know, this is all kind of wishy-washy stuff.
People are invested game, but there's no hard evidence.
But now we can say, pretty conclusively, that there is hard evidence.
And then the question is, what do we do about that?
And I think the first thing that needs to happen is, and this is kind of what's going on right now,
of what's going on right now is just this big disclosure project where we get everything out
is just this big disclosure project where we get everything out in the open,
in the open we figure out what we can what we can declassify and what the american public and
the public at large needs to know and then we can go about serious research efforts because the
problem with the current approach which is like basically compartmentalized government programs
is because nobody really knows what other companies or
organisations have got the ability to work on things effectively is really really diminished
like people often reference the Manhattan Project as an example of when we've done this very well
where we compartmentalise research but the reality is for the Manhattan Project we got the best
physicists in the western world and shoved them in one town in los alamos
and told them to figure it out um and i don't think there's an effort like that that's happened on the same scale and i think that's what this kind of calls for
okay so i'm just going to jump back in.
I'm not, I apologize.
I see Jordan might be unmuted, but I don't hear him.
Yeah, I'll be. So I'm going to jump in and just mention, hey, so I appreciate that there's been some feedback to the cat.
Cat did open with saying that he had, that he sat down directly with a couple of of with a couple of whistleblowers with a couple
of people individually and so let's let's please not let's please not crush that kind of stuff
by claiming that we need to have a government organization government-sponsored organization
somehow ratify those accounts let's maybe ask him more questions
the the thing is like the other thing is that um with what happened in 2019
so congress has had five years of private briefings they wouldn't have five years of private briefings if nothing was going on
they've had five years of private briefings
and they've had three years of public hearings now
if there was nothing going on
they wouldn't have those private briefings happening.
So what kind of took place in 2019 was that there were ships, naval ships, that were swarmed by unknowns.
Best way to put it, right?
So, what took place in 2019 was swarmings of naval ships for months on end, and in 2022, before David Grush went public, there was actually a leaked slides from the Naval Department
where
Jay Stratton, who was the head of the UAP task force,
was previously working at. And after Stratton left,
that leak of documents was then put back from being
public to private again.
So they said that they accidentally leaked these documents on these slides of incursions that took place on naval ships.
So that's what took place prior to David Grusk going public.
And Lou Elizondo has also said that he would get calls and that the ships were being swarmed by objects and that he always promised that the Calvary was coming, but the Calvary never came.
Right. He had this quote. Lou had this quote from I think it was Variety magazine, back a few years ago.
Right?
So what's currently taking place is the revealing of what Congress has learned for the past couple years of these swarmings of the ships. They actually had a public hearing on this in 2022
where they ended up discussing this publicly.
And Scott Moultrie, who was not the head of Arrow,
but the head of the other organization,
AIMSOG or whatever it was called, right?
He was the head of that, Scott Moultrie, and he denied this during the public hearing,
that the swarm happened and said that the swarms were actually drones.
And that's very interesting, because now we have a whole UAP flap happening,
and they're saying that these are drones that are happening over New Jersey
and over the East Coast of the U.S.
But these aren't drones.
I personally saw one when I was out back
getting chased by two fighter jets.
And it was like a giant frickin' triangle thing.
And yeah, just like bright lights in the sky
being chased by two fighter jets
that just broke the sound barrier.
So they're blaming drones for the incursions again
with the incursions that happened in 2019.
But Congress has had private briefings, like I said, for five years,
and that's from Pippa Malbgren,
who I actually talked to Pippa's father.
I can't remember his first name now off the top of my head.
Harold.
Harold.
Harold Malmgren.
Yeah, yeah.
I talked to Harold Malmgren before he died, and I asked him directly.
I said to him, is there anything that you're aware of of a threat from UFOs?
And he said no, but he said that they did shoot one down in 1969, I think it was.
So the way I put kind of puzzle pieces together here is you have the military in secret trying to reverse engineer these crafts for the better
part of 80 years and then you have an expansion of the crash retrieval program
in 1983 into the army from just the Air Force so expanding the program says to me that they may be a little bit desperate to
try to reverse engineer these crafts and they want to increase the uh personnel that are doing this
right so you have so the the timeline that you have is you have the 1982, which in 1982 was Project 8200.
It was run by Skip Atwater and Hal Puthoff, and Stumblebeam was the inscom head at the time. And during Project 8200, there was a list of NHI bases that was handed from Pat Price to Hal Puthoff.
And after that, after Project 8200, and after they found these bases,
Project 8200, and after they found these bases, they then launched ATP Group by Colonel John Alexander and Ron Blackburn, who eventually went on to be an engineer at Lockheed.
Sorry about that. I just accidentally muted everyone.
Okay, whoops. Okay, so I'm going to everyone. Okay. Whoops.
Okay.
So I'm going to take this opportunity.
I know that Moneypenny has had her hand up for just a minute.
So I want to, sorry about that.
Just take this opportunity to let Moneypenny introduce herself.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
So I am a British former BBC journalist, investigative researcher. I'm not somebody that was in the UAP or non-human intelligence community five years ago, but certainly over the last two years I've been investigating this at a huge length from a logical and scientific perspective more than anything.
I want to tell you a little bit about orbs. All the discoveries that I've made bar one that I made yesterday,
which I'm going to share with you, which is incredible, are on my profile. I've put some of them in the purple pill at the bottom. So if we start with orbs, orbs are clearly plasma,
plasma being the fourth state of matter.
They are created in an atomic fusion type process.
If you look at the orbs and you remove the light frequency
from some of the best videos, you will see within the orb,
there are no mechanical parts, but there are clearly some darker dense two or three in most
movable morphologic type objects within the morphological orbs themselves the orbs are
propelled their method of propulsion is simply by i say simply it's by ionizing the air around them
to change the density of the air to create vacuums and propulsions but most importantly
to use sound and light frequencies when a sound and light wave comes together it's called something
the thither beam this was discovered in 2009.
It is a form of propulsion like a pincer movement, like a tweezer, where when you get the interference crossing over of two different waves, you create levity.
The same levity that was used in the Giza pyramid, I believe, to lift heavy objects. Now, the plasma orbs that we have seen, I believe, arrived en masse over the
last few years, particularly since 2019, but specifically in the Northern Hemisphere, and even
more specifically in the certain parts of North America from October through to December of 2024
because of Solar Cycle 25. We have a big change currently happening at the
moment with the Earth's magnetic fields. We also have some very unusual solar activities,
as you'll know. You'll know about some of the solar sightings we've had, the beautiful lights
in the sky, the types of eclipses we've seen, all of these pretty much dedicated to the Northern Hemisphere. What's actually happened in the Northern Hemisphere
is that the ionization has changed so distinctly that we are also picking up significant low
radiation signals. Most of this has been completely hidden from everybody. But over the past year,
North America saw an ionization spike of up to 50 ion pairs per centimeter cube and radiation increases of 20% at everywhere between 500 and 5,000 feet.
This was driven entirely by Cycle 25's intense storms and flares and is likely to peak in July of this year.
This is something that NASA's weather space station and other specialist areas have information on, but it's not freely being given out.
It was also, I believe, the cause of the Myanmar earthquake two weeks ago because of the particular level of quartz, which is a piezoelectric stone,
manifested quite distinctly in that area of Myanmar, but also on the San Andreas Fulton parts of California,
hence why I put out a warning about California. So I believe the orbs actually integrate a life
form that is neurally linked, that becomes an integral part, almost the management part of
the orb. The other information I have to substantiate
this is from Jason Sands in his interview with Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan asked Jason Sands what this
individual, this life form looked like, obviously pale blue. The majority are pale blue because they
are hydrogen-based life forms that I believe exist in the sea, where there are rich sources of deuterium and tithium, the two hydrogen isotopes that are
responsible for atomic fusion. Sorry, did somebody interrupt? Could I just continue? I'm sorry, I
just, I won't be long. And because of this, the lifeforms have a pale blue-gray skin because of
the respiratory system, they live under the water. They then use the lithium, which is what Joe Rogan and Jason Sands in the interview did not know what
tithium was, tithium being this isotope which is extracted from seawater, which is what the life
form asked for. And my very last point is that the life form had no ears. It had no ears because
the interference from sound resonance can be so destructive with something
called sonoluminescence which can explode anything like a bubble of water that is put through a
certain frequency. Once on I'm losing the ability to listen. As soon as they put me as a speaker
I cannot hear it. I can redo it.
Can you hear me?
Yeah, I don't know if you can hear, but leave and come back. You're rugged.
Okay, just to finish. So there are more than one types of life form. There are more than one types of spaceship or unmanned aerial vehicles or what we say is an organic propulsion object that has the ability to move in air. magnetic and solar activity are not something that is causing the alien propulsion and the
increase in the number of orbs, but it is the reverse. Like a radio, if you tune the frequency
of a certain planet or an orbit or a cosmic area that you want to travel to, you actually
predetermine the level of ionization in the air that you require in order to be beneficial for the
propulsion and use of these types of orbs. And I honestly think there is a possibility that the
reason for the particular build-up over the past few years is a change in Earth's magnetic field
caused by the life forms in order to give them a better ability to be able to use.
And this is what is causing all Earth's solar activities, magnetic changes and everything.
Anyone want to jump in there? I see Reid has his hand up.
want to jump in there? I see Reed has his hand up. Oh, I had my hand up for five comments ago.
If I just can rewind a little bit. Actually, I think it was Jack was talking about evidence
and the need for disclosure to bring that evidence out into the public so that we can begin to
navigate it as a society. I just want to make a point here that we have a lot of evidence already.
We have mountains of testimonial, anecdotal, demonstrative, and multi-sensor data that
you could call hard evidence.
And what I think the project is now is for citizens to engage in a process of early assessment
formation that would help inform the next
generation of intelligent data collection. So the refrain is, hey, we just need more data.
Well, my question is, yeah, but what is the data that we need? We won't know what data we need
until we begin to assess the nature of the probable scenario at play and begin to bound all the possibilities
into several scenarios that we can then go pursue targeted data collection for.
Now, for example, looking at the experiencer accounts, abduction experiences, disinformation
efforts, possible seeding of technologies or hastening of human developmental development
cycles around AI, for example, and other technologies that are running out of control
and to which we are already losing autonomy to. So there are ways that we can go collect the
right evidence to substantiate the assessment or rewrite the assessment.
the assessment can i pause you there so what are we losing control over um well we're losing control
Can I pause you there? So what are we losing control over?
uh rapidly to i would say excess and uh unrestrained deployment of technologies in the public
space with unknown ramifications all the more so because if there is an nh i the audio arrangement
here yeah avi can you hear us?
No, no, it has nothing to do with the browser.
It has to do with where do they put my output.
All right, I removed Avi.
If someone is on the phone with him coordinating,
let him know we removed him because he can't hear us still.
He needs, okay, here's what you do, you guys.
When you get rugged, don't just leave and come back.
Leave if you're on iPhone, drag, you kind of drag diagonally, it's hard to explain,
and you have to close out the app completely.
Or maybe restart your phone if you don't know how to do that.
But generally, if you leave and then close out Twitter and come all the way back in, it'll fix it.
But yeah, continue on.
Oh, yeah.
No, I think... Because to me, I don't see any technologies that are out of control
or we don't have a decent control over AI isn't there yet.
Will it get there?
Sure, maybe, but not yet.
Direct energy weapons.
Yeah, whose control?
I mean, is the government in control of the use and
deployment of dew uh direct surveillance uh what's dew direct energy weapons uh the use of uh psionic
what are these do we have these these exist it it is it is alleged that there are absolutely
direct energy weapons being used by the u.S. government or its defense agencies or companies against U.S. citizens, certainly foreign citizens.
So does that not mean they are in control of the government, just like nukes?
I would say they're not in our control as a species.
We do not understand the nature of their deployment.
They're not regulated.
There's no congressional oversight.
So, I mean, as a civilization or a society, I would say we are out of control with technology. And we're racing, you know, headlong to the next exciting, novel, technological whiz-bang solution.
I get that. But do we understand the ramifications of what are called technology of unknown origin, T-U-O, or a potential technology of non-human origin, and how they have been absorbed into the defense apparatus of multiple foreign state actors who are already in longstanding power struggle with each other and could be weaponized, could certainly be converted to
profitable technologies for the marketplace, but in ways that we have no comprehension as to the
ramifications and how to regulate those on behalf of the human interest, not just the national
security interest or the company's interest. So I would say we are out of control and there is
another form of intelligence that is capable of exerting control.
And if you look at the history of the UFO phenomenon, you see evidence of
shaping of perception, possible social engineering, possible seeding of narratives regarding NHI,
having authored humanity, created our religions, or that humanity is in a prison planet state and that therefore we
are both controlled by NHI but also need to be saved by NHI. And so there's all of this at work
and at play potentially. And so I do think we are out of control. And there's a lot of concern about
artificial intelligence, but not much talk of alien intelligence. All the more so because
over the last 80 years, we've leaked our species data set into space through probably irresponsible
radio transmission. And so anyone could be watching. Anyone could design their own system
to predict, to intervene, to shape human behavior. And so with our data set out there floating in
the ethers and any NHI technology able to presumably pick that up and use it, we have to
then be asking intent. Because if intent, not necessarily malevolent, but if intent is self-interested
or seeks to intervene or alter our species trajectory, they have all the tools
with which to do that. And I don't think it's really responsible to say, well, because they
haven't blown us up, because they haven't taken over, it's got to be a good thing. It's got to be
science, altruism, et cetera. There are many intelligent ways to take over, slowly, ultra-long
game, genetically, technologically, psychically, right, that are presumably possible.
