NASA Physicist Comes Clean on UFOs & Why We Can't Go Back to The Moon | Kevin Knuth

What did you get involved with NASA?

How did I get involved with NASA? It's a magnetoencephalography. And I was interested in how to separate brain signals. When you record EEG by putting electrodes on the surface of the head or do a magnetoencephalography, each detector picks up a mixture of signals. So what you really want to know

is what signals are coming from what upright mixed signals. And these were AI algorithms. This is in the late 90s before physics. And I got two of my friends who were married, an astrophysicist and an astronomer. And so I started collaborating with our astronomer friend there. He was working at the Naval Research Lab at the observatory, Naval Research Observatory. And he was trying to develop a four-way transform spectrometer to look for wobbling stars, basically be able to detect Doppler shifts of stars that are wobbling so he could detect planets around

other stars. This was before this was popular again. And he was having trouble. He'd developed his own instrument, and he was having trouble with the data analysis. And he explained what he was doing, and I had already done a lot of work with machine learning and mixed signals. And so we were just having dinner.

And I said, oh, no, no, you don't want to analyze it that way. That isn't going to work. Do it this way. And explained how to do it. And he excitedly ran up to his computer up in his room

after dinner and came down a half hour later. And he goes, I coded it, and it works. Oh my God. And so we ended up writing a paper together and so started doing research together. And I went with him to keep Kitt Peak National Observatory to get images of planetary nebulae

and studying things like this. And then by this time I heard of a job opening at NASA Ames in their intelligent systems division. And I knew some of the people who worked in that area at NASA Ames. And so we did similar work. And so I applied for that job and that's how I got into NASA.

And how long were you there for?

For four years.

Four years.

And whatever, so explain how the wobbling stars were able to help detect planets.

Yeah, so as a planet orbits the star, the planet pulls on the star gravitationally. So the planet pulls the star when it's on this side, pulls it this way, and as it comes over here, the star wobbles to be toward the planet. So the planet doesn't exactly orbit the star.

They both orbit their center of mass. And so, the center of mass isn't quite at the center of the star because there's mass out here where the planet is. And so, the star wobbles a little bit.

Darrell Bock Oh, interesting.

Peter Jolley And so, we still use that, the Doppler shift technique to discover planets.

Darrell Bock Once you got to NASA, what specifically were you doing, what specifically were you studying there or working on?

Dr. Peter Marks Yeah, there I was working on studying planetary nebulae, which is what I had been doing with my astronomer friend, Arsen Hadjian. And we were trying to develop 3D models of what these nebulae look like. So these, when they die, they go into a supernova, they collapse and explode. Smaller ones, like our sun, will collapse and then just basically it'll be blown into a red giant phase, and then when it runs out of fuel, it'll start collapsing and it'll

just kind of puff.

Wow.

It was a cool project. Yeah, it was a lot of fun. We would get Hubble images taken over five-year periods and you could actually see the nebulae getting bigger, which was pretty neat.

How far away was that star?

Well, there were multiple stars, so they're many light years away, hundreds to thousands light years away.

When you're at NASA and you're working with all kinds of folks, I'm sure, with, I'm sure there's multiple layers of discipline of people, whether scientists or researchers that are there. Is there any like overt interest in this UFO topic?

Not when I was there. When I was there, not at all. Um, you know, there wasn't any interest in it. Um, it was if you brought it up at all and I, I wasn't even really into something about it and you know, everybody would scoff. No, that's just ridiculous. That's

nonsense. We're, we're NASA. We do real things. Really? How much did you guys, how much, um, attention did you guys pay to the, did you guys do anything with the moon or any studies of the moon or anything?

No, we didn't do any work with the moon missions, those, because those had happened in the 1960s.

Right, but I'm wondering if there was any like, any newer research that you guys were focusing on?

Newer. There were, I was there when we, when we started, when George W. Bush started the plans for going back to the moon, and so they started talking about missions like that, and we did get a, we did write a proposal to develop a system. We decided to propose to develop a digital map for explorers on the moon. So, because you get lost, you're screwed, you know, when you run out of air.

So, you're in big trouble. So, we were working on, we wanted to design a digital map that you could use on the moon that would be like a...

And you proposed this?

Yeah, we proposed it. We didn't get that grant, so we didn't do that. How much would that have costed? And what would go into doing something like that? Well, I don't know how much it would have made to make the map, but it would have been one of the kind of digital paper maps, kind of like the Kindles were made of at the time.

Did you guys have any ideas of how it would be done? Like did you have, I'm sure you guys- geological surveys of the moon to use that to feed the map. And then- Would you send new little, like new satellites out there or anything like-

We didn't have plans for that. We plan to use data from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

Oh, okay.

From all the other orbiters that have already been sent there. You can use those orbiters and then you could use the 3D topography to create a 3D map that the astronauts would see. So, they would have a map, like an overhead view along with a map of what you should be seeing if you're looking straight this way. And as you moved your position, you would change where you were looking. So,

you could actually map up to match terrain that you see visually with what was on the map. Right.

It's still a nice idea for a map. Oh, it's an incredible idea for a map. I would love to see something like that. It's just, I feel like with all of this talk about colonizing Mars and UFOs and interdimensional aliens, there's no one gives a shit about the moon anymore. I feel like the moon's, the moon could use some love.

I can't wait till we go back to the moon. I was four years old when the first moon landing happened. So I remember it. I remember it. I remember, and I remember it because it was so exciting. And I think, you know, we were at my grandmother's house because she had a TV. A little box that we could watch it on. Yeah.

And, you know, and I remember everybody telling me, Kevin, this is the most important thing that's ever happened. I remember being told that over and over. So I was amazed, but the thing that's ever happened. I remember being told that over and over, so I was amazed. But the thing that I, and it chokes me up when I think about it, because it really is pretty amazing. Petey Wimbley Really.

Petey Wimbley When we were leaving to go back to my parents' house, my dad was carrying me and we were walking down the steps of my grandma's house, and he stopped at the bottom of the steps and we looked up at the moon and he pointed up at the moon and he said, Kevin, there are people up there. And I remember thinking, wow, that's amazing. Now when I think about it, I think that is amazing. That hasn't happened since. I mean, people younger than me haven't never looked at the moon and thought there are people up there.

Pete Stephens Right.

Jared Baldwin That's an amazing thing to think.

Pete Stephens Yeah, 300 and something thousand miles away from here. It's such a, it's such a crazy feat. Yeah. Sometimes I look up at the moon at night and I'd just be like, how, like, wow. Like there's so, there's so many questions about the moon and it's such an interesting, just the, the, you know, the fact that we did that in the seventies and, and we haven't done it since. And it would just be so interesting to see if we could get people back on there and what we could possibly do.

And what kind of, I'm sure if we were to colonize other planets, we would probably want to use the moon as like a midway point or like a launch point.

Yeah, you could certainly use it for a midway point or for construction or of space vehicles, all sorts of possibilities. And for research, of course, too.

Right, right, exactly. So when, at what point did you start to become so interested in this UFO topic? Because it doesn't seem like a lot of academic, proper academic folks are interested in these

things or like to talk about them. Not many. It's still a big handful at this point. You know, maybe 10 proper academics. Yeah, it's not that many on that order. Yeah.

So what, and I know there, I mean, there's a variety of reasons that that doesn't happen. But what got you into it and what made you wanna, you know, be so public about it?

What got me into it was when I, it was an event that happened when I started graduate school. So, I went to, I got my undergraduate degree in Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh, the party school, not the big school. And so, I got my degree there, my bachelor's degree there, and I went to Montana State

for my master's degree in Bozeman, Montana. And it was the first or second week of school there. So I just moved out to Montana. It's my first time living alone and away from home. And there was a cattle mutilation on a ranch near Bozeman where two cows were killed and surgically manipulated.

And it was very bizarre. And it was all over the news. There were UFO reports that night, many UFO reports to the sheriff's office, and so this was all over the TV news and it was aliens or Satanists were what they were both worried

about, right?

Pete Slauson We're both.

Jared Polk We're alien Satanists.

Pete Slauson Satanic aliens.

Jared Polk I don't think anyone thought to put those two together at the time. But yeah, so it was either aliens or Satanists, and so the next day at the university, we were, my office was on the second floor, so we were out in the hallway talking about this. I think the new graduate students were, you know, because you're looking down the barrel of spending four to five years at this school, right?

You have your life at this school, right?

You have your life at the school. And we have all just moved here from other states or other countries even. So, we're all trying to get our heads around what's actually happening here. So, there was a heated discussion in the hallway about what was going on. And we clearly bothered one of the professors down the hall, because he came out of his office to find out what all the commotion was about.

And we told him and he goes, oh, yeah, I think he tried to comfort us, but it was not comforting. He said, oh, yeah, this happens from time to time and they'll investigate it and they'll worry about aliens and Satanists and they won't figure anything out and then we'll just all forget about it until it happens again." And we were like, okay, this is really just messed up. And then he goes, but you know what's really weird?

He said, I have friends who are in the Air Force, who work up at the Air Force Base in Malmstrom Air Force Base up in northern Montana, and they have problems up there with UFOs flying over the nuclear weapon sites, over the ICBMs, and they have problems up there with UFOs flying over the nuclear weapons sites, over the ICBMs, and shutting down the missiles. And we listened politely when he walked away. Frankly, we left our asses off, because that was the silliest thing I'd ever heard.

UFOs shutting down nuclear missiles, you know. And we talked about that a little bit and thought, well, that can't possibly be real, because the Air Force would be all over this. I mean, this would be the biggest national security problem in existence that you could possibly imagine. So we just thought it was nonsense. And it kind of was a running joke that year whenever somebody said, you know, something

weird happened to me, but somebody would go, yeah, but what's really weird is there's UFOs shutting down missiles in Northern Montana. We would all laugh. So that just stuck with me. That was 1988, September of 88.