So we have to kind of up our game and up our logic and think, okay, there's a programmatic engagement with humanity that has taken a whole new shape and form in the 20th century, seemingly concurrent with human events
on the ground, which are true anomalies in the history of this planet. And if there is this
programmatic engagement, it's probably for an intent and an interest that doesn't match our
own perfectly, which means that we're in the position of having to negotiate intents. So we
need to understand theirs to the extent
that we can for our human planning and strategic response. We don't need to understand them totally,
nor could we. But I think that's the point where we are at. And so we need to be asking,
is AI or other forms of technology like computer-to-brain interface, etc.
We could go on.
Are those purely being rolled out on human terms with human interest,
or is there another interest or stake in that process?
But, so, Reid, I've heard you speak before,
and you've talked about the hostile nature of some of these NHI where we have
proof that NHI has attacked people from Brazil to Africa to India in 2002 which Stubblebeam talked
to me about in the India case. In India 2002 there was an incident where a village was attacked um by an
unknown uh nh i and um they were left burns and they were left with um various different injuries
and people died i mean and we have evidence of nh iI burning people going back to the 50s with the Falcon Lake incident in Canada.
Sorry, but isn't that just radiation burns that they can't avoid because it's part of their whole being and living?
There's been mutilated human beings.
It's very well documented.
I know it's a bit taboo to talk about this side of the equation.
I think it's responsible and necessary to do so.
I appreciate you bringing it up.
I mean, just to start with Calaris.
I mean, Calaris, Operation Prato, the Brazilian military response to this widespread, longstanding form of attack upon hundreds of native Brazilians on an island
off the coast of Brazil. And then, of course, the military personnel came under attack themselves.
Highly well-documented individuals were killed. Scoop marks, burn marks, physical injury.
Lou Elizondo, in his book, Imminent, talks about it right up front and center. Because,
Rondo in his book, Imminent, talks about it, you know, right up front and center.
Because, I mean, if this is happening, this should predispose us to take a necessary defensive posture until we have through confirmation that we're dealing with friend, not foe, that the intent is disclosed, and that the terms of interaction are negotiated.
And we have not had that chance.
And so until we do, I think we need to be cautious.
You look at incidents like the Zimbabwe, rural Zimbabwe case of a landed craft,
potentially interacting with children, beckoning them to come toward the craft. You know, that's
potentially concerning, highly traumatic event for a number of the children still to this day.
You have incidents, you know, people say,
oh, they haven't done anything harmful, right? It's like, well, you take the William English
case from Laos, 1952, in which a landed B-52 in the jungle with no evidence of crash or the trees
were all intact. It is if the vehicle had been landed like vertically down into the forest floor.
And on board this craft, the members of the crew were all seated as if they had been in flight and they had all been mutilated.
Their reproductive organs had been removed with laser precision.
Their faces were excised, but only half the face, and so forth. So it's like,
there are indications that there is either some intent to acquire resources to study and analyze,
but to do considerable harm to the object of study, and also some evidence of hostility,
which I think we just need to go there. I think let's be brave
and courageous and avoid the semantic erosion of saying, well, it's all about consciousness and
oneness in the universe. It's like, yes, but also it really needs to be about the physical interaction
taking place. No, right. And in 2022, The Sun got their FOIA request that they put in in 2017 for AATIP,
and the AATIP documents that were released showed harmed humans
and showed unknown pregnancies and showed all this other stuff that AATIP was looking into.
So why would they be looking into it unless there's truth to it, right?
why would they be looking into it unless there's truth to it?
Right.
And it says harmed humans,
radiation burns,
not just radiation burns,
but long-term effects.
Like you have the Rendlesham forest case with Jim Penniston.
And who's the other guy?
I can't remember the name off the top of my head,
but you have that case.
None of these folks might say, well, well, that's just indirect.
Right.
You could say that that's just indirect human biological impact due to the craft, its propulsion, or that maybe these are alien reproduction vehicles, ARVs, and the military are flying them and people are being harmed just by close approach.
Okay.
But not really because there's so much more, right?
Right.
I think back to the Sheriff Val Johnson case, 1979, when a sheriff in his patrol car was driving on a lonely road, and a bright light, he saw it in the distance, and then it rapidly came towards him, emitted a powerful beam across his vehicle, burned a swath across the vehicle a foot wide across the entire vehicle, fried numerous functions of the car, and also left welder burns all over his body.
He had a missing time experience.
He woke up disoriented off the road.
I mean, that's direct kinetic
contact right there. And then you also have Cash Landrum too,
like that took place around that same time period. Right. Yeah. So, you know, the SCU,
the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies has been doing really good work looking,
it's called the Intent Study. It's one of several looking at are there patterns
and trends in the reported activity of UAP across you know from 1947 upward I think they've gone to
the late 70s in their in their research that would indicate uh an intent based on simply a pattern
shift and you know what they found is um over that period of time UAP tended to go from broad daylight appearance to nighttime,
from military site fixation to civilian engagement. And so, you know, you might be able to discern
an intent to veil themselves, maybe human technological abilities are such that we can
then detect them better across the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
So they go to nighttime.
They begin to interact with civilians.
And maybe they feel that they've discerned our military capabilities such that they can move on and now focus their programmatic engagement deeper in.
And then you have the Betty Barney Hill abduction case.
And then the whole society and mass culture kind of absorbs abductions as this widespread novel phenomenon.
And, you know, is that all just curiosity or are people picking up on or experiencing directly a real phenomenon?
ask you uh with regards to jake barber's recent interview with uh ross cultart um i was i'd love
to get your opinion on that because this is an example of where you know this is a guy that um
you know was part of the crash retrieval program he experienced many of the things that you just
spoke about with regards to the burns and you know basically what he described what sounds like
radiation sickness but his experience despite
that he suggests that it was one that was overwhelmingly positive when he was retrieving
the craft he described feelings of love and you know very deep emotional connection do you do you
believe that this is that the the craft emitting or kind of tapping into Jake's mind in that way is like a manipulation tactic to veil intent?
Or do you think it's like, you know, possibly something that's a genuine thing?
You know, I don't want to speak for his experience directly.
I'm very familiar with everything he's come out with.
You know, there is evidence in the ufological record that whatever the intelligence is can enact a form of neurological control, can stimulate our biochemistry, our neurochemicals to give rise to an experience and possibly to a set of screen memories that blanket or obstruct the person's conscious recollection of what has taken place. That is super, super prominent in many of the abduction reports over decades across abductees in all
settings. So I'm leery to say, to take it at face value. In fact, I don't think we can at this point.
We can't just say, well, I felt warm and fuzzy and therefore they must be here to help. That you
felt warm and fuzzy is fascinating.
That's valuable data.
We need to understand what gave rise to that sensation.
Is there suppression of executive function commissive with that?
Well, I think we should also think about this in the context of, if you look back at history,
at some of the religious experiences that people have had and have talked about,
seeing bright lights and feelings of love towards whatever they've experienced,
you can kind of contextualize it with Jake Barber's story.
People 500, 600 years ago may have seen a light in the sky and thought,
this is a divine revelation, and they felt feelings of love
and overwhelming compassion, but actually what they were feeling was some kind of psychological control technique kind of makes more sense when you look
at it through that lens it's a very interesting part of the phenomenon the psycho side of it is
really interesting right yeah you know i mean i think there's indication uap and the intelligence
controlling it want us to perceive them at certain times in certain ways
and to have certain people perceive them. So, you know, right there is an intent to use capability
to affect human perception towards someone who's closed down.
Reid, I'm so sorry to interrupt you mid-sentence. We actually, we have a special guest who
we've been trying to get on stage for a few minutes here. And we just
finally got him up, Dr. Avi Loeb. I think I said that correctly. Speaking from Abraham Loeb account,
sorry to interrupt you there, but just we've had technical difficulties and wanted to make sure
and wanted to make sure that we got to introduce him right away.
that we got to introduce him right away. Can you introduce yourself?
Can you introduce yourself?
Sure.
My name is Avi Lo, and I'll be glad to answer any questions that anyone has.
Amazing.
I'd like to jump right in and ask a question.
Thank you so much for putting up with the difficulties of getting onto Twitter and Twitter spaces.
My name is Seth. I introduced a friend of mine earlier on the space.
I'm so pleased to meet you here in this forum.
I'm curious if you can speak a little bit on kind of picking up the thread that was left off just a moment ago by Reed and Jack
about psionics and how psionics may dovetail into the human experience
or an ontological frame of experiencing just in general
the existence of alien phenomena well um you know i'm a physicist and my day job is to deal
with the physical reality and you cannot rely on human reports when you deal with the physical
reality because very often they have hallucinations
and wishful thinking I mean this is not my point it's actually the point that the FIFA the the
soccer world the the walk the soccer organization that whenever there is a dispute on the soccer
field they do not go around and ask the players whether there was a goal or not. They don't ask the audience.
And people may have, they had an experience
and they think that there was a goal.
That's completely irrelevant.
What FIFA does is examine the videos taken by instruments.
That's the way science is done.
It relies on instruments, not on what people tell us.
As much as it sounds disappointing,
you know, it's based on many, many centuries
of wishful thinking by people.
It started with people saying,
oh, we are at the center of the universe.
When we looked out, we realized,
no, the Earth is not at the center.
As much as we want it to be at the center, it's not.
How do we know?
Because we look at Jupiter.
I mean, that's what Galileo did and found that there are moons moving around it. So that means the moons are not moving around us. Galileo said that the church, the Vatican was not happy. And only in 1992, they admitted that he was right. That was two decades after we arrived at the moon.
decades after we arrived at the moon. Now, what I'm saying is humans have a lot of things
that they can talk about. And in fact, even in the legal system, in the courtroom,
you know, there are tens of cases where people were put on death row as a result of eyewitness
testimonies. Here I'm talking not about your personal experience about yourself, but people going out under oath,
testifying that someone is to blame for a crime, and then the DNA tests led to the exoneration of
these people who were put on death row. So we know that the scientific method is more reliable
than what people tell us. Now, some people say they had personal experiences about unidentified anomalous phenomena, some
objects that were abducted, all kinds of stories.
My point is, I mean, this is intriguing, but we should verify if they are real.
And the only way to do that is using the approach of FIFA that I mentioned before. We need to use cameras.
We need to use instruments that will measure something that tells us that there was an
unusual experience out there.
Without having such data, there is no way to verify the validity of these reports.
Now, when people say psionics, okay, they have a psychological way of telling that something
happens or bringing in
unidentified objects okay you know we have over the past four years i'm leading the galileo project
we built an observatory for unidentified anomalous phenomena we are monitoring a hundred thousand
objects on the sky every month we have a million objects that we monitored over the past year. We are
analyzing them with machine learning software. We are building two additional observatories
that will be in place by the end of the summer of this year, 2025. One in Pennsylvania, one
in Nevada. I am all in favor of people who claim that they can bring UAPs to observatories.
Please come along, bring them in, and we will tell you if they are out there. But just talking
about stories, you know, will not lead us anywhere. We need some physical evidence that can be put to scrutiny and examination by scientists, because otherwise we will not get anywhere by stories.
And we can spend our time telling stories. You know, that was done for centuries before us.
to gaining new knowledge about what is going on in our backyard near Earth
is to get data, scientific quality data,
by instruments that we fully understand,
that do not have wishful thinking, do not have hallucinations,
do not have all the weaknesses of the human mind.
Okay, so just to be clear, first off, thank you so much again.
I thoroughly appreciate that you put up with the difficulty of joining the space in the
first place.
It can be quite a headache, as you've discovered.
But I want to be sure that I understand.
You're saying that psionics and some of the decades-old research that has shown that people
can observably share a shared subjective reality by leveraging psionic ability that that data is not
to be trusted that's what you're saying well what i i would argue that if you go to mental
institutions you will find a lot of people who claim that they are napoleon and then you can
write a book about it you can say well there are plenty of people that are Napoleon. That's great. They have exactly the same experience. It must be real. The truth is, it's not real for any of them, except there was one Napoleon. Okay, there was one Napoleon in the history of humankind. Okay, but there are many people who claim that they are Napoleon. Right now, even though Napoleon is dead, does that prove anything? Does that, the fact that they share the same experience, does that demonstrate that they are all Napoleon? Not at all. It just says that people have the same issue, mental issue.
issue. So what I'm saying is by seeing many people tell you the same thing, it doesn't
demonstrate that this thing is real. It just says something about the human mind. And how
do you separate between something real and something in the human mind? By having something
that is not human detected, meaning instruments.
that is not human detected, meaning instruments.
The issue is with psionics is that the military
and air force, they were all involved in looking
into psionics, remote viewing, SRI with Hal Puthoff.