So Hexclad sponsored the podcast and sent me a brand new frying pan. And it was so incredible, I went ahead and bought the rest of the set. And I brought one here to show you because this actually solves a huge issue we've been dealing with in the kitchen. It's a thick stainless steel pan that they cut grooves into

and fill it with non-stick. And that's what creates the hex pattern that's in there. But most importantly, it keeps you from scraping the non-stick off the pan. That's the key. You can still use a metal spatula if you wanted to, and the non nonstick would be protected. Steve tells his wife she belongs in the kitchen, but my wife is not like that. I'm the one who cooks in our house. I was cooking some eggs

on this new frying pan the other day. And once I got done, scrubbed it, and found out how easy it was to clean, I instantly went online and ordered the rest of the set. And my wife never likes any of the stuff that I buy for the kitchen. And with this, she was ecstatic. So if you're like me and you wanna make kitchen life easier,

it's time to check out Hexclad. They have a lifetime warranty, they're used by Gordon Ramsay's restaurants, and my favorite, it's toxin-free. We're not in the dark ages anymore. If you wanna buy something nonstick,

you shouldn't have to deal with getting poisoned by it. and free is a huge plus. For a limited time only, our listeners are getting 10% off with our exclusive link. Just head on over to hexclad.com slash Danny. Support the show and check them out at H-E-X-C-L-A-D.com slash D-A-N-N-Y. Make sure you let them know we sent you. And let's all eat

with Hexclad's revolutionary cookware. Fast forward, what, 30 years, and we're around 2015. I'm teaching a course in astronomy at the University of Albany in New York, and I was preparing for a lecture in astrobiology, life on other planets, and I don't have much to talk about. We don't know much about the possibilities

of life elsewhere, and so some of my students wanted me to talk about the possibility of aliens coming to Earth or UFOs and things like this. And I was like, I don't even know, this is a real physics class, I don't know what I could possibly talk about. So I was just poking around on the Internet, and I stumbled on the press conference that

Robert Hastings held in 2010 at the National Press Club later. He had six people who had been on Air Force bases all talking about UFOs shutting down nuclear missiles. The first speaker was Robert Salas from Malmstrom Air Force Base, the same Air Force base. And I saw that and I thought, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, I heard about this when I was in grad school 30 years ago. And I listened to what he said and I thought, my God, and that happened, his story happened in 1966. I thought, I heard about it in 1988 as something that was happening,

that they had a current problem. And I thought, this can't be made up, because this is just so ridiculous, nobody would make it up for 20 years. You know, different people wouldn't just continue a silly story like this for 20 years, unless there was something to it. And I thought, and then it kind of struck me, I thought, this must be real, and nobody's doing anything about it, because they all think it's nonsense. And then I thought, and if that's the case, then we've got a real problem on our hands, right?

Pete Right.

Jared Right. case, then we've got a real problem on our hands, right? And so, I became, I thought, we have to pay attention to this. So, I started paying attention. I started researching the topic myself, and the more I started reading, I thought, wow, this is actually really interesting. There's a lot here. It's not all nonsense.

And I remembered back to some cases that I'd heard about. I remember seeing on the NBC nightly news with Tom Brokaw and Connie Chung in 1986, the Japanese airline case where a large UFO, the size of an aircraft carrier, basically, what, four 747s across, followed this airlines for 45 minutes.

And I remember seeing that on the news. And so the more I read about this, I thought, this could actually be a really big deal. And we all just laugh it off like a joke, but what if it isn't a joke? And what if this is serious? So, I kind of detest the waters. I put together a short talk on UFOs that I gave to our department, just a Friday afternoon talk. And then it got widely advertised, and the whole room was filled. The room was filled

beyond capacity. There were people sitting cross-legged on the floor all the way up to the front screen, and I gave this talk on UFOs saying look, these things look interesting. And there were a lot of people were like, yeah, that is really interesting. So I got a lot of support for that from the department. And then it was only – Darrell Bock What year was this?

Petey Whittemore That was like 2015. And then it was only two years later that Leslie Kane and what, Helene Cooper, Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kane wrote the New York Times article about the ATIP program. And when that came out, I was like, yeah, see, this is actually a problem. And no one's paying attention, and this is dangerous. We're dangerously ignorant about what's going on. And I thought, instead of thinking, somebody's got to solve this, and somebody's got to look at it, I thought, instead of thinking, somebody's got to solve this,

and somebody's got to look at it, I thought, well, heck, why don't I do it? You know, why don't I try?

I keep going back and forth on what this, on my theory of this whole thing, but like the Tic Tac thing, a lot of them feel like it's just like, you know, military technology or like super dark DARPA stuff or whatever. But then you have stories like that, the 60s Japanese airline flight or...

In 1986.

86, is that when it was? And I think it was a cargo plane flying through Alaska. And they said that these, first of all, he said there was these two little lights that like came up and were darting around in front of them.

Like moving in a speed of light. Yeah, they were little rectangular lights and they were like, yeah, like this, but shining the light beam into the cockpit. Yeah, hot. Yeah.

And scaring the pilots.

And the pilot just said that he reached into his briefcase to pull a camera out to take a photo of them and they just vanished. And then a couple minutes later, this mother ship shows up.

That's like the size of a football stadium or something. It was, yeah, the shape of a walnut. It's about a thousand feet diameter.

He drew an amazing, he drew an amazing illustration, Steve, of how big it was. He drew a picture of the plane that he was flying compared to the size of the craft.

Right.

Which you could probably find it on this Wikipedia article, or if you type in the guy's name, the pilot's name, in the Japanese Airlines cargo flight, he...

Yeah, Kenji Tarauchi.

It is insanely big. Okay, it's the, yeah, there's a little sketch on the top, I think.

Right, those two, those are the two rectangular things.

And then, yeah, he's another sketch. It looks like a napkin sketch. You'll know when you see it But yeah that that that's something especially in the 80s like something that big is like, I don't know

I don't know The amazing thing about this is that the radar data exists And you can analyze the radar from that From that incident. From that incident. They have 45 minutes of radar data. And a lot of it was confiscated by President Reagan's scientific team and the CIA and the FBI.

Really? They all came up to confiscate it. But I'm blanking on his name.

Yeah, that's it, Steve.

The big walnut-shaped thing. It's a little bit low quality, but you can probably- I got an image of the guy too.

Oh, beautiful. Pull up the, can you blow it up so we can show it to people? Look at that. So you see-

Yeah, so Callahan-

Look at that.

That is insane. That thing is like, that's like a hundred times the size of the airplane.

Exactly. You can fit a hundred of those airplanes inside that thing.

And so, you know, and so when people, you know, are skeptical of this, I'm like, how wrong can this guy have been? Okay, so maybe he's off by the size by 20%. For that to become a reasonable story, he would have to be off by so much.

Right, right. And he describes it as it moved in front of the plane, you couldn't see out of the cockpit. The craft was there. I mean, it's terrifying. And he was terrified in talking to the air traffic control.

And I would be too. I mean, that's terrifying.

How did the story get out, I wonder?

And... Do you imagine they would want to keep the secret? Yeah, I don't remember exactly how it got out. It got out pretty quickly. Oh, really? They weren't able to put the lid on it, yeah. And then Callahan had to turn all the materials over to Reagan's scientific team, but he had kept copies for himself, stashed in a box under his desk.

And he kept it under his desk for like 20 years. Darrell Bock Who did? Peter Jones While he worked on John Callahan, who was the FAA Chief of Accidents and Investigations.

Darrell Bock Oh, okay, yes, yes.

Peter Jones And he kept that material for like 20 years and then released it publicly. So Daniel Kumbay, another physicist, he was a physicist at the Niels Bohr Institute. He has a book called Anomaly, where he actually analyzed that. In my paper, I analyzed the basic description of what was going on, just to get an idea of how fast this thing was moving. But Daniel Kumbay actually worked through the radar data. And this thing made multiple jumps from location to location

in one 11 or so second sweep of the radar. And he estimates the acceleration to be on the order of 10,000 Gs.

10,000 Gs?

With a top speed, so you get a top speed of about 250,000 miles an hour.

250,000?

That thing could get to the moon, at that speed, that thing could get to the moon in 52 minutes.

How fast does our fastest jet plane go?

Our fastest fighter jet?

Our fastest fighter jet, fastest.

Or fastest, I don't exactly know, I'm like.

What is like, what's like the fastest block?

Probably not much, probably 6,000 miles an hour. 6,000. Probably faster. Okay. 6,000 miles an hour, probably faster. You're not going to get much faster than 10,000. 17,000 is orbital speed.

F22 Raptor goes to, okay, 1400 miles per hour. Wow.

So they can't accelerate more than-

200 times the speed of that.

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah.

That's insane. And these things also have to like slow down. They have to stop. They stop on a dime. That's insane. And these things also have to like slow down. They have to stop. They stop on a dime. That's yeah

Accelerations are easier insane. Yeah, and that energy has to go somewhere. Mm-hmm So where does that energy that kinetic energy first? Where does the energy come from? That's coming from their engines Okay, fine. You can just say that and maybe get away with it. But when it stops, where does the energy go? That's a bigger question. You know, in a car you have brakes, the brakes heat up, right? But with this sort of thing, where does the energy go? You've got a ton of kinetic energy to get rid of in fractions of a second. There's no way to do it. There should be a huge explosion when it happens, and it doesn't.

Pete Step't. Right. Yeah, we really don't understand what these things do at all. And it's not that it's advanced technology. It is conceptually far beyond us. They're amazing, really.

Do you think it's possible that any of this stuff could be some, like, military stuff that we don't know about?

No.

No?

No. Absolutely not.

Really?

For one good reason. about? Pete Slauson No. Pete Slauson No. No. No. Absolutely not. Pete Slauson Really? Kirk Smith For one good reason, and the reason is sitting on your shelf right over there, Richard Dolan's book on USOs. Richard Dolan has a new book on unidentified submerged objects.

Pete Slauson Right.

Yeah, we just had him in here a couple of times. Kirk Smith These things have been, yeah, these things 150 years. You have reports from the 1800s of a disc coming out of the water, hovering next to the ship, and then shooting off into the clouds. It's been going on for 150 years.

Pete Right. Yeah, but

Jared You can't, and once you know that those cases exist, you can't just say it's gotta be Russian or Chinese. That doesn't hold water anymore. It's silly. Pete Yeah, but don't you think it's possible that we could have got our hands on some of that stuff and like recreated it ourselves? So, some of the modern day things could be modern secret military technology, that's true. But the cases from the 1800s certainly can't be.

That you can't explain away with technology, right.

So you can't, you don't get rid of the extraterrestrial or non-human hypothesis by just looking at the military technology argument today. The 150-year-old cases, you've got to give that up.

Darrell Bock The 150-year-old cases are interesting, though, because you have like writings that have been copied from like, you know, some guy on the deck of a ship in the middle of the ocean, probably, you know, half smashed on a bottle of rum, explaining these things. It was like a sun that emerged from the depths and it was the size of the whatever. It was, you know...

Darrell Bock The size of three moons.

Paul Morgan The size of three moons, right. So it's like, it's very difficult to understand and parse and corroborate that stuff.

Cause you're looking at-

But those descriptions aren't any different than modern day descriptions. And that's what's really compelling about it.

Yeah, that's true. Especially shit like this. I mean, this is like.

Yeah, that case is really pretty fantastic. And 10,000 Gs is amazing. At 10,000 Gs, you, at 1,000 G acceleration, you can get up to 90% the speed of light in about 17 hours. Because relativity kicks in. So at a 1,000 G acceleration,

which we can't imagine doing either, most of, you know, an airplane, F-22s, wings will rip off at about 13 g's. And most missiles can't, their frame can't even withstand more than about 60 g's. So 1,000 g's is well beyond us. But at 1,000 g's, you can get up to, in 17 hours, you're going 90 percent the speed of

light. That's relativistic speed, so relativity kicks in, time goes slower, and all that kind of stuff happens. And so, going to stars within 50 light years literally becomes a day trip for the traveler.

Pete T. Leeson Wow.

50 light years. Kirk J. Barnett Time's going slower on their ship because they're going so fast, right? Pete T. Leeson Because of time dilation. 50 light years. 10 000 years. 10 000 years.

10

000 years. 10 000 years. 10 000 years. 10

000 years.

10 000 years.

10

000 years. 10 000 years. 10 000 years. 10

000 years.

10

000 years. 10 000 years. 10 suggests that maybe that's possible. Maybe you can pull that off.

So I'm sure you're aware of some of the stuff that Ed Witten or Lewis Witten was looking into in the Townsend Brown stuff.

Oh, Townsend, yeah, I know a little bit about Townsend Brown.

There was, allegedly, there was like a whole lot of quote unquote anti-gravity research going on in like the fifties. And a lot of it seemed to go dark after that, where these guys just like stopped looking into it. And there's a speculation that there's maybe like private companies that got ahold of it.

And then I think even Townsend Brown tried to like throw people off his scent at one point when he was like studying this stuff and tried to like change a bunch of it to make it confusing. So no one would understand it. But Jesse Michaels did an amazing documentary on the whole Townsend Brown thing.

And it basically explains that like, there were a lot of people, physicists in the fifties looking into this anti-gravity stuff. And there's another term for it. There was something they utilized with like the B2 bomber with like the skin of it

that somehow made it cut through the air better. There was a, was it the Biefield-Brown effect? There was some sort of technology. I forget the term right now, but it had something to do with it. It wasn't actually anti-gravity, but it was like another more primitive form. So, first of all, are you aware of that stuff? And what is your take on it?

I'm aware of some of it, yeah. I haven't spent a lot of time looking into anti-gravity research. It's not something I've been interested in, and it seems to be something that people don't want to study for some reason. There are, you know, there are always rumors about people who are trying to study it who get harassed and worse, so I've heard rumors like this that make me – Pete Really?

Kirk I'll stick with UFOs, and that's still not entirely safe, so. But that's still not entirely safe. So, but that's maybe.

Who did you know people have been harassed looking into anti-gravity stuff?

Yeah, yeah. Really? I know of people, yeah.

Like academic people?

People in, I know some people in private companies who've done that, yeah.

Really? So people that you've worked with and studied with and.

To some degree. Yeah. Yeah. No, personally in one, certainly I know personally, while in one case, yeah.

Really, man. I wonder what would get somebody interested in trying to figure out anti-gravity, especially like a, a serious physicist, you know, not just someone who's, uh, who's just like a hobbyist UFO freak. You know, somebody who's like really into physics.

What would you say? And it's a hard topic because there's always a lot of claims. I'll get an email every two weeks. I mean, every week I'm getting emails about UFOs or something,

but I'll get an email maybe every two weeks about somebody's anti-gravity work. And they've got this great solution for anti-gravity. But, and it's always this mishmash of buzzwords, right? And almost the same buzzwords. So you can't really, it's hard to take seriously,

especially when, if you're going to figure that out, especially if somebody is doing something like electro-gravitics, you would have to have the beginnings at least of a theory of the unification of electromagnetism and gravity. So, you should have some of that worked out to some degree. And that, you know, when I don't see that, that's

pretty much a clue, okay, this person really probably doesn't know what they're doing. But yeah, I mean, like, like, like standard commercial airplanes, we're using the same commercial airplanes that we've been using since the 50s. It's amazing that we haven't been able to expound upon that and, and, and develop. It's like this technology is stagnated. I mean, physics, you know, I, you know, there's a huge thing within, you know, within physics and string theory and all these things, no one can figure out physics. We're stuck, we're stuck. We have this large hydron collider

and we haven't been able to figure anything out. And technology in general doesn't seem to be evolving in the way other technologies are evolving. Like AI, for example, like it's making giant leaps every single week and month and then and Then on the physical side of it. It's like nothing

Yeah, that's been a concern I've seen it's certainly YouTube videos about other businesses talking about this And And I suspect a lot of it has to do with the fact that we went through, I mean, if you look at the last century, you had two giant breakthroughs about the same time. You had relativity in 1905 with general relativity following, what, seven years later or something, five years later.

And so you've got that whole conceptual change. And at the same time, probably around 1925, you've got quantum mechanics coming in. So you've got these two huge paradigm shifts in physics that appeared. And quantum mechanics was such a big deal that it allowed you to calculate things that — and allowed you to figure out things that nobody's been able to figure out before. I mean, you could figure out why this coffee cup is orange.

I mean, nobody was able to tell you why these molecules are reflecting orange light. But you can do that with quantum mechanics, right? So physics went through this mindset change where to make a breakthrough, to make an advancement, all you had to do was to apply the mathematics of quantum mechanics to a problem. You didn't have to understand quantum mechanics,

you just had to apply it to a problem and do the calculations to figure out what the results were. So, it became this, and Richard Feynman called this the shut up and calculate paradigm, right? Gary You know, so, stop worrying about what quantum mechanics is, just shut up and calculate, do the calculations and, you know, figure something out. And that's basically what happened with physics. And so, a lot of research in physics stopped, especially theoretical work, stopped trying

to find a new paradigm, look for inconsistencies and find a new paradigm to come up with a new breakthrough, like on the order of quantum mechanics, and, you know, basically assumed that won't happen and just basically resorted to doing calculations. Let's just do — let's throw all the math we can at the problem and see what comes out. And that's what string theory is. Let's just throw math at the problem. Let's not understand quantum mechanics better. Let's just — instead of other particles, let's make them strings and then do math. So I think that's been the mistake, is that we stopped valuing the conceptual aspects of physics. Why are the laws of physics the way that they are?

And so some of the theoretical work that I've done is trying to go back to these conceptual ideas. Why are the laws of quantum mechanics?

Darrell Bock And why do you think that's happened? Why do you think that – how did we get there?

How did we get here? Peter Jordan I think it was just the shut up and calculate philosophy. You could do a lot by calculating. I mean, you could figure out superconductivity by just applying quantum mechanics and come up with superconductivity, which is a breakthrough. So it's a big deal.

You can get a Nobel Prize by applying quantum mechanics without trying to understand it or trying to go further.

Trevor Burrus Interesting.

Peter Robinson Yeah. So I think that we stopped appreciating that real breakthroughs come from conceptual changes rather than just applying math. You can't just throw math at a problem and expect to make a conceptual change.

And the people that you know that were working on this, trying to understand anti-gravity, what do you know, like, what sort of sparked the flame for them to research this stuff? And if so, how far they were able to get before they got

Told to shut up shut it down. Yeah, I don't I don't know that. Yeah, I don't know the details actually. Yeah It's just so interesting this whole thing. I know I know a gentleman who Jeremy Riss who has a He's a kind of a self-taught. I think he's like a bachelor's in physics, but he has a, he's a lab, or he has had a few labs in Massachusetts that he's been working at. And he has a whole team of people that have been working on this stuff forever.

And, you know, he's constantly talking to people in the field and trying to understand stuff. And then recently he had like, I think the FBI came and like shut down his whole site, his whole, his whole lab. They're trying to study this stuff because they're constantly like taking and making videos of their experiments they're doing and posting them on YouTube and doing live streams and stuff like that. He's doing anti-grab work. Yeah, he's trying to. Yeah,

he's trying. He's I mean, he understands this stuff better than I don't know if he understands it better than anyone, but he's explained it to me better than anyone I've ever talked to. And he's a historian on all of the people who have studied it in the past and very, very interesting guy to talk to. That is interesting. Yeah. Okay. So when it comes to like military stuff, right. And you seem to believe that this stuff could not possibly be, could just because of the fact that it's so it's been going on for so long. And the same things are happening now, it doesn't make sense. But we would have to have

something close to it, right? Like, if we have with the amount of money that we're putting into military stuff and defense department stuff, and there's essentially trillions of dollars missing from the DOD's receipts, we should have something close to this that you would want to keep secret from the rest of the world. So it seems like there's probably a lot of different scenarios here

that are happening at the same time.

It's probably, yeah, I would imagine it's possible. It's possible we have something close like this. If, you know, we do hear rumors of crash retrievals and I've heard these from, I mean, we've heard some of these publicly, right? But I've heard private ones

as well. And yeah, it's possible we did figure things out from crash retrievals if that was what's going on. Yeah, that's possible. Or even just basic research on their own. I mean,

it is possible that things were figured out, but it's hard to speculate about that. If you were, you know, yeah, I mean, a lot of this stuff is speculation, but if you were to try to come up with a theory on how these things maneuver and how they operate, just guess, wild speculation, what would you go to?

And that's a tough one. I think about that a lot. And first, an acceleration of 10,000 Gs, nothing's going to survive that inside. So it has to be – it can't be regular Newtonian motion like we imagine it. They're not moving the way we think they're moving. It's not possible at those accelerations. So something else is happening.

So are they – so the first go-to is using general relativity, so it's creating something like a gravitational field and things falling in a gravitational field. Sure. So, that's like warp drive concept.

So, this is like the thing Bob Lazar explains, where the reactor inside kind of like, it's making this pocket of space around it. Right. Where basically if it's moving this way, it's doing the same, it's making this pocket of space around it. Right. Where basically if it's moving this way, it's doing the same, it's like bending the space around.

You're moving the space around it and you're just moving the space around and not the object.

Essentially like doing that, but that way.