You had aerospace companies hosting psi parties in the 70s and 80s so if there's nothing
there to it then why is the military involved why is the aerospace companies involved right
okay I don't think further I think if there was clear evidence for that, someone would have gotten a Nobel Prize for that.
Because this is such an emotional discovery.
Let me give you another example.
You go back a thousand years.
Everyone would tell you that the Earth is at the center of the universe.
Everyone.
And then you would say, well, the Vatican is putting a lot of money into the notion that we are at the center of the universe.
Does that make it real?
Did that make it real?
Actually, just Galileo looking through his telescope realized that it's not real.
Just a single person with a single instrument demonstrated that thousands of people at the time claiming something were basically not telling the truth.
We know that for sure.
You cannot argue today that the earth is at the center of the universe.
Why?
Because, you know, suppose in the jet propulsion lab, there were lots of Catholics that believed in the doctrine of the Vatican from a thousand years ago.
Okay, they were religiously fanatic.
They said, look at the church.
So many people argued that the earth is at the center.
Then they would send rockets towards Mars,
assuming that Mars orbits around the earth
because the earth is at the center.
The rockets would never reach their destination.
Why?
Because there is a physical reality out there that has nothing
to do with what a bunch of people are saying together in a very loud voice. It's irrelevant
whether people are saying something or something else. The question is, does it actually describe
the reality that we live in? So now, if psionics was the reality that we live in,
okay, if there was clear physical evidence for that, you know, the Nobel Committee would have
definitely awarded someone the prize for recognizing a hidden aspect of reality that
we are not aware of, you know,, that we are not using.
There would be gadgets that are designed to rely on psionics in order to make a profit
because you can definitely commercialize that.
If that was clearly demonstrated to be part of reality, we would take advantage of it
in our daily life.
But you don't see that.
You just hear stories about...
Well, there are some issues with that.
I apologize.
You've made the same point four times.
And so thank you.
Thank you for coming here to speak on what is observable.
I won't press the issue any further.
But what I will leave with this, and I will not, and I refuse to cite sources because
I want to protect my friends, but I have a childhood friend who is a government contractor
who builds EMF shielding for testing facilities for psionics. I will leave it at that, but thank you.
Okay, before we go further, Dr. Loeb, when you introduced yourself, you just said,
hi, I'm Avi Loeb, and I think, you know, we were like, oh, wow, okay, that was an introduction,
right, and everybody, I think so many people who are here know who you are.
But a lot of people maybe in the audience don't because we do have a crypto focus generally.
Could you give a little bit more background information about who you are specifically your education, professional?
Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. So, well well let me start from the beginning i was born on a farm and
and then out of circumstances i ended up having a phd in physics at age 24 and then i was offered
a five-year fellowship at princeton under the condition that i'll switch to astrophysics and
then after that i was offered a faculty position
at Harvard University where I was tenured three years later.
So I arrived at Harvard about 33 years ago
and was tenured 31 years ago, so 1996 or so, seven.
And then I became the chair of the Harvard Astronomy Department
for nine years between 2011 and 2020, the longest serving chair.
I was the founding director of the Black Hole Initiative
at Harvard University that is the only center worldwide
focusing on the study of black holes.
I'm also the director of the Institute for Theory and Computation at Harvard University. I chaired the board on physics and astronomy of the National Academies for three years,
about five years ago.
And I also chaired the scientific board for the Starshot initiative of the Breakthroughs Foundation.
I also served on the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology at the White House.
So I had, and I have about a thousand scientific papers in astrophysics,
and nine books on, you know, my early studies were about the first stars,
the first galaxies in the universe,
which is basically the scientific version of the story of Genesis,
how the first light was produced in the early universe.
I also worked on black holes.
And most recently, I became fascinated by the possibility that there are objects
from that were manufactured by extraterrestrial technological civilizations that arrived close to
earth because astronomers discovered the first objects from outside the solar system over the past decade near Earth.
And two out of three appear to be anomalous.
They looked really peculiar and unlike the rocks that we are familiar with.
So this brought me to the subject.
And as a result, I established the Galileo Project, which is building the observatories
I mentioned before.
We also made an expedition to retrieve materials
from the first interstellar object
that crashed in the Pacific Ocean a decade ago.
And we analyzed those materials
and there will be a Netflix documentary coming out
by the end of this year.
They came with me to the expedition.
And also, if you wanted to get a brief overview of what we found, you can check out the TED Talk that I gave in 2024. It was one of the
most popular TED Talks of 2024. Awesome. Thank you. Can someone find a tweet maybe about that
TED Talk? If there's no tweet, maybe we can make a tweet
and then we can pin it to the top so people can find that.
Or maybe we can put it in the comments or something.
There was also an NPR.
NPR had an interview posted of 18...
I mean, they condensed the interview to 18 minutes
and they featured the TED Talk in it as well.
So there is the interview plus the TED
talk in the same website oh nice a couple of weeks ago oh beautiful yeah Darren could you uh figure
that out and find a way for us to share this with the audience sounds really interesting
and yeah it's uh it's great to have you here thank you for coming uh to have someone of your stature
uh on on this topic is great thank you i mean it sounds
from the previous person that you know as much as i am trying to be scientific some people see that
as a limitation to to my ability to to entertain things that go beyond physics but my point is you
know if you think about all the technologies we have today, they are a byproduct
of our fundamental understanding of the physical reality. You know, quantum mechanics was discovered
a century ago, and now we design chips that are only, you know, the size of 10, the thickness
of 10 atoms or so for the best AI systems that we are using and and that is based on curiosity driven
research by physicists a century ago so um it's really you know if we discover something
new about the physical reality you know within a century it will be commercialized and
so there is no way that you know if someone if someone had access to a new aspect of the physical reality, that they would not try to make money out of that or, you know, use it in the battlefield.
And we haven't seen psionics being employed in a way that is obvious.
in a way that is obvious.
Avi, I'm curious to your point,
if you could talk a little bit about
assuming the civilian academic approach
to locating non-human intelligence
succeeds within the next few decades.
Has there been any discussion
amongst you and your colleagues
or others in the field
about if we detect intelligence, do we make contact with that intelligence?
Do we initiate contact?
Who would be responsible for that contact?
And how would the messaging be determined in a world where you have so many different players on the global stage?
Yeah, that's an excellent question.
And, you know, there are some people who suggest we should establish a committee.
A week ago, I was speaking to a forum of the Council on Foreign Relations.
And I suggested we, you know, we might, if we have an encounter with extraterrestrials,
we will need to establish a new organization of Council on Alien Relations.
But I don't think it makes any sense to establish such an organization right now,
because it really depends on the nature of the visitor.
You know, when you have a visitor to your backyard,
you first have to figure out what the intent is of the visit. You know,
there could be visitors who are very constructive. On the other hand, you might have predators
coming to visit your backyard. And, you know, one day my wife told me, look out at the street.
There is a man standing there for half an hour looking at our home. And I'm worried that it's one of your fans.
And could you figure it out?
And so I went to the street and spoke to the person.
And I said, why are you looking for so long at our home?
And he said, well, you know, I used to be a kid that lived in this home 50 years ago.
And I said, oh, in that case, you are most welcome.
And I showed him the
backyard. And he told me, actually, we buried a cat named Tiger in our backyard. And I said,
well, that name sounds familiar because we do have, I noticed that there is a tombstone
with the name Tiger on it. I was worried that the tiger is buried underneath but
apparently it's a cat so out of this experience i learned something new about the history
of the property that i'm residing in my home and my point is if we had a visitor from another star
that visitor could potentially tell us more about the history of the solar system of Earth
that we are not aware of.
Because keep in mind that documented human history is only 8,000 years old.
You know, it's a tiny fraction, you know, one part in 100 million of the age of the Milky Way galaxy.
So we know very little about what really happened,
even on Earth.
And if we have a visitor,
it might be constructive to engage in a dialogue.
But you can also imagine another scenario
where whoever comes to visit us
would be just like the Europeans that visited America
and obviously caused a lot of death
and the indigenous people disappeared.
You can also imagine that, you know, we currently, if you go to a restaurant,
we are eating animals that we think are less intelligent than we are.
You know, we eat without any remorse.
We eat chicken, we eat cows, you know, and if those animals had an intelligence similar to humans, we would be very careful at eating them.
And imagine a visitor that is far more intelligent than we are.
You know, I don't think that we are the pinnacle of creation.
If you read the news every day, you realize we are making a lot of mistakes.
So if there is a visitor who is smarter than us you
know they might have us for lunch so it really depends on who the visitor is what the intention
is as to how you respond to that and i suggest we just wait and you know when we know what it's all
about the visit then we can decide how to respond to it. There is no point in responding to hypothetical scenarios
because our imagination is very limited.
You know, when we go on a date with someone from Earth,
we pretty much know what to expect because they share our DNA.
However, if you go on a date with an interstellar visitor, all bets are off because
we share nothing with them. We don't have any DNA that connects us.
Sorry, Reid, I see that you have your hand up. I know that you had your hand up before.
I'm not sure if you've had a chance to ask your question yet or not.
We usually have like an open forum, but since this is a kind of off topic,
I want to make sure that you get to ask a question.
And really quick, one more thing.
If any audience members want to ask Avi a question or anyone on the panel a
question or just general questions, post them in the comments.
We'll read some questions soon. Go ahead. I have questions too. Perfect. Yeah, Avi,
thank you for what you just shared there about intent, which is the focus of my work. And I'd
like to get your perspective on, you know, how do we sort out the challenge of responding to the phenomenon in a timely fashion, knowing that affirmation that NHI is real is possible, could happen in the next several years, and the global community will obviously respond and react to that?
How do we get to the point of being able to assess intent, knowing that the scientific process has really only just begun to fully substantiate with physical evidence the nature of the phenomenon?
And then what is the role that science could play in helping us do an intent analysis or assessment for the purpose of human response?
Yeah, this is an excellent question.
First, I should say that every day or two, I post an essay on medium.comcom and you can find it by searching for avilobe
at medium.com and the reason I bring this up is because this morning just a few hours
ago I posted an essay that is talking about you know the possibility that the nearest
star to the Sun which is Proxima Centauri, we know that it has a planet roughly
the size of the Earth in the habitable zone, meaning that, you know, in principle, you
could have the chemistry of life as we know it on the surface of this planet.
And suppose, you know, there was a civilization that developed on that planet. It's called Proxima B. And suppose they were not with exactly the same timing as our civilization has, that they had a slight head start.
and by a slight I mean 0.00002 of the age of the earth,
you know, like a tiny little bit of advance relative to us,
which actually corresponds to about 100,000 years.
If that happened to be the case, then, you know,
they might, their equivalent of NASA could have decided,
oh, here is a habitable planet that we should visit.
And initially, they would have launched chemical rockets of the type that we are launching now.
And those take about 100,000 years to reach the solar system from the nearest star.
So by now, they could have reached us.
So by now they could have reached us.
But imagine that they evolved and then a thousand years later,
they had a technology that allows them to send spacecraft that are faster by a factor of 10.
Then instead of taking 100,000 years, it would have taken 10,000 years to reach the Earth.
10,000 years to reach the Earth.
So they would have done that.
So they would have done that.
And then let's say a millennium later,
they developed the technology that allows them to speed up
by another factor of 10.
So then they would reach us instead of in 10,000 years,
only in a thousand years.
And you can keep doing that.
And so what would happen is that the most advanced technologies would reach us first and the chemical rockets would reach us last.
And that means that if we are visited, we are most likely visited by the most advanced technologies because those reach us at the fastest speed.
Now, we just need to look around, and the question is,
is there any evidence that we are being visited?
And of course, we have all these anomalies,
the unidentified anomalous phenomena the U.S. government talks about,
and the interstellar objects that are anomalous
and the interstellar objects that are anomalous, that astronomers talk about.
that astronomers talk about.
And so, you know, in principle, it would be great
if scientists could just get more data
and figure out what these things are.
Are we being visited or not?
And as much as I would love more scientists to work on that,
very few are doing it.
The mainstream of science, the mainstream of
academia is completely ignoring that. People are saying extraordinary claim require extraordinary
evidence, but they are not seeking the evidence. They are not doing any, there is no funding,
federal funding for this study of anomalous objects near Earth or anomalous phenomena near Earth.
And so the Galileo project that I'm leading is funded by private donations.
And we currently, we already have the biggest data set relative to any other group that was
interested in UAPs. And we we will get more we will get a few
million objects every year now um so um unfortunately you know you know you you might think that science
is uh the only way to make progress and therefore because it's evidence-based, therefore we will know what these things are.
The problem is that science is done by humans, okay?
And humans can decide.
They don't want to collect the evidence.
They don't want to put time into this research.
They don't want to design observatories that will teach us more about these things
because they just decided they have a prejudice that it's nothing.
So as a result of this, you don't get the evidence and we remain ignorant.
And this is really the biggest challenge to convince
the mainstream of the scientific community to actually dedicate effort.
And, you know, most people in the public
are really curious about this.
And these are the people who fund science through taxes.
And so it would, in my view,
it would make much more sense
if, you know, some fraction of the funding
that is currently going to the search for microbes,
for example, you know.
So the astronomy community decided to invest more than $10 billion
so that by the middle of the 2040s,
we will have a new space telescope called the Habitable World Observatory.
And that's the main focus of the astronomy community, the mainstream.
That's the main focus of the astronomy community, the mainstream.
And the goal is to detect fingerprints, molecular fingerprints, chemical fingerprints of microbes.
And, you know, in my opinion, microbes...
Wow, on planets across the galaxy or universe trying to detect microbes?
Yeah, you are not detecting the actual microbes.
What you are looking for is molecules like oxygen,
methane, carbon dioxide, water,
that when they appear in the atmospheres of planets,
they might be indicative of life.
I say might because in principle,
you can get these molecules from
geological processes as well. So it will not be conclusive. And why put all the money into this
bucket of looking for microbes? Microbes are very boring. You know, as far as I'm concerned,
if we find a neighbor that is intelligent, it would be a much bigger deal. So my point is,
it would make sense for the astronomy community
to invest a fraction, you know, billions, a few billions,
in the direction of figuring out whether we are being visited,
whether there are objects of technological origin,
and for that, near Earth, and for that,
you really need to build a new space telescope dedicated for the task
i actually wrote a paper about it a month ago you need to invest in observatories of the type that
the galileo project is building you actually need to invest time and resources and that is not being
done so i actually um i i and you know after the elections the U.S. elections, Peter Thiel said, you should never bet against Elon Musk.
And a day later, I placed a bet against Elon Musk because he said that we should go to Mars because we are probably alone.
because we are probably alone.
And I say, you know, there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy,
and at least a few percent of them have Earth-Sun analogs.
So things like us probably existed before us, you know, billions of years.
I'm willing to put 1% of my net worth against 1% of Elon's net worth,
which would be 4 billion in his case,
in a common pool so that we can invest in scientific research,
trying to detect technological signatures of other civilizations.
And if we don't find anything,
I'm willing to give him another 1% of my net worth.
Do we not? You're saying there can't be no funding for this. I'm willing to give him another 1% of my net worth.
Do we not?
You're saying there can't be no funding for this.
It just must be very small because we're definitely looking for those radio waves.
No, no, no.
So looking for the radio waves, by the way, is the traditional approach of SETI.
And that is not being funded by federal support right now. It's only private donations. There is the SETI Institute. This approach is just like waiting for a phone call at home.
You can be waiting forever. Nobody may call you. What I'm suggesting is searching also for other
technological signatures. For example, objects that are near earth that were manufactured by other civilizations there was plenty of time for them to arrive
if you ask where would voyager be in a billion years it would be on the opposite side of the
milky way galaxy relative to the sun and you know the most of the stars in the Milky Way formed billions of years before the sun.
So there was plenty of time for the space trash of other civilizations to reach our backyard.
And we haven't looked for these objects.
We just found a few of them by chance, you know, as a byproduct of surveys of the sky.
And I say, let's put, you know, billions of dollars to that search
because this is... What are those? What have we found? So the first one discovered was given the
name Oumuamua, which means a scout in the Hawaiian language. It's roughly a hundred meter. It was
roughly the size of a football field, a hundred meters in size. And it was discovered by a telescope in Hawaii called Pan-STARRS
that was looking for near-Earth objects.
And so it noticed a near-Earth object, flagged it,
and then realized, oh, the astronomers realized
this one is moving too fast to be bound by gravity to the sun.
So they said, oh, that's the first recognized interstellar object.
That was in 2017.
Before that, astronomers never detected an object that came into the solar system from outside.
This was the first one that we could tell based on its speed being too large,
larger than the escape speed from the solar system.
And so at first, the astronomers said...
So it's like passing through our
solar system passing within the orbit of the earth around the sun it came even close to earth within
a sixth of the air sun separation and we detected it by the reflection of sunlight from it and at
first everyone assumed it's a comet it's probably a comet because you expect interstellar objects to be
simply icy rocks that are in the outskirts of their planetary system and are ripped apart from
the parent star by a passing star so when a star another star passes by it can rip apart some of
the rocks the icy rocks in the outskirts, which are usually comets. And
it turns out there was no cometary tail around this object, no dust, no carbon-based molecules,
you couldn't see anything, no tail around the, no coma. So it was not a comet. And so the people
said, oh, well, maybe it's just a rock without any ice on it. So nothing
evaporates when it comes close to the sun. But then, first of all, the amount of sunlight reflected
from the object changed by a factor of 10 as it was tumbling every eight hours. So that meant that
it has a very extreme shape, most likely flat, because the cross-sectional area...
I'm sorry, could you repeat that again? What happened?
So the amount of sunlight reflected from it changed by a factor of 10 as it was tumbling
every eight hours. And that means, just think about a piece of paper tumbling in the wind.
The amount of sunlight reflected depends on the area of that paper
that is projected as you look at it.
And the area that was reflecting sunlight
from this object, Oumuamua,
was changing by a factor of 10
as it was spinning.
So that means that it's a very elongated object.
You know, we don't see things, changes by more than a factor of three for rocks, for asteroids usually.
It was twinkling like a mirror or something.
Yes, yes.
And someone tried to fit the variation of reflected sunlight in great detail from this object
and concluded that
at the 91 confidence it was flat pancake like okay and this is a published scientific paper
based on the data and so i and then you know the most surprising thing was that the object was
pushed away from the sun by some mysterious force without having
cometary evaporation which usually gives you the rocket effect there was not no evaporation of this
object so the question was what is pushing it and i suggested it's just the reflection of sunlight
and for that the object had to be very thin.
And in fact, three years later, there was another object discovered by the same telescope in Hawaii,
and it was reflected by sunlight, was pushed away by sunlight. And turns out that this one was a rocket booster from a 1966 launch by nasa so we know that this second object
from 2020 it was given the name 2020 so you can check it out on wikipedia uh it turns out that
this one is definitely technological because we produced it nasa produced it at first the
astronomers thought it's an asteroid but no it's actually
a space trash the question is who produced omua mua so that was my question you know at the time and i got a lot of pushback on that because people said you should not even consider that
possibility that it's technological but a couple of years later, I actually discovered together with my student
that in a catalog of NASA, there is a meteor. That's an object that collided with Earth
in 2014 and exploded in the Earth's atmosphere. And it had a speed that is definitely above the
escape speed from the solar system. So it was an interstellar meteor.
And even outside the solar system, it was moving faster than 95% of the stars. It was moving at
60 kilometers per second, a very high speed, even outside the solar system. And moreover,
it maintained its integrity all the way down to the lower atmosphere before it disintegrated before
it blew up in a fireball so that meant that the object was had a material strength that is tougher
than all all the meteors catalogued by NASA hundreds of so it was designed to withstand
entering an organism that's exactly that's exactly the point you know i should mention
also an anecdote that on january 2nd this year 2025 there was a report by an amateur astronomer
of a near-earth object and he said well it's an asteroid. And there is an organization called the Minor Planet Center.
They cataloged it as an asteroid.
And then less than a day later, they realized, oh, wait, this one has exactly the parameters of the Tesla Roadster car that was launched by Elon Musk's SpaceX in 2018 as a dummy payload on the Falcon Heavy.
And so they revised,
they took away the definition of this object as an asteroid.
What I'm trying to say is,
you know, we should not assume
that everything in the sky is a rock.
And that is what astronomers are doing.
So actually, just a few months ago,
there was a big paper that said, you know, anything that shows the type of acceleration that Oumuamua showed is actually a dark comet, meaning it's a comet.
But the cometary tail, the coma, is not visible.
And, you know, I feel just like the kid in Hans Christian Andersen's tale that said the emperor has no clothes. Because I don't see a comet, Aritel, I say it's not a comet. I
mean, that's the simple-minded interpretation. But my colleagues, the adults in the room, you know,
they keep saying, no, no, no, the emperor has clothes. You just can't see it, see the clothes.
You just can't see it, see the clothes.
And it's a comet, but it's dark.
And, you know, that is the mainstream right now.
And you ask...
So you're saying, let's go with like Occam's razor on this one.
The most obvious thing should be the kind of default,
not some mental gymnastics to explain it away.
Exactly.
I say, let's be honest.
That's all I'm saying.
Let's not invent stories and say, you know,
there are things that we don't see that explain it.
Let's just say it's not a comet.
So what could it be?
Okay.
And, you know, other people suggested
maybe it's a dust bunny, a collection of dust particles
that, you know, and this cloud of dust particles needs to be a
hundred times less dense than air so that it will be pushed by reflecting sunlight i don't see how
such a thing would survive coming close to the sun and being heated by hundreds of degrees
you know other people suggested maybe it's a hydrogen iceberg or a nitrogen iceberg and
Maybe it's a hydrogen iceberg or a nitrogen iceberg.
And a hydrogen iceberg would not survive the journey in interstellar space.
I wrote a paper about it.
Nitrogen iceberg, there is just not enough solid nitrogen, you know,
in the Milky Way galaxy to explain a large enough population of such things
that would explain Oumuamua.
So, you know, the problem right now is that scientists are very
reluctant to even consider the possibility that we are visited. And this is a big problem because
without, when you are in denial, you know, the way that the Vatican was with respect to the place of
the earth, when you are in denial you basically even when you are presented
with evidence you shove it under the carpet and you delay the you basically say there is no point
in collecting more evidence and that is really unfortunate you know as a scientist i really want
to us to be flooded with data so that it will not be ambiguous.
You know, it would be clear beyond any reasonable doubt.
I don't care what the data will show.
Let's just collect as much data as possible so that people cannot deny that
there is something unusual out there.
I think that's a great point.
And then fund it a bit.
And Jack, go ahead.
And then Reid had his hand up a couple of times,
but I didn't want to interrupt Avi because it was so interesting.
But yeah, go ahead, Jack. and then we'll have Reed after that.
Yeah, so I was just going to say, I think Avi's making a great point there.
Like, you know, one of the main critiques that you hear a lot from people who, you know, a UFO, like let's say like UFO critics or, you know, skeptics will say, well, you know, where's the evidence and you hear the term fermi paradox bandied around a lot
which is essentially just like you know this if there's intelligent species in the galaxy we
should see them everywhere neil degrasse tyson once said we should see their evidence written
across the cosmos but i mean if we if we as a species take the view that it's not there and so
we're not looking and that's a bit like saying you know uh
there you know there might be something happening in my garage but i'm not going to go and check
because i don't believe that it is you never actually know and and there's that's one thing
and the other thing is like you know in terms of observables thinking about what when we talk about
like you know um travel approaches the speed of light, for example.
If we were looking out into the cosmos and something was traveling very, very fast,
because of the way that the light would reach us at a similar speed to the object itself, we wouldn't even see it until it was on top of us anyway, I believe.
That's true.
And this is the idea, like, it might be the case that we look and we look and we look and we don't see anything
and then we look one day and like a light switch we see everything and so this is like the the
evidence we but we have to be looking to see and so yeah i completely agree with everything you said
especially the last point i should emphasize if something is moving close to the speed of light
it will appear only in one image even if you happen to capture it in a telescope
image and it would be a streak you won't even suspect that it's an object astronomers would
completely miss it okay and the only way to detect an object moving close to the speed of light
that will be reliable is by the gravitational signal and i i actually wrote an
essay about that i called it gravitational seti i wrote it last week on medium.com check it out
basically i i'll give that sorry yeah oh sorry i was just saying i'll i'll give it a read that
sounds incredible yeah and about your other you know you made the
very good a very good point um about scientists not not willing to to actually study it and
enrico fermi when he asked where is everybody which is now called fermi's paradox you know
this is a question that every lonely person asks and what you tell a lonely person is you are not that
attractive don't be presumptuous everyone you know people partners that you are interested in
will not come to you you have to be proactive you need to search for them you need to to go
to dating sites at the very least you need to look through your windows and check if other...
I'm not...
Like if someone was like, why am I not dating a supermodel?
They must not exist.
Yeah, exactly.
Enrico Fermi never built a telescope.
He just asked this question.
And then you have all these people repeating that question and saying, we don't have extraordinary
evidence.
Obviously, we don't have because nobody
is trying to collect that evidence. What we need is extraordinary research.
But you might say it's very risky. We might not find anything. Well, look at the history
of the last 50 years in physics. We know that most of the matter in the universe is invisible.
most of the matter in the universe is is invisible it's called dark matter most of the energy in the
universe is invisible it's called dark energy we know that because it affects through gravity it
affects visible matter so the visible matter is just influenced by invisible matter and we know
that the invisible matter exists for that reason.
But we have been trying for 50 years to detect particles that would explain the nature of
dark matter.
These are some elementary particles that do not interact with light.
We invested billions of dollars.
Most recently, the Large Hadron Collider, you know, at the cost of $10
billion, was searching for dark matter particles by smashing other particles, protons, at very high
energies. And we didn't find anything. Now, I'm not saying it was a waste of money. Billions of
dollars, not find anything. We just improved limits on the nature of dark matter.
We didn't find anything.
All I'm saying is, you know, that's part of the learning process.
You have to invest effort, money, and time in searching for the unknown.
So why are we doing that in the context of dark matter for 50 years,
even though we haven't found anything.
Why? Because the mainstream of science,
you know, believes that dark matter exists
based on all the evidence.