But that way, yeah, exactly. So that's one solution that's the most obvious one. Another idea would be that it's using something like, That's the most obvious one. Another idea would be that it's using something like, you know, in quantum tunneling, when you go from point A to point B without traveling in between, you know, maybe this thing is using some kind of macroscopic quantum tunneling where it's just pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, basically

teleporting in some way. That's another possibility. Could there be other things happening? Possibly, yeah. It's really, it's hard to speculate without hard data.

What other cases have you looked at that you're really interested in?

Other UFO cases or?

Like other than like the, I mean, we talked about the Japan one, but like are there any other?

Yeah, well, there's a good number of them and they're interesting for other reasons. So we just finished, we just published a paper on the scientific study of UAPs. It's in the progress of aerospace science.

Oh yes, this is the new paper that-

It's a new paper that just came out. It's got what, 34 authors, lots of good people on it.

How long have you been working on this?

For about the last year.

Okay.

And it's, what, I think 58 pages in the journal and 500 references. So it basically is a summary of the scientific study of UAP to date, right? And one of the, so one thing we tried to do in this paper is to stay, we tried to dispel a lot of the myths that are kind of floating around, especially

in academia on UAP. So, it's an American problem. It's an American phenomenon. It doesn't happen anywhere else. Well, that's not true. And then you get the question why.

Pete This is a myth that's floating around in

academia. Jared Oh, a lot of people say all sorts of ridiculous things about UAP because they really don't know. They haven't really looked at it. Why are there no UFOs seen in Africa? Well, there are UFOs seen in Africa. In fact, there's books written about UFOs in Africa, right? Pete Wow, yeah. Jared And –

Pete Yeah, Zimbabwe, right? Dr. Keith Wailoo And then there's the landing in Zimbabwe at the aerial school, that's well known, right? And then you've got, why is there no physical evidence? There's plenty of physical evidence. These things land and break tree branches and leave marks in the ground and leave radiation traces and leave chemical traces. And we have chemical traces and some of these are being studied. And in fact, in the same issue that our paper on the new science of UAPs is being published,

Jacques Villers is publishing a paper on the reexamination of tree bark that was scorched by a very luminous UFO that landed, putting out hundreds of megawatts of light, basically burnt the trees in the forest clearing. And they restudied the tree bark. They actually went and resampled the tree bark recently.

When does this happen?

This happened in, was it 1965, I think.

And they still have the tree bark.

Yeah, well, the trees are still growing. The bark's still there.

Wow.

The burnt bark is still there.

The burnt bark's still there, yeah. It's just under layers, right? So you can still get that. And so, they looked at that and were using that to estimate the amount of light that these things put out. So, these things put out hundreds of megawatts of light in some cases.

And that observation was from a physicist. A physicist was driving down the road in northern, it was near Hainesville, Louisiana, which was actually Arkansas. They were actually north of it, north enough to be in Arkansas, the landing happened. And the physicist saw this bright light coming from the forest and was driving with his family on the highway and saw this. And as he was getting closer, realized that the light was brighter than the light from his headlights. And he did a quick calculation in his head, knowing how bright his headlights were, to

figure out that this thing is crazy bright, and I don't want to be anywhere near it. Right? So, he literally stopped on the highway, did a U-turn, and got out of there. And reported it, right? So, reported it, and then investigators came out and found the landing site, and found the damage done. Where was this again?

North of Hainesville, Louisiana.

Louisiana, okay.

Yeah, just across the border in Arkansas. And yeah, so Jacques Vallee has written a paper on this where they estimate the luminance of these things. So the luminance, the amount of light coming from some of these UFOs is on the order of the amount of power of a small nuclear reactor.

Why are they making so much light? They're using a whole nuclear reactor's power to create enough of this light to burn train bark. It's not clear why they're so luminous in some cases. Very odd. Is this part of their propulsion technology?

It could be. I don't know, but then it's basically a waste product. Do we know anything about any of this stuff? Very little. This is so, it's such a frustrating topic for me sometimes. It's really frustrating. I think very, very little is known. And I think our government knows very little. And I think that's one reason why disclosure doesn't happen faster is because I don't think they know what to disclose. Petey Really? Petey Yeah. I really honestly don't. Yeah. I don't think, because it's going to raise

many more questions that they just don't have answers to. And so, you know, one government official who's worked on these things, and I won't name him, but we had a chance to talk to him, we scientist did, and asked him, I said, how many of these craft are operating in the earth environment at any given time? Just order of magnitude. 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000.

He goes, we have no idea. He goes, I don't know. In fact, wrote down the question, can I write down this question so I can ask it? He didn't know the answer. They don't even know how many craft we're dealing with. And that's the level of ignorance we're at. And why is simple, is we've been treating it as nonsense for 80 years. And it's not nonsense. And when they don't treat it as nonsense, they –

Pete The public has been treating it –

Jared Do you think the government has been treating

it that way for years?

Peter I think a lot of them. I mean, there's different government agencies and there's different groups in the government. So, one of them might not be treating, might be treating it seriously, but they're not taken seriously by the others. And that leads to budget problems, and which is why a tip gets cut. And you're just going to perpetuate this problem.

Yeah.

Have you ever-

Something that we really ought to just put money into and solve the problem.

Have you ever listened or talked to a lady by the name of Catherine Fitz?

No, I'm not familiar with her.

She's very interesting. We had her on the podcast recently. She worked for the Department of HUD under, she got hired under the Clinton administration and she continued under the Bush administration. And she was basically there to like clean up all the fraud

that was going on and with the mortgages and all this stuff. I have heard about her, yes, okay, yeah. Yeah, and she basically, she was doing the math with all of the money that was going in different, she basically, she's like a math wizard. So she figures out where all the money goes in government, within all the agencies, all around the world,

the economy, the banks, the dollar, everything. And she basically speculates. And we were talking about on the podcast, we were talking about Doge and how Doge is going in to clean up all these agencies like USAID. And they're looking into the IRS and social security

and all this stuff. She goes, there's $21 trillion missing from the Department of Defense. She goes, if I was hired by the president to go find all the waste, fraud and abuse, I would go straight to the $21 billion that went dark. And she goes, she noticed what's the deficit. I mean, that's like two thirds

of the deficit, right? And she noticed what's the deficit? I mean, that's like two-thirds of the deficit, right? Right, and she noticed that as soon as that 21 trillion dollars went missing offshore accounts started ballooning

Whoa, whoa. Why would that happen?

Because money is being moved somewhere to offshore accounts as she what she's what she's basically alluding to there. Right, right. So And I think part of her hypothesis is the the government. The top, top, top layer of the government that needs to get shit done and doesn't want to have to worry about laws, the Constitution, the bureaucracy, Congress, the Senate, all of that, if they want to get shit done, they need

to have their own pool of money that they can operate outside the law and do whatever they want to do, fund whatever they want to fund, build whatever they want to build, their own secret military, whatever it is,

without having to worry about laws and without having the public know about it. And she speculates that that's probably what happened.

And, you know, it. And she speculates that that's probably what happened. And, and,

you know, it gets into whole, a whole nother realm of theories about, you know, break, breakaway civilizations and all this stuff. But that's a whole part of the swamp. Nobody's trumped around in yet. Right, right, right. But like the $21 trillion, I mean, you would imagine if you wanted to rule the world, run the world, and you have unlimited money, you could do some shit that no one would know, including these people that we're looking at in Congress and these whistleblowers

or anyone who's in the traditional government that we like to think of as the government. They would have no clue what's going on.

Yeah, yeah, that's true. So- I can see that.

So, yeah, no, it's hard to be optimistic about this thing. And it's sometimes, I don't know if you feel the same way, but sometimes I feel like I'm just wasting my time and mental energy thinking about it because it's like, no one's ever gonna say anything. Like you can have fun speculating about it all day long, but we're never gonna have any objective evidence or any, we're never gonna know the real facts

about what this stuff is. On like a verifiable level, right? Like there's never gonna be anything that's verified that you can be like, oh yeah, you're talking about facts. Right, it's all gonna be subjective.

Right, yeah. And that's basically why I wanted to get scientists and academia involved because when scientists get involved and academics get involved, we'll share information, we talk to each other, and we'll make this public, and that's what we do. And if you can look at the author list on the paper, I mean, this is, we got scientists from what, seven countries?

Petey Whittemore Okay, oh, Dolan, Jacques Vallee.

R.C.

R.C. Jacques Vallee, Beatrix de Loyola is there, Ryan Graves is involved. We've got French people, Luc Deney, and then Iman Aspro from Ireland. We've got people from all over the country, Massimo Teodorani, Eduardo Russo, all over Europe as well. And so, you know, we're — and we talk to each other, and we're working together, and

we are all trying to figure this out, and that's what — and I think scientists could figure this out. The problem is funding, right? Right now, all these different groups — we've got several different international groups trying to collect data on UAPs, and we're all struggling for funding. And, you know, the only places that most, you're either going to get it from a very rich donor, like Avi Loeb did to form the Galileo Project,

or you get it from making, being funded by a documentary filmmaker like we did from Carolyn Corey, who made A Tear in the Sky, right? So we get money that, those are ways we can get money. But if the government or NASA was, had grant money available, we would all be applying and we would be getting it and we would be working. And we'd be getting answers.

And maybe that's one reason why we're not getting money. All right.

I think.

Right.

Right.

And your friends that were studying anti-gravity might be just allowed to study anti-gravity.

I could be too, yeah.

No time to cook? It's not a problem. My friends over at Huel and today's sponsor have you covered. It's spelled H-U-E-L and their black edition ready to drink is a total game changer. It's a complete meal in a bottle with 35 grams of protein,

27 vitamins and minerals, high fiber and low sugar, and you feel full, focused and ready for the day. No prep, no cleanup, just grab and go because eating is fun and making food is not. Huel has already sold over 500 million meals around the world and now it's your turn to try it. New customers get 15% off at huel.com

when they use my code DANNY. I think it's incredibly affordable especially when you compare it to other fast food alternatives plus you don't have to wait in line you can just grab and go on your way to your destination and And my favorite is this chocolate flavor. And I love it because not only does it have so much protein and vitamins and stuff, but you actually do feel full after you drink one of them.

It's not a burst of carbs or a protein break. It's just the perfect balance for me. It was designed by experts to provide all the ingredients your body needs for a meal. And Huel is insanely affordable. It's cheaper than a chicken sandwich. So for me, it's the perfect balanced meal for on the go.