We have good evidence.
And I'm just saying, you know,
whenever we have anomalies,
dark matter is an anomaly.
You know, it's just,
you realize there is matter,
but you can't see it.
So that's an anomaly.
You know, maybe gravity is modified. Maybe it's not matter that is out there. But, but you can't see it. So that's an anomaly. Maybe gravity is modified.
Maybe it's not matter that is out there. But nevertheless, you think, oh yeah, I believe
Einstein's gravity. There should be additional component of matter. Let's go and search for it.
You don't find it. But that's part of the process of learning. You are trying different things.
And we have anomalies with respect to objects near earth okay these are
the unidentified anomalous phenomena that the u.s government talks about you know there are
serious people they monitor the sky for national security purposes and they see things they don't
fully understand okay so i don't know if they have anything at their possession in some hidden
uh inventory or in some corporations.
I don't care.
My point is they are reporting about things they don't understand.
And we also have those interstellar objects that I mentioned before
that we don't fully understand because they are anomalous,
like Oumuamua or the meteor.
All I'm saying is let's put money, you know, a fraction of the budget,
even 10% of the budget
that we allocate
to the search for dark matter
or to the search for microbes.
Let's allocate even 10% of that budget.
May I ask?
And then I really want to get Reid
because he's been super patient.
But I just want to ask
a quick question to you.
So like two of the three objects you discussed turned out to be man-made. And it's an interesting
concept that, hey, one, we just wrote off as a meteor or asteroid. And then we said, oh, wait,
actually that was the Tesla car. So it turned out we wrote something off that was a real made object.
And so the point is we shouldn't just write these things off,
but it did turn out to just be a human made object,
which isn't so interesting to us.
The same thing with the booster.
And then the other one, Amuamua, we don't know.
What are your percent likelihood that any of these objects
or others you haven't discussed yet,
what's your percent likelihood in your personal
opinion that one of these is from some other species, if you could give that? And then after
that, let's let Reid jump up. He may have a question for you or a comment.
Yeah. So these objects are anomalous and Oumuamua and the meteor. And so I'm completely agnostic.
I would put 50% on each option, whether they're natural or artificial.
And of course, what I'm trying to do is... Well, that's more than agnostic,
because a 50% chance that it is some alien object is pretty high likelihood.
Well, that's why I think we should examine it.
And there will be the Rubin Observatory in Chile that actually this August,
August 2025, will start operations,
it could find a more like object every few months. So it will use a 3.2 gigapixel camera that has a
thousand times more resolution than your cell phone camera, and will monitor the southern sky
every four days. And in my mind, this is great. You know, I want as much data as possible.
And maybe within the coming years,
you know, we can resolve this question of,
you know, what are family members of Oumuamua?
What is their nature?
Is it space trash from other civilizations
or just rocks of some very unusual origin?
Okay, Reid, you've had your hand up. civilizations or just rocks of some very unusual origin. Okay.
Reed, you've had your hand up.
Thank you for being so patient.
You're welcome.
Yeah.
I think this is really great conversation and I want to touch back on the intent question,
but also if I may just respond to this need for scientific understanding.
Wait, really quick.
Reed, Avi wasn't here when you introduced yourself originally.
Maybe you could just quickly in like 10, 15 seconds,
tell him what you do about your work.
I've been focusing on the UFO, UAP phenomenon for many decades.
I left my career in science broadcasting to look at the NHI question
and basically use logic, reason, evidence, observation to begin to decode
potential motive and intent. And my passion is helping to inform decision makers and the public
on how to respond in a timely fashion if this is truly a sentient interaction, a meeting of minds.
So that's me. I teach a course on that and do a lot of other great collaborative work with other organizations and researchers. But just if I may, there's this kind of tension between the need to understand the phenomenon, which needs to engage the scientific process. It's going to take time.
We have to, we can't rush that, right?
We have to be deliberate, methodical, and test our biases, examine our assumptions,
et cetera.
Very important.
But then there's the need to respond.
So there is the need for decision makers, federal, in the federal government, academia,
the private sector, but also civilian citizens to know how to respond to this phenomenon.
And this tension between understanding and response,
science, and what I might frame as reconnaissance, I think we need to marry the two. And I love,
Avi Loeb, Avi, you just said, I think a while back, it's there, therefore we should start
looking. To me, that's assessment leading to intelligent investigation. My question would be,
what else can we assess beyond just that there's
a there there that would lead to intelligent investigation? Can we assess, for example,
that these structured craft have an interest in certain spatial, temporal, circumstantial
settings, place, time, human events? If so, let's go get our sensing instrumentation over there.
human events. If so, let's go get our sensing instrumentation over there. Let's get multimodal,
multi-sensor detection capabilities in place at places of high concentration of UAP activity or
reported human NHI encounters. And I think the opportunity is there. If you go to the comments
by former Colonel Carl Nell that NHI is real, NHI is interacting with humanity. This is not new and that there are
people in the unelected government who are aware of this. If you go to Gary Nolan, Stanford
immunologist, his comment, his response to the question, are we being visited by extraterrestrial
life? And his comment was, we're well beyond that. And it's been here a long time. So we're
at the point of not being able, I would say to,
to fully and only rely on the scientific method to assess and decode what's happening. We also
need other frameworks, a response driven frameworks, like those of strategic security,
counterintelligence, you know, semiotics, the, the, the understanding of symbols and language
and interspecies communication.
We need to engage those.
And this is where I would posit an idea of science and reconnaissance, reconnaissance,
science informed by the need to do recon on the nature of the activity of UAP to inform
citizens and decision makers.
And I think that opportunity is there.
And also, I think the human sensor,
the human mind and its five senses,
maybe you throw psionics in there,
a telepathic ESP ability,
is one of those sensors.
And so I think the experience or account,
it's not hard evidence, it's not enough,
but it is what Gary Nolan might call pre-data, right?
It's an indication that would lead you to go get hard evidence.
But you wouldn't know to do that if you discounted the experience or report entirely.
Is it possible that a mechanical device could be placed on the body of a reported abductee
or in the home of someone looking for EMF
electromagnetic disturbances or frequency changes or loss of power to the house or to the
neighborhood, you know, concurrent with a reported UAP encounter. Like these are the kinds of field
investigations that are possible, but we would never do them if we did not assess that some form of NHI human interaction has taken place.
Yeah. I mean, I completely agree with everything you said.
The Galileo project that I'm leading is constructing observatories that are multimodal. monitoring the entire sky at all times, an optical band camera, a radio sensor, an audio set of microphones, and a magnetometer.
So we are using all the instruments at our disposal to detect something.
And we can go places.
And in fact, I even had a conversation with the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office about what, I mean, they do hear about events that they cannot understand. They don't have good enough data. best. And we are now at a very exciting stage where we will get the triangulation soon within
the coming months, meaning that we will detect an object from different directions using multiple
units, and they would allow us to figure out the distance of the object. Without that, if you don't
know the distance to an object, you don't know how fast it's moving because, you know, a fly moving very close to your eyes may look as if it's very fast if you were to think that it's far away.
So we will have triangulation information by this summer and that would be an important milestone. And yeah, hopefully we'll find the conclusive evidence beyond any doubt.
And then we can move forward to the issue of intent and how to respond, what to do about it.
And obviously that if there is any signal coming from an object, the question is, can we interpret that?
Is there a language in which the signal was written?
And we could use AI to figure it out,
especially if artificial intelligence is being employed by these objects.
But these are long-term goals,
and I agree that they get into how the government should get involved and so forth.
But let's first demonstrate beyond any doubt that there is something unusual going on so that we can bring everyone on board now as of now i should say the
funding of the galileo project is is quite limited and we have a planned expedition to the pacific
ocean to retrieve bigger fragments bigger pieces of the original object, the interstellar meteor in the wreckage
that was localized by the US government satellites. And it will cost us six and a half
million dollars to employ a robot that we will put on the ocean floor with a video feed. We have the ship ready to be used. We have a team of experts that are willing
to do it, but we don't have funding. And if anyone on this call knows of someone that is willing to
support this expedition, you know, we can make it happen. And this person would obviously be most welcome to join us or they can get all the
information online from us in real time. Crypto millionaires, you guys hear that?
Hey, I have to go at the top of the hour because I'm hosting another one of our spaces,
but I have to ask a question that comes from an audience member who has been in the audience and has been requested the whole time.
But her question is so good that I actually want to skip it above even my own questions.
And then I want to let Reed ask his question again.
So Jenny asked Dr. Loeb, if the scientific method was never designed to detect intelligence more advanced than our own,
how do we justify using it as the sole lens to interpret phenomena that may deliberately
defy our current understanding of reality? Yeah, this is an excellent question. And
the way I approach it, I'm looking for something that is not familiar.
I'm looking for something that is anomalous, that does not line up with our preconceptions.
That's all I'm looking for.
I'm not imagining what this thing is.
What we currently know is not necessarily describing this thing that we are supposedly seeing or people report about.
So my approach is not to rely on what we know.
I'm not relying on what we know.
I'm just trying to look for things that are unfamiliar.
Okay.
So if I look at the sky, just as an example, with the Galileo Project Observatories,
I'm trying to figure out if everything in the sky is in the form of drones, balloons, airplanes,
satellites, birds, leaves, clouds. These are things we know about. If there is something that is not one of these categories
of things that are familiar,
something that is moving beyond the flight characteristics
of our technologies, and it's clearly not natural,
it's not a bird, and it's moving extremely fast
or with accelerations that are unusual,
or it has a shape that is crazy.
As long as it's unfamiliar, I would be extremely interested in that.
And you will see a report about everything I know about this thing openly.
So I'm not a member of the government.
I have no reason to keep my data secret.
You know, the sky is not classified. The oceans are not classified. It's only the instruments that the government is using to look at the sky, to look
at the oceans. These instruments are classified because we don't want adversarial nations to
fully realize our capabilities in monitoring what they do.
So we keep data from satellites classified. We don't want them to know what we know about them.
And so that's why if there is any anomaly in government data, it will not be released publicly
because the concern is that it would help adversarial nations figure out
the capabilities of U.S. government censors. But I am a private citizen. I am a scientist.
I can release my data if I look at the sky because astronomers look at the sky all the time.
So there is nothing that forbids me from telling you that there is an unusual thing
happening. And that's what I'm looking for. I'm looking for anomalies, things that are unfamiliar.
Okay, so following up, I want to ask her second question, and then I'll throw it to Reed.
Ask her second question, and then I'll throw it to Reed.
If contact has already occurred, but informs that bypass traditional observation through consciousness, frequency, or nonlinear time, what role does science play in decoding the unknown without dismissing it first?
So there are two things here.
One is what we are trying to find, you know, like we are trying to find evidence for an entity. And the second thing is what tools are not negotiable in the context of science.
You can't say that you just rely on what people tell you, because without evidence from instruments,
it will not be scientific knowledge.
Scientific knowledge in the context of physics or anything that deals with the physical realities, scientific knowledge is relying on
data from instruments. So in terms of the tools, the tools are not negotiable. However, we know
about psychology. People are studying other people and they are not using always instruments.
They can ask other people questions.
You know, that's what therapists do with their patients.
You know, and...
But, you know, what patients tell you
cannot be used to infer something about the physical reality,
because in the context of physics, you have to use instruments.
You can't just say,
a hundred people told me that there is this object out there therefore the object exists and this
object is unusual and i should get the nobel prize for it no nobody would believe you because it's
just based on what on storytelling and storytelling is not a reliable source of information. So in the context of science, of the physical science, of
the physical reality, the tools are not negotiable. The content of what you find
with the tools could be anything. So all I'm saying is let's use the tools of
science to find something new, to find objects that we didn't anticipate. But we
cannot rely on stories that people tell us.
That's not good enough.
Okay, great.
Jenny, I hope that that answered your questions.
I hope that that satisfied your questions.
Reid, I know you had your hands up or your hand up before.
Did you still have more questions to ask?
Well, first off, those were two great questions.
And I'll just, I just want to make a little bit of a plug for Avi and for Galileo, but
a few other organizations that are working on this.
Jack, you mentioned a while back about the need, you know, to get for disclosure to bring
evidence into the public domain so that, you know, research and analysis and policymaking can take place. And I just want to call out the
fact that it's already possible. There are multiple organizations that have developed
multi-sensor detection platforms. Some of them are very expensive. Some of them are very inexpensive,
but less capable. But all of them brought together would produce a new capability
for society to detect and to track UAP. I'm helping to organize what I think will be the
premier conference on this topic later this year on UAP detection and tracking, bringing together
all of these organizations. And Avi, I haven't reached out to you yet, but I would love to have you speak and you're on my list to invite. So that'd be
great. But there's Skywatcher, Jake Barber's group, using what they argue are psionic abilities
to detect, to observe, shape, kinematic tracks. And so they say to ultimately interact with craft. Okay. That's
a claim yet to be substantiated in the public domain. There's other organizations. There's
UFO DAB, Sky360. There's UAPX and Tedesco. All of these are organizations with a variety of
sensor platforms that they have characterized and calibrated in ways that can produce data
that is verified. It's not just a shaky cell phone looking at the sky. It's verified UAP data
and brought together with some kind of UAP data alliance to coalesce and to standardize and to
allow for researchers to access that data. I think society within the year will have the capability to monitor the skies
and to produce multimodal sensing of UAP on its own without needing the government to disclose.