Get 15% off for new customers using my exclusive code Danny, D-A-N-N-Y at Huel.com. Please see our description for full terms and conditions. Skip the stress, not the nutrition. And try Huel today for complete nutrition in a bottle. So yeah, the tear in the sky. So what that documentary was about?

That was our UAPX group, which was founded by Kevin Day and Gary Voorhees. And along with Jason Turner, they were all involved with the Nimitz encounter. Kevin Day was the radar operator. Senior Chief Kevin Day was the radar operator. So they all wanted answers as to what these TICTACs were. So, they formed UAPX, and they got me involved as a physicist,

and then my colleague Matthew Chidagas, who I work with at University at Albany. And we formed a team and went out to Laguna Beach in California and Avalon on Catalina Island and set up two stations to basically monitor the Catalina Channel for five days to watch for UAPs. Trevor Burrus Which fun. Peter Van Doren It was interesting, and there's spoilers

here, so if you haven't seen the movie, you might pause.

Trevor Burrus Fast forward.

Peter Van Doren The movie doesn doesn't have the movie is mainly a documentary of our mission. So it's a it conveys all the real excitement that we had in doing the working on this project for the first time actually going out there with real equipment trying to really look for these things. And you know, on your first mission, you, what do you learn on your first mission, typically? You learn what not to do, right? Which is

exactly what happened. We learned exactly what not to do, which is why we've gotten better at this. And we, you know, there's, early on, there's a bright light that's seen from the guys on Catalina, moving across the sky, doesn't appear to be an airplane, very bright. And they contact us in Laguna, and we try to check it out. And we're checking on our apps to see if it's a satellite, a known satellite, and that's

not coming up to be a known satellite, so we didn't know what this was. But it turned out it was the International Space Station. Why didn't it show up on our apps? Because the stupid app we were using was off by one hour because of daylight savings time.

Pete Slauson Oh, no.

Gary Jules And so, but who figured this out? One of the physicists did. Matthew Shenagas, my colleague, figured this out. He goes, I think it was station. And it just disappeared at one point. And he said it disappeared because it went behind the Terminator, went into the shadow of the Earth. Pete T. Leeson Right. Jared Harness Just didn't reflect light anymore. So, he did the calculations. He found the real orbit and was like, yeah, it was the right time and the right direction. And then he did – he actually did the calculations that is in – so,

we've got a third paper in this same special issue in progress in aerospace sciences. This is the third papers on the UAPX mission to Catalina. So that paper describes, you know, the results of what happened from our study that is featured in A Tear in the Sky. And that's first authored by Matthew, Matthew Shadagas. And Matthew did the calculations where he took the iPhone images of the object and measured how many pixels and then did the calculations.

Well, if this is so many hundred miles away in orbit, it should be this big. And he comes out to like 111 feet across, which is – he was off by a foot on the size of the space station.

Matthew Feeney No way.

By measuring the pixels and the distance.

Peter Joners By measuring the pixels. Yeah, because he's a physicist. He knows what he's doing. That's amazing.

That's amazing, man.

And I love it when it all comes together like that. Now I'm talking like, what's the name from the A-team? I love it when a plan comes together. But that's exactly what happens. And to have a good physicist on the job is a good thing. It's, you know, I'm reminded of John Stewart's quote, it's amazing what scientists can do when no one makes them stop.

Pete Yeah, right.

Jodi I totally agree with that.

Pete Yeah.

Jodi Yeah.

Pete Yeah, well, I mean, just like, you know, going back to what we were, how we were talking about like the evolution of technology and how like physics has been stagnated. Like, you know, look at the Civil War, 1860s, we were shooting muskets. And then within the timeframe of a human lifespan, we went from that to dropping fusion devices out of airplanes.

I mean, that's just astonishing level of technological innovation in just a short period of time.

It's just, it just blows my mind to think — And it's those fusion devices that UFOs hang around and shut down and are worried about. Right. That's interesting. And that's another interesting thing that came out in this paper. I found that the — so, next week, starting later this week, is the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies meeting. So, after this, I'm actually flying to Alabama to go to that meeting. And the SCU team, one of the studies that they did is they studied sightings at military

bases, population centers, and nuclear centers. And they've studied those from the 1940s through the 1970s. And they have a series of papers on these things. nuclear centers, and they've studied those from the 1940s through the 1970s, and they have a series of papers on these things. And they found that the number of sightings at nuclear centers is statistically significantly higher than the sightings at nearby Army or air bases or population centers. These things are clearly hanging out nuclear

sites. And in fact, that happens early on, it starts actually when the nuclear sites were being created, when they started construction, which is really odd because how did they know – how would anyone know what's gonna be made there, right? So, it's either clever enough to either clever, you're either clever enough-

Pete T. Leeson Like before the nukes were actually there.

Gary Barnes Before the nukes were actually there, the UFOs were there watching. And they stayed watching through like 1952. And then dropped off and never, in those levels never came back. So, it was clearly we're watching the creation of these nuclear sites.

Pete T. Leeson Has anyone ever talked about or reported on sightings of these things underwater? Because there's hundreds of nuclear submarines circling the oceans right now that are just loaded with nukes.

Dr. David Bolling Well, that's a good question. And that's, you know, the two people currently who are looking into that, you've got Richard Dolan's book. His first book has come out. He's got two more coming out. So, the first book goes from antiquity back to, what, 1969, I think is his first book. And the next book will be in the next 20 years or so, and then the third book will be more recent. And you've got Admiral Timothy Gallaudet, who wrote his white paper for the Seoul Foundation on submerged objects.

I think that's the ignored aspect of UAPs. I mean, UFOs, the UFO, the focus has been on flying, but these things go underwater.

Trevor Burrus Yeah, and the oceans are less explored than the moon.

We've explored, I think we've –

Dr. Dean Barbera Less explored than Mars.

Matthew Feeney Right.

Dr. Dean Barbera We know the surface of Mars better than we know the whole surface of Earth.

Matthew Feeney That's crazy.

Dr. Dean Barbera It's a water planet. I mean, we don't really – it's probably the most poorly named planet in the solar system next to Uranus, perhaps.

Right?

Right. I mean, it should just be called water or ocean. I mean, if you just – I mean, for fun, just take a globe and hold it up so that you're looking at the Pacific Ocean, right? And it is literally the whole circle. Yeah. it is literally the whole circle. It's a water planet. One whole side of it is completely ocean. The one whole side of it is just ocean.

It's really amazing when you can see, and for anybody who's flown from Los Angeles to Australia or New Zealand, you're really aware of that, because it's 12 hours, you look out the window and it's still water.

Even halfway to Hawaii.

Yeah, it's a lot of water. And we don't know what's under there. We really don't. It's really pretty remarkable.

Well, you know, it is a majority, a water planet, but like us, we are the most intelligent life form that we know of that exists here. We're this upright, bipedal hominid that has evolved, obviously, to survive on earth. And a lot of these things that we see,

a lot of these reports of like beings and stuff, they all look just like us, bipedal, upright, walking hominids. And if they came from some other planet, like what are the chances that they would evolve to look just like us, right?

Like I think we're one of two million cataloged species on the earth. And there's 20 hominids, and out of the 20 various variations of hominids, we're one of the 20. So we're like 0.001% of living beings on this earth.

And we're the only one that has been able to figure out how to communicate beyond our earth and develop technology to be able to leave the earth. So like, just, just calculating how rare we are on planet earth, like we haven't even been able to find life on other planets,

let alone life that evolved to look exactly like the 0.001% of life on this earth. So, like, what is the percentage of, I don't know if you know the answer to this, but like, out of all of the planets that are habitable, are able to inhabit life, how many of them have

are just complete water worlds or have more water than we have? Ah, that's a good question. We know that about 20% of the planets, 20% of the star systems have a planet in what we call the habitable zone, where you could have, where the temperature is right to have liquid water.

20%?

20% of the stars. So, go out tonight, count out five stars, one of those stars has a planet in the right place to be able to have liquid water.

Petey Whittemore Right, okay.

Jared Robinson Whether it's a rocky planet or a gas planet, you know, you don't know, and so it might not be habitable. But it's in what we call the habitable zone. And water is very common and very probably many of the terrestrial worlds have oceans or water worlds in some way. I mean, Venus used to have an ocean.

We know that now. My friend Mike Way, who's at NASA, who I met when I went to NASA. Michael Way studies Venus, and he's probably the Venus expert. And so, used to have green oceans, beautiful green oceans. I would love

to see something like that.

How long ago?

A long, before it got hot, before the runaway global warming, so.

The runaway global warming.

Yeah.

Does he have any ideas of like?

I don't know what the time periods were, but it's billions of years ago, yeah.

Whoa.

But yeah, so, and so, Venus is interesting that way. Mars used to have liquid water, we know that, too. And so, and we know many of the current, you know, moons around Jupiter have oceans under ice, right? So, Europa has an ice crust with a 60-mile deep ocean underneath.

So, a lot of them are ocean worlds. And you could easily imagine that with ocean worlds being so prevalent, anybody able to come here, if you had life evolve on another planet that could be interstellar capable and could come to Earth, they might very well be from an ocean world. In which case case our oceans aren't going to be that different from their oceans. Atmospheres are horrible.

You don't want to – we live on a surface with an atmosphere. It's a really pretty crappy place to live because, as you know, the environment changes every day, right? Pete Stephens Yeah. Josh Beck Yeah. Yesterday it's cold and rainy, today it's bright and sunny, right? And warm.

But atmospheres, the temperature changes dramatically day by day, even within a day. But if you go from planet to planet, it's extremely different. So you go look at Venus, you've got 100 times the air pressure on Earth, which would crush you. And you've got a carbon dioxide atmosphere. The chemicals are different.

Carbon dioxide atmosphere, and it's about 800 degrees Fahrenheit. When I was working at Ames is when the Magellan probe was studying Venus with radar. And one of the big mysteries that came up then was that the mountaintops on Venus became radar reflective when it got cold. So, when it got to like � when the temperatures dropped to like 600 degrees or something like this, when it got cold on Venus on the mountaintops, they would become radar reflective. They couldn't

figure this out until they figured out it was snow. Petey Whittemore What?

Reg Grant What?

Petey Whittemore Lead and bismuth snow. They had metal snowflakes. So, vaporized lead and vaporized bismuth in the atmosphere would crystallize and form snowflakes and fall on the mountaintops. You have metal on the mountaintops covering metal snowflakes covering mountaintops. That's amazing. That's what a cold day in hell looks like. Pete Stephens Yes. mountain tops. That's amazing. That's what a cold day in hell looks like. Right? That's really pretty amazing. I would love to see that, but not with 100 atmospheres of pressure. That's horrible. So, Venus is a horrible place to live.

And then you go to Mars and you've got, here, what, about 100 degrees below zero Fahrenheit, right? And you've got 1, 100th of the air pressure, so you need a spacesuit. So, atmospheres vary dramatically. But if you look at an ocean, an ocean, the pressure changes one atmosphere every 32 feet, right? So, you're going to, you go down 32 feet,

you're at two atmospheres, you know, you'd have to go down 3,000 feet. Basically our oceans are only about 5,000 feet deep. So, you go down about 5,000 feet, you're looking at, you know, several hundred atmospheres, a thousand atmospheres, right, on the order of a thousand atmospheres. Or already of a hundred, the air pressure, the water pressure is about the same

as the air pressure on the surface of Venus. Similar close. I'm talking orders of magnitude here. And so, all you need to do is to get the pressure right, you just go down to the right depth and you'll have the pressure you want, right?

And water is always between zero, or between zero and 100 degrees centigrade, or between 32 and 212 Fahrenheit, right? So, otherwise it isn't liquid water, right? So, it's – Pete Turner Oh, right.

Gary Jordan So, the temperatures don't vary dramatically, but atmospheres they do. On Venus it's 800 degrees, on Mars it's 100 degrees below. So, you've got a thousand degrees in temperature difference.

So no matter what planet you're on, liquid water is gonna be relatively the same.

It's gonna be almost the same everywhere. The biggest difference is really gonna be the chemical constituents or biology.

Yes.

Biological bacteria or something, which could be bad for you.

Oh, that's fascinating.

That's the only difference. So going from one water world to another would be easy. And in fact, if I was an interstellar traveler preparing to just make a home on another planet and another star system I've never been to, I would bring equipment to live underwater. Because if I would build, I would bring the, you know, what's needed to set up a home underwater. That's where I'd make my home.

It would be the best place. You're shielded from radiation, you're shielded from meteorite impacts, you're shielded from all these things. A lot of protective shielding. Oceans are great places to live.

What do you make of the time traveler theory?

None of these theories seem to work. That's really the problem. They don't seem to describe, explain all, well, time travel is hard because we don't have a theory of time traveling. So, it's equally difficult or maybe more so

than the whole warp drive problem, right? Or anti-gravity problem. So I'm not sure what to make of that.

Isn't the idea of time travel that you can't travel back farther than when the first time machine was created?

Yeah, according to general relativity. So if general relativity is the theory you're going to work from, that's basically what you're stuck with, right?

Right. So, if we're seeing hypothetical time travelers right now, that means time travel has to exist, has to be created at least right now.

Yeah.

Right?

Right.

So, and that's also possible.

That could be the 20 trillion dollars right there, but. to be created at least right now. Right? So, and that's also possible.

That could be the $20 trillion right there.

But-

That could be the $20 trillion.

That could be the $20 trillion, but then-

When did that go missing? 1995 or something?

But that doesn't explain the reports 150 years ago.

That doesn't explain that, right. But unless time travel was figured out on another planet.

Another way, unless, yeah, something like that could happen. So, they could be extraterrestrial time travelers. And that's where these explanations start to, they get messy because the data, what we know really doesn't have a good explanation. And I think that, you know, we haven't come up with a simple explanation yet that describes everything. And that's what makes it hard.

But I think that's also why disclosure isn't easy. I mean, because all these questions are gonna come up with disclosure, and I bet nobody has the answer. You really have to study these things for a long time with a lot of people to get answers and it's hard.

What do you make of the idea that, cause there was, how long ago was that whole New Jersey drone incident where we had all those drones

floating above New Jersey?

Oh, it started in late October, I think. Yeah, that was. And went through about end of February-ish.

End of February, yeah at just this past year did this exact year were in right now

it ended up in a while and it wasn't just new jersey that was that was actually an interesting thing you know the you know of course the f a comes out with some statement their testing drones or something which and that's nonsense because they're seen they were seen off the coast of o and Seattle too. Those were actually- And Florida, I think.

And yeah, and they were seen in about 17 countries.

Mm-hmm.

Oh, really? It was global. It was global, yeah. It's a problem. Again, we don't have a good explanation for what happened.

Yeah, and there was people trying to speculate it was non-human, but if it was, they weren't traveling at any kind of crazy speeds. They weren't making maneuvers. Some of the sightings in Seattle,

off the coast of Seattle and Oregon were, sounded like non-human craft. But those were more isolated. There was a lot more going on in New Jersey, but partly because it's more populated. And I think you've got a lot more

misidentifications happening.

Yeah.

You know, I remember seeing photographs of a craft and my brother is very good with airplanes and I sent him this and I said, what do you think this is? He goes, oh, this is this kind of helicopter. And he sent me pictures of this helicopter and yeah, it matches that helicopter. So, there were a lot of misidentifications again. And a lot of UFO enthusiasts would say, well, it wasn't really a helicopter,

it's disguising itself as a helicopter. And I was like, oh, please, at some point you

have to-

It wouldn't be that hard to go-

Let's just calm down and actually collect data on these things so we can actually figure this out instead of just guessing all the time.

Yeah, I can't imagine it would be that hard to send somebody up there to figure out what the hell they were. I mean, if we wanted to know what they were, somebody could have figured that out very easily.

Yeah, and actually Ben Kugielski from our UAPX team, he's a pilot and he actually performed some flights over New Jersey and that area to try to see if he could see these things from the air and just weren't successful. They weren't successful. Yeah, we did. He just didn't see any that's all. Oh, really him. I Saw they weren't that common

But they were they were coming enough that people were seeing them and you've got several million people in the area, right?

Mm-hmm, so

Right field shut down there their runways because of these things and there was even one that crashed I think we found we found something Steven I remember we found like a photo of one that allegedly crashed, and it was, we tracked down the company, and it was a company based out of somewhere in the Northeast that was manufacturing drones that were powered by,

oh, fuck, I can't remember the name, but it was some sort of chemical that was powering these drones. I wanna say hydrogen, maybe? Hydrogen-powered drones, but it showed a police officer holding, a couple police officers holding this thing.

It was like the size, a quadcopter that was like the size of this table. Wow, wow, that's amazing. Maybe it had six propellers on it or something like that.

But it looked like something, you know standard didn't look like anything crazy. I think what was going on was More standard things were happening in New Jersey. There was a lot. There's a lot of activity. There's a lot of air activity in the area I'm pointing outside as if we're still there. I live in New York. So it would be for me It's just over that way but not from Florida

There it is NYPD recovers massive drone found abandoned click on that oh that's cool okay so it was the New York Post that posted on it in the tri-state area scroll down police recovered a yeah that that was the one we found for sure go up under the two-year-old boy's foot massive drone apparently abandoned in the Brooklyn in a Brooklyn Navy Yard photo obtained by the post shows the NYPD officer holding up the unwieldy aircraft,

the body of which appears to be more than 5 feet in diameter. Cops responded to the email tip alerting them to the presence of the drone, which they found on a sidewalk on 5th Street between Market Street and Morris Avenue.

Wow!

So it was actually found in Brooklyn.

That's crazy. But there was, yeah, look at that thing

They but remember we were looking at it we were they were able to track down the name of the company

Yeah that manufactured them. Yeah, I'm trying to find the bone manufacturer ammonia look look look

officers were investigating passengers passersby said

he worked in the building that houses the headquarters of the drones manufacturer, which he identified as Amogee Inc, a sustainable energy startup working using ammonia as a renewable fuel source, including aerial vehicles.

Oh, that's interesting.

Ever heard of that before? Anything like that before?

No, I haven't. Yeah, and that's, I mean, that's something to be, I'm glad to learn this because it's important to be aware of what's in the air if you're going to study what's in the air, right? Yeah.

You have to learn about all these things.

So, and I think especially around New Jersey, that was hard because there were, I'm sure once the reports of these, you know, unknown objects were coming out, a lot of people, you know, with who own drones are like, now's a great time to go fly my drone. They start sending out their drones. And then they send up their drones and the next thing you know it's a mess.

Right. So. But I think we have, I mean, I think the United States military had to have known what that was or else there would have been some sort of like state of emergency or they would have been getting rid of it was it couldn't have been a foreign actor they wouldn't let us stay up for that long even like Trump was talking about it they were flying over his golf course right and they were flying like over some sort of military base in North Carolina and they simply would not allow that to be there if it was something they didn't understand or weren't aware

of I would think I would hope so, but yeah.

Dr. Justin Marchegiani And I think there was also some sort of

uh– Dr. Dean Martinez

Except you have these things flying from Holmstrom Air Force Base, shedding no nuclear missiles and no one did anything about it for decades.

Dr. Justin Marchegiani Not those though.

Dr. Dean Martinez But not those things. Yeah, I mean, and that's part of what makes these things complicated. An unidentified object could be many things, right? And a lot of them can be conflated and that makes it hard.

Pete There's some, like even going back to Roswell, right? Like in 1947 when that thing crashed, like we still don't even know what happened with that, right? There's still like so much speculation on what happened. There's like, you know, there's a handful of different theories of what happened and no one can agree on anything except for the fact that it probably wasn't a weather balloon, right? There was allegedly, there was the guy who wrote the book on Roswell, day after Roswell. He explained- Is that Coursao's book?

Yes, that's Coursao's book. You know, he explained there being Kevlar and Velcro in this crash. Like clearly man-made technology that was found. No one ever talks about that. Like if this was some sort of interstellar craft,

why were they using Velcro and Kevlar?

Well, I thought he had mentioned, he was claiming that they developed Kevlar from what was found in the craft, but I didn't know about the Velcro part.

Yeah.

Yeah, I haven't read his books. I don't know those details. I'd seen an interview with him. Right. Yeah, no, that whole thing is a real mess, because you've got the U.S. government coming out with multiple statements throughout the years, changing the story every time. One of my favorite ones from the early 1990s was that, it was an Air Force statement that said they were testing a Mars lander, and the disc was the back shell of the lander.