I wouldn't be surprised if the government quite likes that because part of the problem of disclosure,
so we've heard, is society can't handle it. People are ontologically ill-prepared.
They're not engaged.
Well, what better way to engage people than to get citizen science moving and get as many
people engaged as possible?
And also a little plug for Mitch Randall and Skywatch, not Skywatcher, but Skywatch.
He's developing a consumer-grade box that people can put on their roof to accelerate to a degree of
thousands of g-forces, that that is merged with other data sets, what corroborates and
finally affirms the reality of this technology and a potential operator.
So, I mean, it's coming, it's here.
I think we all just need to give it our support.
And I'm very excited about that.
Well, Reid, on that subject, and Harvey, this is to you as well.
Obviously, we had the revelations from, I think it was Lieutenant Ryan Graves,
who was a pilot in the U.S. Air Force, who released his own testimony.
But along with that flare camera footage, which is, I think it stands for forward-looking imaging radar or something,
which is basically just the radar off the fighter aircraft that he was operating,
that showed one of these things and showed him trying to track it.
And there was also some audio that went along with it where he was describing to other people in his formation
what he was seeing and how he was trying to interact with it.
I'm just wondering where that falls for you on the spectrum of evidence so arby you mentioned that there needs
to be independent non-governmental evidence to this because it can be released publicly but
it's interesting to know that we also have some publicly released governmental evidence
in in the form of that kind of stuff so i'm just wondering like where your thoughts are on that do
you think maybe not to be trusted because there could be some governmental agenda behind it or what do you
think you're asking me abby or someone else yeah initially and then i'd love to get resources
what what i think is it's quite possible that the government has much better data the most
interesting data is not being released. What we saw is not fully
convincing because they don't give us the full information about what the camera was
doing when it was taking these images and so forth. But I would guess that they have
very good data from satellites. They've never released that. And that could be quite convincing.
And they also probably have data from other sensors.
And finally, the interesting question is, do they have any materials that they collected from crash sites?
And I would love to know the answers to these questions because it would save me time instead of investing in the search.
You know, if they have already something, I can help them figure out.
You know, government is focused on national security. My day job is what lies outside the solar system. So if they found anything that relates to my day job, they're not the authority
to figure it out. And they may keep the data secret just because they cannot figure it out.
But I would love to have access to it to help them figure it out. And then, you know, it's really
not so much about how many people are interested in pursuing the scientific path or how many people
declare that they might construct instruments or went for a field trip of five days in one period.
This is not really the approach.
The approach should be a systematic study over a period of many months,
years, of millions of objects in the sky,
trying to see if there is anything anomalous.
And this is what the Galileo Project is doing and funded to do.
We have full funding for three, actually almost four observatories now, and we will release
whatever the data tells us. And you know, there are many people who might be interested in the
same agenda, but I haven't seen millions of objects released by any particular organization.
I agree completely with that.
We do need a comprehensive study.
I wanted to ask you just a follow-up on that, though.
Have you seen the alleged CIBA's satellite footage that was released by...
I don't know if it was released by him, but it was certainly championed by him.
A guy called Ashton forbes i don't know if you've seen that information about uh basically like a video of allegedly showing mh370 and the kind of that incident yeah i actually saw it for the
first time because in a podcast where he interviewed me a few months ago haven't seen it before but
podcast where he interviewed me a few months ago haven't seen it before but uh it wasn't it's not
clear what what he's showing us and whether this particular video was uh you know treated by
someone that manipulated it uh this is not scientific quality data but you know it's
intriguing but just like many other videos it's not conclusive
yeah of course and i think your approach you know comprehensive scientific study that maps
as much as we can in the sky over a long long period of time i think that's the the best way
to get to the bottom of this um and it's really admirable, actually, that you're jumping in this in a sort of nonprofit fashion.
It's incredible work.
May I ask a more kind of direct question here for you, Avi?
I really like the way you think about all this.
I mean, we had a lot of people on the show.
Some of this stuff went a lot over my head and they got maybe too into the weeds for a general audience. I'm no expert on any of this stuff went a lot over my head, and they got maybe too into the weeds for a general audience.
I'm no expert on any of this.
But I am curious, just as a kind of – I love your way of thinking about all this, the evidence-based approach and all this. We have been purposefully visited by some alien species or whatever other words we might use for these.
What's your percent likelihood that Earth has been contacted or visited or all that?
Yeah, the Earth existed for 4.6 billion years.
And that's one third of cosmic history.
It's the last one third so we are
late to the party oh wow most of the stars formed 10 billion years ago not 4.6 billion years ago so
um so they had a huge head start on us yes exactly so just you know we arrived recently
humans of course arrived only in the last few million years out of that history.
And thinking that we are the first intelligent beings
to arrive at the cosmic stage,
you know, that is very arrogant and very self-centered.
I'm not surprised by it because when my daughters were born,
you know, they believed that they were at the center of the universe.
Because we, as parents, we paid a lot of attention to them.
And they had a psychological shock going on the first day to the kindergarten where they saw other kids.
And, you know, before they went to the kindergarten, they must have seen through the windows of my home,
they must have seen other houses on our street but they never imagined that
they must have seen other houses on our street.
there are infants deserving as much attention as they did in those houses
they probably denied in their mind the possibility that someone as deserving
as they are exists that there are residents of these houses that's exactly
the attitude that you find in the mainstream of astronomy right now.
We see Earth-Sun analogues.
We know that they exist, there are billions of them.
Yet, we insist that the possibility that these houses host residents
is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, but we are not going to look for the evidence because we think that it's very risky to search for it.
And this is unlikely because, you know, it flatters our ego to think that we are at the center of the intelligent universe, you know.
think that we are at the center of the intelligent universe, you know.
And I actually gave a talk a year ago at a celebration of 350 years to the birth of
Nikolaus Copernicus in Torun, Poland.
That's the birth town of Copernicus.
And I was invited by the Polish government to give a public lecture.
And the title of my lecture was The Next Copernican Revolution,
by which I meant the realization that we are not at the technological center of the universe,
that there was a space entrepreneur more accomplished than Elon Musk since the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago? And if so, why don't we search for the equivalent of Tesla Roadster
cars that are interstellar? Why are we thinking that we are the only ones polluting interstellar
space with technological debris? That makes no sense, given that we are late comers. And if we
find other entities that already were around, I would say it's very likely
that we are not the first. It's very likely that some of them are far more accomplished than we are,
far more intelligent than we are. We could actually learn from them. We could learn about
future technologies that will take us a long time to develop ourselves. I mean, it might feel like
cheating because we are in an exam where you have other students in your class that are doing much
better than you do, and then you copy from them. If this will save us a thousand years in our
technological development, I don't mind copying technologies
that someone else developed because it will save us a thousand years and you know i i met with a
few months ago with a group of people religious people that belong to an organization called the
christianity today they came to har Harvard University and asked me to join them
and speak about extraterrestrials.
And they were worried about
the implications for religion
if we find another intelligent species.
And I told them,
look, I have two daughters.
When the second one was born,
it didn't take away my love
to the first one.
So thinking that God can attend only to one intelligent species is very demeaning.
You know, obviously, God as a parent can attend to as many civilizations as there are.
I mean, we might be jealous of another intelligent civilization that accomplished more than we did so far,
but so be it.
You know, we can learn from them.
Okay, but I'm going to ask you more one more time, though.
Okay, so like for me, and I'm not, again, don't know this subject well like you, but
like if someone asked me what my per probability is that there exists intelligent life out there
in the universe, I'd probably say 99%.
But if you asked me if it has visited earth,
I would say 2% or less.
So I want to know if you,
what is your thoughts on have they actually come here to us?
So the second question of you know
whether they visited that boils down to whether we have any anomalies that we see on earth that
we think could have been a result of an interstellar visitor you know you can imagine
an interstellar gardener that seeded intelligent life here on Earth.
They came over, you know, a few million years ago, they converted chimpanzees to humans.
And here we are.
Because if you think that it's really anomalous, that we have our own cognitive abilities,
then you, you know, you need to figure it out.
But of course, what biologists will tell you
is that, oh, it's just a natural progression from the animal kingdom. We are still behaving a lot
like animals, but the question is whether our consciousness is something completely different
that no other animal has. So in principle, if that is true, then we should find
some evidence in our DNA that indicates some intervention. Some people claim the pyramids
in Giza, you know, they are an amazing accomplishment. How could the Egyptians,
How could the Egyptians transport these giant stones without someone advising them, helping them technologically?
I don't know. I don't know the answer to that.
As I said before, documented human history is only 8,000 years old.
We could potentially look for things that are weird here on Earth or on the Moon or on Mars.
And we might find something, you know, like this is archaeology that was not attempted.
So far, archaeologists just focus on human remains, relics that were left from human civilizations.
But, you know, it could be a new branch of archaeology.
We go to the Moon, we go to Mars, we look around for any artifacts that were not human-made.
I would also just point out on that note about archaeology, even here on Earth.
We know that the majority of the human population chooses to base itself around bodies of water today on the coastline and such.
And the coastline changes so much.
Like, even in the last 10,000 years or so,
the coastline in a lot of the Western world has moved by something like 300 metres in height.
And so, you know, if you go back a little further than just modern civilised time
and you go back to you know 10,000
years or earlier a lot of the archaeology that we may need to do to uncover some of these mysteries
is not in the ground where we could access it but it's underwater and there just isn't the
resources that's been put into archaeology to look into that specific thing there are some
studies that look at this but there's not a lot and it's very very hard to do and so
a lot of the answers that we
seek might be closer to home
and I think that's something that's
quite interesting, if you want
to look at older human history
I would love
to hear an archaeologist
who digs underground
and finds a computer screen
that is not human-made from the last century.
If you think about the biblical story of Moses
that witnessed the burning bush that was never consumed,
that convinced Moses that there is a superhuman entity
that he called God.
Now, if you were to show Moses a cell phone from today,
I think Moses would have been filled with even more religious awe
than watching a burning bush. I mean, obviously, a cell phone is far more
exciting than a burning bush. Moreover, he would have been able to use the GPS system on the cell
phone to navigate. That would save him 40 years in the desert. He could have reached the promised
land in a couple of weeks. And my point is, this is not a product
of a superhuman intelligence.
This cell phone is a product of humans.
We just developed technologies
that Moses was not aware of.
And if we meet a technological gadget
that was produced
by an extraterrestrial civilization,
we might be filled
with the same sense of religious awe that Moses had at that moment. So nerd girl is going to leave
here because she has another space in nine minutes. So she's been dying to ask you a question.
Then we have money P and we're going to stay on a little longer than the space. It runs for only
nine minutes normally, but some of us will stay here
um if that's okay with you obviously because we have eight audience members have requested to
speak we're gonna bring a few of them up and let them ask some questions uh we don't know who they
are so they might be uh crazy and you know maybe usually it's fine but we don't and we go through
all of them i will i will let's have all of them say something for a minute or so.
Yeah.
And then we can, okay, go ahead.
But go ahead, nerd girl first before you leave.
Yeah, so my question is not even on my original question list, but it kind of came up.
And I wanted to know, just because of something that you said, do you believe in God and how does your research
inform that belief or lack thereof? Yeah, so it really depends on how you define God.
I, you know, I think that, for example, that if you were to advertise the job of God,
you would say one requirement is that God should be able to create a baby universe out of nothing.
And it turns out that a very advanced scientist could apply for this job.
Because if we ever have a theory of quantum gravity, we would figure out what was there before the Big Bang.
And we would know which ingredients we need to put together, how much heat you need to apply.
We would have a recipe similar to the recipe for making a cake for the creation of a baby universe.
So what I would argue is that a quantum gravity engineer could be a good approximation to god
and so if you ask me do i believe in yeah i believe in science being able to do all the
miracles that we previously assigned to god okay so it's just like a a god-like consciousness
something different from probably what like a Christian conception of God is.
No, no, I would say it could be, you can imagine even a human being that,
someone who has an understanding of how to create a baby universe,
that knows physics beyond what we know now, has a theory of quantum gravity.
we know now has a theory of quantum gravity so that person and it could be a human would have
a recipe for creating a baby universe so if i if i um introduce to you a scientist from the future
who knows how who has the recipe for making a baby universe and the only thing that this scientist
lacks is an oven where he can bake the cake
or a particle accelerator
that will reach the energy
that is needed for that.
If I bring you a scientist that knows
how the universe was created,
you know, I would...
It's sort of like the Turing test.
You will not be able to distinguish
between that scientist and what you call God
because that scientist can what you call God,
because that scientist can do everything, like create a universe that leads to everything you know about.
So it's a creator of the type that religions imagined.
But it's a real scientist.
It's someone in a white lab coat.
It's not a fictitious image of some superhuman superhuman thing as i mentioned before in the context of moses it's just if we have a good enough understanding of the physical
reality we can create everything that you can think about okay great great uh great answer um
really interesting thank you thank you very much um thanks I got to go host the Doge Chain space.