Well, who's testing a Mars lander in 1947 before 10 years before Sputnik? That's a ridiculous thing to even say. Doesn't make any sense. And so clearly a lie, right? And then after that, you know,

came out, they came up with Project Mogul, but Project Mogul is a weather balloon problem. What they were trying to do with Project Mogul is they were trying to, they wanted to put radio wave detectors up so that they could detect the electromagnetic radiation from nuclear explosions from Soviet bomb testing, right? So, but the problem is you wanted to hold these balloons at something like 50,000 feet. The problem with balloons is you let the thing go up and the balloon goes up and up and up

and as the balloon goes up, the air pressure outside goes down, so the balloon gets bigger and expands and eventually breaks and the thing falls. So, Project Mogul was about trying to figure out how to maintain a certain altitude for a balloon. And so, they were releasing test balloons, right? They're trying to be up at 50,000 feet. And then the claim is that the balloon that was launched in early June was the one that crashed on Mack Brazel's farm, or ranch, near Roswell, New Mexico. But the problem is that when you look at the records of the New York University professor who was running Project Mogul, they didn't launch a balloon in June.

They couldn't launch. The weather was bad. So they didn't launch. So in June. They couldn't launch, the weather was bad. So they didn't launch. Yeah, so there was no balloon up. And had they done it, it would have been an illegal thing to do because the conditions weren't right to be able to monitor the position of the balloon.

It wouldn't have been a good experiment anyway. So they didn't even have a balloon up. We have those records, so we know it wasn't Project Mogul. But Kirkpatrick at NARO comes out with his report and says again it's Project Mogul, which we know it's not. So, we know the government has been changing the story every time and lying every time. So, what actually happened is a good question. I mean, what was so serious that when the military found,

when the army found that the sheriff in the area went to the ranch to look at the debris himself, they found that out and they detained him and his family for five days. What warrants that? A radio balloon experiment, really?

That's hard to believe.

This is the paradox of trying to rely on the government to give us any sort of confirmation about any of this stuff.

Exactly.

Right? This is the paradox of it, because they have been clearly trying to deceive and muddy up the waters of this topic forever. So, trying to rely on them is something that's futile, it feels like.

It's just like Jared Pellett I think it's a waste of time.

Pete Stephens I think so, too.

Jared Pellett Plus, there are other governments on the planet, other governments who actually know things. So, let's work with them. Go down to talk to the Chileans, maybe they'll talk. They've collected data, they've collected information. You know, I'd rather spend time with other governments

than wasting time with this one.

But a lot of those governments are subservient to the US government.

And that is a problem, yeah.

I've heard stories that this whole topic, there's like zero stigma when it comes to this stuff in like Russia, for example. Like even like the government and the population, they're all into like esoteric UFOs, astrology, and all this stuff, and they're openly-

They go through waves like we do. And we talk about that Russia a little bit in our paper. We didn't have the French co-authors worked, produced a lot of the material and the Russians.

Petey

So, we talked about that in the paper and they had gone through phases where they would start studying UFOs and then somebody would say that's ridiculous and they would shut it down and then they would start up again and shut it down, kind of like what happens here. It goes up and down a good bit.

And who were the folks that you got the information from in Russia? Like were there certain-

Oh, those were from documents from-

Oh, actual documents.

Actual documents, yeah. Yeah. So we learned a little bit about what went on there, but a lot of it's not known. I mean, the Soviet Union was pretty tight-lipped about everything it did, so.

Yeah.

I don't think, like the US government, you're never gonna find out what the Russians knew. Right. It's a problem.

Right.

Yeah, and then, you know, there's lots of cases that happened in, like, South America, where, like, even stuff that Jacques Valet has written about that's like really frightening stuff

And uh, i'm sure you're familiar with um, james fox's documentary about brazil and brazil. Yeah, um

What was the name of this the uh town in brazil again

Uh, there's there's the it was like the roswell of brazil basically But they you know They explained that crash and there was like multiple witnesses and the next day the u.s Air force came down and landed there and supposedly took these bodies away that, you know, and they claimed it looked like it was like two arms, two legs.

It looked like a demon, smelled like a demon.

Smelled like- I love the description. It smelled like sulfur. And everybody thinks it's a demon. Yeah. And so there are always great descriptions.

Yeah. It's very funny. It's Varginha. Varginha. Varginha, that's right. Varginha, Brazil.

That's what it was.

Yeah.

You know, and like, then, like, stories like that are the ones that like, that just doesn't fit into any box.

They're weird. Yeah, they're weird. And then, the fishermen, these fishermen saw a disc coming in that then pulls up, looks like it's gonna crash into the ocean, it pulls up just at the last minute and then just explodes and then left debris and they collected debris and that's been analyzed by multiple people by this point.

And- Oh, has it? Yeah, that's almost, yeah, it's magnesium.

We have it? We can look at it? Yeah, yeah, it exists. And it's like civilians have it?

I don't have it in my position, but

Or is it like locked away in the government?

No, there are other, other researchers have it. I don't know, I know that Robert Powell from SCU has studied it and wrote a paper on it with Phyllis Budinger, who's a physical

chemist who's worked on a lot of cases. Is that kind of stuff's material, is that kind of material something that would be able to be created on earth?

It was very pure magnesium, which would have been very hard to purify back when it exploded, which I don't remember exactly what the date was.

But not impossible.

But not impossible probably, yeah. But it would be very expensive and very hard. So it's hard to imagine that somebody made a craft of this and then it blew up and

And this one heck of a story still it is it is one heck of a story But some of this stuff is like, you know When you have things that you have people talking about demons smelling like sulfur running around the woods And getting people sick where they're like dying. I think one of the cops that handled the thing died allegedly. It's like, wow, this sounds like some sort of

like biblical character. Petey Wimbley Yeah, I had a weird synchronicity involving a UFO landing. I knew about, I had heard about this landing that happened in the Mexican state of Chihuahua, where people describe it as the UFO was just left there, doors open, keys in the ignition, is usually how people describe it, which is just, you know, saying that it's just there unoccupied. And a lot of, you know, UFO people will say that it was gifted to us or something, which

I don't, I was like, gifted? Are you serious? The thing's a Trojan horse. They've got, I wouldn't trust it. But anyway, yeah, people have weird ideas about what's all going on. Weird belief systems and so on.

And I'm more suspicious and skeptical still. And so, I had heard that story, and the story I heard was that it landed in Mexico and the American government went in and grabbed it, right? Just stole it and took it. And that's the story I heard, and so, I knew this story, and I didn't know many of the details. So, I was flying out to Los Angeles to film our scenes with William Shatner

for A Tear in the Sky. And I landed in LA and I had an Uber driver driving us up to Castle Studios in Burbank. And I'm chatting with the Uber driver, he wants to know what I'm doing, oh I'm very excited because we're going up to film some scenes with William Shatner for this documentary on UFOs, and he goes, oh UFOs, that is so cool, you study them, yes. And he goes, yeah, my dad, he goes, I'm originally from Mexico and my dad was a Mexican general. And he handled a lot of top secret stuff in Mexico. And he, oh, he used to tell me some crazy stories,

but I was, I was really young at the time, I was like 13, 14, so I didn't believe half of them. So I didn't take them seriously, but now I wish I had." And he said, yeah, he told me once about this UFO that landed in Chihuahua, and I was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, I'm going to hear this story from the Mexican side, right? I couldn't believe it. I was like, what a strange coincidence. I'm in the car being driven by the son of a Mexican general

who had access to all this top secret stuff. And he's telling me this story. So yeah, this UFO landed in Chihuahua and they sent a team in. They had a guy in the back, some distance away with a radio

and the rest of the team went in to investigate and they all died and they didn't know why they died and they didn't know what to do the guy radioed back panicked you know the whole team is dead I don't know what to do and they call they called the Americans to come down and take this thing so we didn't just steal it they Mexicans called us to come help them with it and

so then he goes so then the goes, so then the Americans came in and the Americans came in and they got the craft and took it away. And that's the story he told me. And I was like, yeah, it's the same story. I know this story, but from the other side, right?

So it's like a weird confirmation, right? That yeah, this probably really happened, yeah.

Man, isn't it funny some of the stuff that you can learn from Uber drivers?

Yeah, yeah, he's just the guy driving my Uber while I'm filming a UFO documentary, on my way to film a UFO documentary. What a weird coincidence.

How many people did he say died?

I don't know how big the team was, yeah, he didn't say.

And they all died from coming in contact with this thing?

They all came in contact with it and died, I don't know why. Pete Oh, my God. Pete Yeah, they didn't know why.

Pete Yeah.

Now, that's some of the stuff.

Pete That's one hell of a gift.

Pete That's some of the stuff that, yeah, right? Pete Good Lord. Now, there's been studies on

people that have come in contact with these things, right, well, radiation burns and, yeah, that happens. Burns from the luminosity alone are bad, right? So that's a problem. But there are people who have had radiation burns and radiation sickness from being in contact with these things.

And do we know how many people, roughly?

Or, like, how many people were involved in the study?

No, I don't know if there's the Cash Landrum case where they actually got cancer from radiation contact. There was the, what, John Burroughs, who was involved in the English, the case in England with the landing at-

Randalsham?

Randalsham Forest between Bentwaters Air Force Base and yeah, right out there. Yeah, so John Burroughs, he had health problems from being in contact with radiation there and he sued the Air Force, if I remember right, he sued the Air Force for his medical records

because his medical records were classified having come into contact with this, so.

Wow.

That's so bizarre, man.

Yeah, when you really dig into this, it's not at all boring, it's really interesting. And it's complicated, there's a lot going on. It's not a simple, blow-off-able thing, you know.

I feel like NASA has to know more. NASA has to have some idea what's going on.

Gary I would think so too, yes.

Petey Yeah.

I mean, just think about like the-

Gary I mean, I know astronauts have seen things. I talked to, I got to meet, I met and talked to Alan Bean, who was on the moon in Apollo 14. Oh, really?

Alan Bean?

No, no, Alan Bean was in 12. He was in Apollo, yeah. He's now since passed away, unfortunately. But he, I was very lucky. The documentary In the Shadow of the Moon, the Ron Howard film on the moon landings.

I haven't seen that one.

Gary Barnes Oh, it's excellent. They spent most of the time interviewing the actual astronauts. And they had a premier showing at the Rose Hayden Planetarium in New York City. And I being at Albany, the chair of our department had tickets to go see the premier showing, and he couldn't go. So, I'd just gotten done teaching the astronomy class, and I came into the office, and he

said, Kevin, you teach astronomy, would you like to go see this? And I was like, wow, when is it? He goes, tonight. And I was like, it started like 7 o'clock or something, and it was like 2 o'clock in the afternoon, I was like, holy cow, I've got to leave now if I'm going to go do this. So, my wife couldn't go, sadly, but my postdoc, Dennis Kinshaga, could go.