Okay. See you, nerd girl. Thanks for all the great questions and helping put a lot of this
together and everything. It's been one of our most interesting spaces, certainly. And we have
a ton of listeners today, guys. So clearly, you know, it's funny, our audience is not a UFO or UAP or NHI, like all these stuff, uh, audience, but
this is the second time we've done a show that goes kind of off course like this. And both times
we've had a tremendous amount of listeners. So clearly there's a lot of people out there
interested in this stuff. We're going to bring up some, uh, guests here, go ahead and money.
Um, so we're running out of time, so we're going to try to keep everyone that we bring up please you know be respectful we're trusting you to come up on the
show um some of these people look like they have pretty interesting backgrounds and study a lot of
this stuff um but we'll keep these things kind of short don't ramble too long i might have to cut
people off if they go too long on their questions or statements. Go ahead, Money. Thank you. What a fascinating,
well, I'm honoured to meet Abraham, absolutely honoured. So I'm a science nerd and a logic
person. I believe that people have created mini-universes. They're called subatomic
particles within every cell of our body. And the minute we get a spark of bioelectricity,
when an ion crosses the membrane, you've then got a little universe
that goes to 2 to 4 to 8 to 16 all the way up and builds us. That's pretty bloody amazing
in my book. But I wanted to get onto the subject of plasma, the fourth state of matter and
the orb things particularly that were seen over New Jersey. So very simple question.
When we saw a mass of, and I'm British, you can probably tell by my
accent, when we saw a mass of UAVs, some of them identifiable, some of them Lockheed Martin, some
of them all type things that look organic, that look like plasma, that look luminescent, that move at
Mach 4, what is your opinion? Were they all constructed technology from US contractors or were they potentially non-human?
Yeah, so as it turns out, I started my career in plasma physics and I'm very aware of the
underlying principles of plasma.
So a plasma is a state of matter where the atoms or molecules are broken into their constituent charges,
electrons and ions.
And you often get that by releasing a lot of energy into a small volume.
So as I mentioned before about a meteor, you know, when a meteor passes through air,
the friction with air generates a lot of heat until the object breaks up to pieces
so that there is much more surface area
than there used to be to start with.
And then it's sort of like an explosive process
because the more surface area you have,
the more friction you get.
And so it blows up
and it creates a fireball made of plasma.
You also get it during a thunderstorm,
you know, when electric current is flowing from one cloud
that has a different electric potential than another cloud in the sky,
a water cloud, water vapor.
And so that's how you get a lightning.
And the thunder is what you hear
when the energy is released. So there is a shockwave, a blast wave generated by the energy
release that you hear with a delay because the sound speed is much slower by a factor of a million
than the speed of light. So you first see the light, and then it takes a million times longer
for the sound to reach you,
and that's the thunder that is delayed.
Anyway, plasmas are generated naturally
in the atmosphere whenever there is a release of energy.
So then, you know, there is a phenomenon
called the ball lightning,
where, you know, people observed
where people observed and detected also with instruments,
and detected also with instruments,
sort of like a bright ball of fire that is moving through
and can go through a wall.
And these are real.
They were seen by instruments.
The question is what makes them.
It's not fully understood.
It could be that it relates to atmospheric phenomena
of the type that I mentioned,
where you have a lightning,
it generates a ball of plasma
that propagates to the ground.
We don't know for sure yet.
It's one of the phenomena
that are not fully explained.
It's a mysterious phenomena.
And there could be other atmospheric phenomena.
Now, how do you tell the difference
between something you don't understand
that has to do with the atmosphere
or some technological entity?
Well, the way to tell the difference
is the speed of this thing
or the acceleration of this thing.
If it moves at a speed comparable to the speed of sound or or the acceleration of this thing, if it moves, you know, at a speed
comparable to the speed of sound or less than that, it could be natural. It could be also human-made.
You know, if it moves at a Mach number at a speed that is a hundred times bigger than the speed of
sound, this cannot be explained easily. So it really depends on the properties.
Just saying that it's a plasma is not good enough.
You really need to characterize, you know, how much energy was released,
how fast was this thing moving.
So, you know, we really need to deal with each phenomena on its own merit.
Thank you very much. yes or no were they all
technology that was human made? So what is the question? The drones, the things in the sky in
November, December. Which ones? All of them. What are you saying 100% were non-human or human?
Which ones? All of them. Are you saying 100% were non-human or human? Yes or no? Are they all
technology? I would remain open-minded. I don't know. Okay, thank you. What I would say about New
Jersey is, at least I would just mention that the White House argued that there was nothing unusual
over New Jersey. Now, I don't know if this is true or not,
but that's what the Trump administration voiced.
They said they looked into it
and there was nothing unusual about it.
Thank you very much for that.
You really did well on a challenging question
and I really appreciate all your other insights.
Much appreciated.
All right, we're going to go here.
So one of the people that has uh been requesting
to speak is tom sig now tom i think we've either had you on the show or i've seen you in the
audience before a bunch maybe so i'm going to you first but yeah go ahead tom keep it uh kind of
brief but uh go ahead yeah i just had a question avi on one particular ufo case i'm expecting
you're not aware of it but i would appreciate if you hear a short spiel about it that you would look into it if you're not aware of it.
It's a seminal case in my book because it's right before the Robertson panel.
Demonstrates there's narrative control, demonstrates that there's data.
This myth that there's no data is not true.
There's FBI investigation, Inspector General Report from the Air Force, and there's an
American aerospace company that's right next door to the sighting. So it was July 29th or July 31st
in 1952 in Passaic, New Jersey. George Stock was the photographer. His father was a witness. They
took seven pictures, five negatives, FBI investigated home shops, no hoax equipment, no capability to create
a hoax. The film developer lied about taking the pictures himself. He said he was a photographer.
So the case today is officially a hoax. But if you look at the actual data and the Freedom of
Information Act, it's pretty clear that it's a real UFO. And right next door is ITT Incorporated.
The CEO of ITT Incorporated.
The CEO of ITT was the first American businessman to meet Hitler.
They got their assets back from Germany at the end of World War II.
They were into radar, radio, majority owner of Messerschmitt aircraft.
So it seems pretty clear that that tells kind of a UFO story,
the technology, the company, everything. And the CIA even tweeted that picture in 2017,
12 days after the New York Times piece,
and they called it Passoria, New Jersey.
When they know damn well, that's Passaic, New Jersey.
Yeah, this is very interesting.
But one thing that needs to be clarified,
that needs to be clarified.
I mean, obviously, there was something there, there was an object.
I mean, obviously, there was something there.
There was an object.
The question is whether it was some human-made technology
that was not publicized at the time,
whether this company was developing something new
based on its own research
that has nothing to do with an extraterrestrial origin.
That's the thing that needs to be clarified.
There was something there, but the question is, did it come from outside the solar system?
Yeah, I think that's a fair point. But to me, the bigger concern is you had Captain Ropel and Major
Herman from Ray Patterson Air Force Base calling the Star Ledger in New Jersey, the largest
circulation newspaper in New Jersey, getting them to kill the story. And as far as I can tell,
in reading the Freedom of Information Act documents,
they hadn't even seen the pictures yet.
No, but that is fully consistent with an operation that, you know, has a national security value
that suppose they develop a new technology, they don't want people to know about it,
and they would hide everything about it.
So it doesn't mean that it came from
an extraterrestrial or no no i just i never said that you know i never mentioned the word alien i
guess my i'm upset potentially with chris mellon i don't want to take a sidetrack here in the space
but you know do you have people who are you know supposedly for disclosure but meanwhile not
giving us disclosure because there's obvious evidence in the record that they know of and that they talk about.
So to me, this case.
That's a valid point.
I'm really worried.
Some people that are talking about the subject are, you know, muddying the water.
And I'm not sure if the agenda of everyone that talks about it is really honest, whether they're really curious or they're just trying to, they have another agenda.
So, well, doesn't, you know, doesn't that call into question the entire progress of science?
You know, stuff I've been researching says is really probably Einstein was working on all the
five-dimensional physics right around 1938 to 1943. And then they shelved all that he had paulie come in to basically yeah but he was
he was not successful einstein really wanted to unify quantum mechanics and general theory of
relativity but he was not successful the followers are now string theories this was a failed
project of well you know trying to unify things in extra dimensions. That was never successful.
Currently, string theory doesn't have any prediction that explains experimental data.
I agree, but I think Klein-Kalooza and that whole field of work is still fruitful. And I believe
Einstein kept secret. Yeah, but these things happen in science. It's fruitful operations around the physics.
Any good real physics is in the black and anything we have in public is kind of show physics.
And that's a good point because we know, you know,
it probably started since the days of the Manhattan Project.
Manhattan Project marks the beginning of an era
where government started appreciating curiosity-driven research in physics
because it's useful for political reasons. And I can imagine that the government is trying to
keep secret some developments out of the rest of us, for sure.
So I want to let, maybe we can transition here to, because it's on this exact kind of topic of
freedom of information disclosure, but we have
Diogène Descenin.
Thank you. Your bio says a jurist
advocating for public and scientific disclosure.
Yeah, on the point on credibility because it's a very important
point. I was a PhD in law,
I was a teacher, I was working in the Justice Department, so I'm not a wackadoo.
Yeah, to the last point, Tom, we have a person in the community, Bob Maguire, who made that thing
about the Energy Act, that there is some physics classified in the US country. But that's not my point.
I want to thank you first, Avila, for the great work you have done.
Like John Mack, you have to fight against stigmatization on that topic.
I know it was difficult with the academic world, so I'm very thankful to you.
My point is just one remark and then question. You say we don't share DNA with other beings in the sky.
John Ramirez, a guy from the CIA who knows before that David Kresh come, he was giving some insight. He said that in the Roswell case, there was bodies and there is some DNA, human DNA in that body.
That's the difficult part.
So I'm just giving that information.
I cannot stating all that's true.
It's just telling what John Ramirez from CIA just tell about Roswell and DNA, human DNA.
just tell about Roswell and DNA, human DNA.
But my question to you is,
do you think it's a reliable hypothesis
based on Sun Tzu, the heart of war,
that if, like you said, they're very advanced.
If they came here, they have the big technology.
Is it possible that they want to win without a fight
and take over this planet
and making abduction like John Mack was working on
and making hybrids and making little by little,
making some virus to maybe kill the real human population
and then just take off very quietly without any fighting
because it seems like it's a big hypothesis
from the abjection research actually i'm sorry to feel like a fear it's a fear oh we're gonna
get invade uh by the way when i read and whether speaking about that but you see my question do
you think it's a reliable hypothesis that we have i mean thank you One thing to keep in mind is, you know,
we die after typically less than 100 years, right?
So we have a very short lifespan compared to astronomical timescales.
You know, the age of the universe
is measured in billions of years, 13.8 billion years.
You know, that is 100 million times longer
than even the lifespan of the person that had the longest life.
So 100 million is a big factor.
And it means that we get impatient over short timescales.
So when we fight a war, we expect it to end within a matter of years at most.
Because otherwise, you know, I mean, there were wars that took as long as a century or, you know,
but it starts getting into another generation and then, you know, things change.
And so we are used to timescales of years. And therefore, you know, if you imagine someone else coming here and trying to get a hold of the planet,
they might operate on a completely different timescale because the trip,
if they came at speeds that are comparable to all the spacecraft that we launched so far,
it took them probably millions or even billions of years to get here.
It took them probably millions or even billions of years to get here.
So then if you expect them to finish their job in one year, that is not necessarily the timescale over which they operate.
If they operate over timescales of thousands of years, hundreds of thousands, you wouldn't even notice what is happening because it's very slow.
because it's very slow.
So to your point, yes, it's another blind spot
that we may have that has to do with time scales.
Thank you very much, Mr. Lobb, sir. Thank you.
All right. We'll go next to Roy,
who his bio says he's the holographic geometric framework guy,
theorist, maestro disseminating post-Newtonian, Einsteinian, higher dimensional physics.
Time is fluid symmetry.
Go ahead.
I have 10 minutes, by the way.
Go ahead.
Okay.
And thanks for staying with us longer than you had planned.
This is a really great conversation.
We'd love to have you back another time.
But go ahead, Roy.
Okay, A.V.
Well, I think I've resolved quantum gravity, okay,
and dark matter and dark energy
as all being attributes of what I conceptualize
as emergent entropic time, okay,
whereby time is an emergent phenomena
based upon the resistance to a boundary condition of information,
whereby the resistance to the change of the information denotes the lengths of the moments of time,
so basically relates to the energy density of the medium.
This aligns with the latest DESE results, the latest James Webb Telescope, and the latest RAS results as well, in that now even the astronomical associations,
societies here in the UK, are considering the cosmos being a timescape as such.
So there's that, but I'm not God, okay?
Now, what I consider to be quantum gravity is essentially a temporal differential inertia.
essentially a temporal differential inertia from the differentials within the flow of time.
If we consider that time is more than the moment and that all emergent properties within the cosmos
are conserved, then us is emergent in tropic time, giving us a continuous symmetry in a higher
dimensionality, giving us the ether, as it were, for a better word,
or some other people call it, you know, different things.
But it's essentially the same thing, a hydrodynamic vase space,
essentially, within this higher dimension.
This now resolves the inertia of gravity and also gives us an idea of how the phenomena is manipulating its temporal properties, essentially,
to hold faster relative
rates of time rather than motion in that if you can and you go back to your plasma physics and so
on the topological dynamics of certain phases of existence hold very very fast temporal properties
and therefore they can negate the inertia of gravity within this framework. I've outlined the framework for you. I've been trying to get hold of you for about four years.
I'm getting nowhere with academia, but I am within the scientific engineering side of things.
And if you check out my mutual follows, you'll find that quite a lot of them are Nobel and Merit
Prize winners, Eric Weinstein,
and some of the leading names within the scientific community.
So I can explain the UAP phenomena and the inertia of gravity and basically unify the cosmos using what I term the holographic geometric framework
that I call dilation theory.
And I invite you to get in touch with um so that we can boldly go with
none have gone before so before avi responds uh for me as a sort of lay person i do have a degree
in science but as a lay person on this topic you either uh said some really smart stuff or some
really crazy stuff it's like when i I watched the Terrence Howard interview with Joe
Rogan, but Avi will let you respond there. Well, I have nothing to say. I mean, if anyone wants
to know more about the latest DESI result, I'll be glad to say more about that. But as I said
before, most of the universe is filled with a substance called dark energy.
We don't know what it is.
It seems to be now evolving based on the latest data,
but we are not confident about that.
And I would, just in the context of what we discussed so far,
I would say that, you know, if scientists on exoplanets
figure out the nature of dark energy
and the nature of dark matter,
they might use it for their technological gadgets.
In principle, if you bottle dark energy,
you can get the negative mass.
And if we had access to a negative mass,
I mean, we are familiar only with positive masses, where gravity is an attractive force.
A negative mass would produce repulsive gravity.
And then if you put a negative mass next to a positive mass, the negative mass would push the positive mass away, while the positive mass would attract the negative mass with it. So you will get these
two masses accelerating each other up to the speed of light and moving together. And this could be a
means of propulsion that in principle we've never used because we don't know how to what the dark energy is we've never bottled it all i'm trying
to say is that there is you know there is more for us to learn yes pretty much so um that's the
whole encapsulation of it essentially is that we need to understand the temporal dimensions far
more than we currently do um dark energy um is essentially the expansion of the universe
associated with the energy densities within it.
So the more entropic the medium, as it were,
the slower the rates of time.
And the less entropic, the faster
the relative rates of time for that particular patch
of space time.
That gives us that blotchy mix know mix as it were out there okay but um if we if you
perceive this it's essentially the negative and that negative entropy essentially in that way
then we can now if we look at the expansion of the cosmos then within that dark energy realm
within that framework we can look at it as a temporal expansion essentially okay so this opens the door to potentially temporal teleportation where
you have a journey that's say 100 meters and you're doing one meter per second and you increase
your relative rate of time well you're going to greatly shorten your journey. And this is basically what is generally impossible
within the laws of physics,
that is obviously instillated by the phenomena,
actually redefines the laws of physics.
So my framework is basically built around
the reverse engineering of the phenomena's attributes,
which enlightened me to emergent entropic time,
and that re-evaluation of time itself, and the laws of conservation being applied to emergent time,
which gives us that higher temporal dimension, a fluid symmetry of time, essentially. And what we
experience within our lens are just abstract moments that one could call singletons or a now a frame of reference as it
were not leave it there but do get in touch i mean you can go date dive deep into it and um i present
all the uh the thing it's quite laid out like i say i'm followed now by some of the leading names
in physics and science from across the world so um i'm no nutbag or crank okay uh thank you
let's um see if there are more questions because we don't have much time i i need to leave sure
since roy's been trying to get a hold of you it sounds like for years uh kind of interesting but
maybe roy if you just want to dm him on twitter maybe he can uh he can look at whatever you have
to send but okay i would recommend it's
much better to reach me by email uh you can find my email email address online it's alobe
cfa.harvard.edu okay i've been trying that for 30 years um to apply the email route they usually
throw it in the bin because it's quite ontological what i'm presenting in this new lens of looking at things um you've been emailing
obviously 30 years well no i the oxford university and every other leading institution on earth
has my memo but uh will do but um lately the latest stuff that's coming out that you'll see
all in twitter um is all about this emergent entropic time, which is all based on my framework. So it's all going ahead very, very fast now.
All right.
Thanks, Roy.
We'll go to, let's see.
Let's go to Ur,
whose bio says human Ouija board,
just channeling.
Go ahead, Ur.
And everyone, we're running out of time.
I think he's only got a few minutes.
So let's keep these very brief, guys,
like under 20, 30 seconds.
I got you. No big deal. Hello, Avi. Good to see you again. Good to see everybody else here. Greetings.
Dr. Loeb, I've been encountering phenomena, primarily aerial and luminous, that demonstrably respond to direct thought, emotional resonance, and group coherence.
These events are preceded by psychic impressions and followed by physical manifestations,
maybe suggesting a biocognitive interface between human consciousness and whatever this stuff is.
My personal position has no framework for this,
and I believe the key data lies at individuals undergoing these kinds of experiences
My question is is anyone in your network studying this human techno consciousness interactions?
I think there's a frontier here that deserves a rigorous investigation
Yeah, I completely agree that he deserves study. No, I'm
surrounded my team my research team is
includes only physicists, engineers,
but those people are not qualified to address the topic that you suggested.
So we are not addressing it.
Okay.
Thanks, Ur.
Okay.
Let's see. We have Chief Dinger says, number one ranked baller comedian, EU physicist, leaving the world better than I found it. Go ahead. And we're really running out of time, so let's a whole new cosmology. I think gravity can be understood as a topological plasma inductance. Like Roy was saying, there are endless mathematical
ways to understand this. For instance, Larry Reed says in his Planck vacuum impedance analogy that the Planck lowest frequency of the highest amplitude
wave is responsible for energy flow throughout the universe, which means the Big Bang wasn't
actually a Big Bang. It's just like a heartbeat, and we can tune to that, and impedance match with
that. Just like at absolute zero, it's the opposite of that, where it just flows out.
For instance, when you take hydrogen and you spin it, or when you take liquid hydrogen and you spin it, you get an unmeasurable topological zero point, quote unquote.
But that's just the vacuum flowing out.
So we can understand it through mathematics or
through electricity in my opinion and like you said gravity once we understand that it does seem
like you can engineer everything in reality from stargates to cyborgs to whatever you want it just
depends on whatever you want which which, yeah, thank you.
Some Star Wars stuff right there.
Yeah, I don't have much to add.
I would just recommend have a look at my essay from this morning.
It maybe may connect to what you just talked about. And then, I'm sorry, I was going to mention implosion science as the key to gravity.
Okay, thank you. I'm sorry, I was going to mention implosion science as the key to gravity. Okay.
Any other questions before I need to leave very soon?
Yes.
Brian, Massachusetts.
I was a latchkey kid.
Interest UFOs, consciousness, meditation.
Go ahead.
Yes.
Can you hear me?
My question goes back a couple of years. Avi had sent out a tweet asking the people in the Boston area to send in their blink videos. They were looking for something. I'm just curious if there's any follow up to that.
where we were not clear about what triggered it.
We wanted more data from people,
but then we concluded that it could have been related to an airplane,
but the data that we received was not conclusive.
So that's where it ended.
Okay. Thank you. That's it. Thank you for everyone.
Okay. We're going to let...
Let's see. Tom, do you have That's it. Thank you for everyone. Okay, we're going to let...
Let's see.
Tom, do you have one more quick question?
Yes, super fast.
I can make negative mass, but I don't know how to bottle it yet.
And I think there's going to be a redefinition of invariant mass or rest mass is where the new physics is going to land.
Yes, it is, Tom. You're right.
It's about those topological dynamics, essentially.
Bobby, any opinion on that?
It's interesting. I should mention that I'm currently working on a scientific paper with several co-authors on the possibility of creating a negative mass.
and stay tuned.
Stay tuned. Hopefully, we'll get it out within a couple of months.
Hopefully we'll get it out within a couple of months.
Okay, everybody follow Avi.
This has been really, really great.
And it looks like you have a lot of fans, Avi,
from the amount of speakers that came up with specific questions about you.
We've had a lot of people in the background making comments
about the stuff you're saying.
We have 150 comments that we don't have time to read today, unfortunately.
I read some of them earlier.
Thank you for everyone who stayed on so long.
This was a long space, three and a half hours.
And I see people that have been in the audience the whole time, actually a ton of people,
probably at least 50 people that I've just seen there for the whole time.
So thank you so much, Avi.
Really appreciate it.
Everybody, we posted, we pinned a tweet to his TED Talk.
You can check that out.
Everybody give Avi, or as he is here on Twitter, Abraham Loeb,
give him a follow.
And yeah, thanks so much for this.
Thanks for having me.
It's a great pleasure.
And I'm committed to do the research.
We just need funding.
So if any of you know someone who can help.
You know what?
Have you heard of me, Si?
Perhaps I can.
Go ahead, Riz.
Have you heard of Salt Org?
The Salt Org have approached me to come in and join them.
But I've been quite hesitant because they're quite a big um hedge fund um
perhaps not the greatest of things um but um alex who's founder of the sort org got in contact and
wants me to be part of their team but i'd rather do this publicly so if you know if anyone might
is interested in in this research you know i'm here to do the work, to be in the trenches and do the work.
But we need funding, especially for the expedition that I mentioned.
So just get in touch with me.
My contact information is available, email address, and we can arrange a time to speak.
Thank you so much.
And then quick question, Avi.
Have you heard of De-Sci, decentralized science? It's a crypto movement basically focused on crowdsourcing
and funding scientific research, peer review type stuff, all kinds of, there's all kinds of
companies that are building in this DeSci field. Have you heard of this? No, it's very interesting.
I mean, I spoke together with Eric Weinstein we we were on stage
in Bitcoin I think it was 2022 or 23 um so yeah if if there is a community that is interested in
this research I'll be glad to hear from them we'll bring you next time we do the Desai topic we do it
maybe every few months uh we'll bring you back on and it would dsci topic we do it maybe every few months uh we'll bring
you back on and it would be great to have you on and talk to these people that's a lot of these
people's goals is advancing scientific research and using crypto you know crypto and crypto tokens
and this these decentralized applications to fund this stuff so yeah i should say that our first expedition to the pacific ocean was funded by
uh charles hoskinson who obviously is a crypto guy um he provided the one and a half million
dollars to cover the the first expedition so wow there is any other any other partner that might
be interested then i'll be glad we we do have some connections to basically a start-up pitch event for BitAngels.
I'm just thinking out loud here, Rock.
Like having Avi do a pitch at one of those events,
obviously not for investment in this case in the traditional sense,
but maybe some of the investors who attend might want to contribute to the fund.
What do you think about that?
That could be interesting.
Yeah, we'll give you some information about that after the show, Avi.
That could be interesting.
There'll be a lot of investors and angels and people who fund a lot of stuff
actually at that event.
That would be wonderful. We will do the work if they fund it.
And we'll,
we'll also have Marshall give you a couple of contacts from some of these
DSI projects that might, we'll try to figure out what we want to,
don't want to waste your time,
so we'll figure out which ones actually
might make sense for you.
And we'll talk to them first
and then we'll give them your contact.
Awesome. Thank you so much, Avi.
Thanks for having me. Bye-bye.
Thank you, Eddie.
All right, guys, that was a blast.
Reid, anyone else have anything last to say
before we hop off here?
No, great conversation.
Uh, very interesting to talk about how to marry the scientific understanding with the
challenge of human response and the assessing of the possible intent of UAP.
So enjoyed it.
Thank you all for hosting.
Cheers.
Thank you so much.
Bye-bye.
Yeah. enjoyed it. Thank you all for hosting. Cheers, guys. Thank you so much. Bye-bye.
See you.
One thing that I think is worth saying before we go as well is
Avi Loeb's published quite a few
different books, and if you want to
support his work, probably another way to
do that is to buy some of his
work and read it for yourself.
Really good read, some of them.
I'd recommend them, so worth checking out.
You can probably get them on Amazon or wherever, you know, Audible.
Awesome.
Tom, you have your hand up?
Last words?
Yeah, I just think it's important, and maybe if you have Avi back,
for the intersection of the science and the financial community,
you really need to go over Title 10, Title 42, Title 50.
You need to go over all the secrecy laws.
They mentioned Secrecy Act.
In particular, my focus is on LENR and the ARPA-E review on LENR because I think all
these angles need to rework together.
If you really want to get the tech unlocked and make money out of the tech, you're going
to bump into some of those aspects.
So I think it's an important discussion to have and to educate all sides of the equation
on what you're up against to kind of unleash the economic value
you're going to have to bump into some of those restrictions so it's good to understand them i
think all right good stuff all right guys we're going to call it here thanks everyone so much
for staying on so long all the audience members members, I see a lot of you out there
who've been on the whole time.
Leroy J, Digital Fellow, John Sharp, 12.
Let's see, who else have I seen on a lot?
King Dank, LDA Tessera. you
we lost our cause just messaged the group like hey what happened okay yeah i'm gonna wrap it up here bye-bye thank you