And so, me and my postdoc drove down to go see the premiere showing of the Mood documentary, and I didn't have time to even look at the brochure. I just hopped in the car and we went, we're driving and he goes, have you read this? I said, no, I haven't even looked at it. He goes, it says stay afterwards for a reception where you can meet the astronauts. And I was like, what astronauts? And he goes, I don't know, it doesn't say. And I was like, well, they're not going to be shuttle astronauts if And he goes, yeah, it looks like Buzz Aldrin's going to be there. And yeah, it was – I mean, it was Buzz Aldrin and Edgar Mitchell was there and Alan Bean

and Harrison Schmitt was there. And oh, Harrison Schmitt was wonderful. He was the only scientist who's ever been to the moon. He was the only geologist. Trevor Burrus Who's ever been to the moon? Who's been to the moon? He was in Apollo. Harrison Schmidt. Harrison Schmidt. He was he's yeah, he is Yeah, he was in Apollo 17 the big the picture of the astronaut standing next to that giant boulder I think is a picture of him. Okay And he was a what was his he was a geologist geologist. Okay. Yeah, and he oh he talked he was so nice

He talked to us for a half hour just me and Dennis Dennis talked to us for, I mean, we weren't excluding anybody, but he was talking about what it was like to be on the moon, they were at Taurus-Littrow, which is a big canyon. He says it's wider than the Grand Canyon, you're standing on the edge of this giant canyon bigger than the Grand Canyon with the earth in the sky, and he's in tears describing this and we're just like, oh my God, I can't believe I'm hearing what the moon is like from somebody who's been there. It was really amazing.

Petey How old was he at the time?

Jared I don't know how old he was. He looked quite young, but yeah.

Pete Wow.

Jared But they all told amazing stories. They all told craziest stories about things you never hear about, which was really spectacular. Like Alan Bean, when we talked to him, he was describing what happened when they launched. He said there was Apollo 12, they all had their, NASA was getting kind of cocky, and there was a thunderstorm, and they decided to launch with the Apollo

________________

________________

Oh, wow, he's only 37 when he walked on the Apollo. Pete T. Leeson Oh, wow, he's only 37 when he walked on the moon.

Richard Averbeck When he walked on the moon, yeah. Yeah, so they decided to launch in a thunderstorm, and he said we had just cleared the tower and the module got hit by lightning and it took out the power. So all the electricity went out, and he said that they had the option to abort. He goes, we can abort, or do we just ride this thing blind into orbit? You know, the thing is designed to just rocket into orbit, right?

So, it would've just, they were hoping it would just still go into orbit. So, they voted to just ride it into orbit. So, they rode that thing into orbit blind with all the lights off. It was dark, pitch black capsule in a rocket going into orbit. And they got into orbit and they had to then get their flashlights out and try to power everything up again, get it working, hopefully get it working so they could get back home if they needed. So,

they were able to get the power restored, but when they rebooted the computers, the navigation database, the navigation system put them at the launch point rather than in orbit. So they had to program their position in orbit into the navigation computer, right? Manually. Manually. So they could get their position in orbit from ground control, but they couldn't get

the orientation of the spaceship. The ground control couldn't tell the orientation of the spaceship. Ground control couldn't tell the orientation of the craft. So, they had to manually get the orientation of the craft, and they did it by sighting stars. They made a rectacle out of masking tape and put it on the window and measured where it was, and then they did that on the other window. They got a star lined up on that window, and then they lined up, they put another rectacle

up where another star that they could identify was on the other window, and they measured the positions of those rectacles and sent that information down to Houston, where they then calculated the orientation of the spaceship.

Trevor Burrus Wow.

Peter Jobins I mean, it was – these guys, the reason they pulled it off in 1960 is because they were – or 1969, or I guess, it was, these guys, the reason they pulled it off in 1960 is because they were, or 1969, or I guess that launch was what, 70? Would have been 1970 or something, but the way, they pulled it off because they were brilliant. And, you know, I'm not sure anybody today could pull that off, you know.

Pete Slauson Really?

Gary Barnes It's tough. I mean, nobody, we rely too much on computers and calculators and everything for everything, right? Nobody's going to be able to – to identify a star, you'd have to get on Google to get a star map and people – but the astronauts could look out the window and tell you what stars were.

They knew this.

They were well-educated.

They knew what they were doing.

Brilliant. Petey Wimbley That's an interesting thing is that the technology during the Apollo programs is one of the only technologies that just never expounded upon itself and never was it doubled or even able to advance in the way other technologies are. Petey Wimbley You know what I mean? Like look at cell phones, the way cell phones have evolved since the first cell phones and, you know, vehicles,

every single type of technology, computers even. And then the Apollo technology that was used to launch the astronauts to the moon is the only technology that we haven't been able to increase its ability or even duplicate it, you know, 50 to 60 years later.

It's just so – It's – I mean, some of it, it was – they were early computers, right? So, they were – but they were robust. They weren't powerful, but they were robust, right? And that's the cool thing about them.

And that's what didn't last was the robustness, right? Because to make them more powerful, they have to become, you have to make everything smaller, so it has to become less robust.

What, why do you think that we haven't been going back? Because I would just imagine like in in in the opt In the perfect world, we would have kept going back ever since every single year Developing new new technologies faster ways to get there way, you know building bases there. We fight too many wars

You think that's it? Yeah, we stopped because of Vietnam Vietnam was too expensive and then we had the recession in the 80s and then Yeah, and then fought for the last 20 years. We've been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and I mean, we're always fighting wars Yeah, that's what humans do. It's awful. Yeah, I Mean but like even Roy so excited about the next one, but yeah we never think about the amount of damage it does

and the toll it takes and the, you know, it's a big problem.

It's just, it's mind blowing to me, you know, because the first mission to the moon is like the greatest achievement of humankind ever, you know, and just the idea that we would be so naive or whatever you want to call it, to not want to invest more money into that

and to just scrap it. It's just like, if I was watching this movie a hundred years from now, I'd be like, what the fuck are you people doing?

Yeah, that's true. I feel the same way. And yes, having watched, you know, the moon launches when I'd be like, what the fuck are you people doing? Petey Yeah, that's true. I feel the same way. And yes, having watched, you know, the moon launches when I was a kid, I always wanted to go to the moon and, you know, and what, I turned 60 last month, so I'm probably not going to go to the moon.

Pete Yeah.

Pete It sucks. I would have liked to.

Pete Well, I think, wasn't it, isn't there a planned, a manned mission, a manned mission that's planned to happen soon?

Jared Yeah, they were supposed to go next year.

Pete Isn't it Artemis?

Jared Artemis, yeah. Which I think was kind of done wrong. I mean, it's Artemis is, what, the sister of Apollo, right? So, it's the idea and they were going to have the first woman on the moon. And when I saw that, they had one woman. Pete The first woman, okay. Ted They were gonna have the first woman on the mission. And I was like, Jesus, just make them all women. I mean, it's Artemis. I mean, they should all be women going to the moon. Why not, right? Plenty of good women, female

astronauts.

Pete Was Artemis a girl? Ted Yeah, she's the sister of Apollo.

Pete Oh, oh, okay.

Ted Yeah, the idea was, I was artisan Artemis and Apollo and Apollo was sent into the heavens, right? So they're separated. Or Artemis is sent into the heavens, right? She's the moon. And she's represented by the moon. And the whole point of Apollo mission was to reunite Apollo with Artemis.

It was quite a beautiful idea.

Oh, wow.

Yeah.

I love how all these NASA people are so obsessed with the ancient Greeks. They want to rename everything. Exactly. NASA people are so obsessed with the ancient Greeks, they want to rename everything. Was it, was it there, I was recently learning about some of, some like NSA rockets or NRO rockets that were launched out of Vandenberg and it was, oh God, I can't remember what it was now, but they named them all after like ancient Greek goddesses or something like this.

That's great. Yeah. Well, there are rules for naming, astronomers have rules for naming features on planets. So, all of the features on Venus are all goddesses.

Really? Yeah.

Why do they do this?

They, well, they have some kind of consistency and naming and all of that. Like all of Uranus's moons are all named after Shakespeare characters. Wow. Miranda and Uriel and Ariel, yeah.

Hmm.

Yeah.

Also, are there- And I think the volcanoes, I think volcanoes on Io are all- On what? Jupiter's moon Io are named after blacksmiths or something like that. Famous blacksmiths from-

There's volcanoes on Jupiter's moons.

Oh yeah, Jupiter's moon Io is the most volcanic world in our solar system.

Whoa!

Tons of volcanoes always going off.

Really?

Blowing into space even. It's amazing, yeah, the pictures are amazing, yeah.

Are there any other moons that you're aware of that are have the unique features that our moon has with like the distance to the sun that perfectly occludes the sun the way our moon does?

No, no, I don't.

What do you astronomers make of the moon?

That is a weird coincidence, right? It's a pretty amazing coincidence. And

It seems almost impossible.

And it's probably pretty unique in the galaxy, even, I would imagine, for that to happen. I mean, you could be anywhere around a planet and arrange yourself so that it would pluck almost perfectly right, but not from the surface. And the moon moves away from the earth,

so that's not going to be like that forever either. And it wasn't always like that. The moon used to be a lot closer.

How far do we know how, uh, what the speed is the moon is moving away from the earth?

I should know this was, this was a trivial pursuit question. We had, we were playing trivial pursuit at home once and it was a question and I got it wrong because I thought it was a centimeter. I think it's an inch. I think it's an inch, inch.

An inch.

I should know this. It's an inch. Yeah, thank you.

The moon is currently moving away from the earth by approximately one and a half inches per year.

It's one and a half inches per year. There it is.

Thank you. Google retreat is due to title forces and gravitation, gravitational interaction between earth and the moon.

Yep. Energy, energy getting taken up by our oceans.

So, Oh, energy from the oceans.

Well, the moon pulls on the ocean, so it loses gravitational energy by pulling on the ocean. So it's right. Right. And angular momentum exchange actually.

Whoa. So it's an angular momentum exchange actually. Whoa.

So,

It's inch and a half per year. That's what it was.

Yeah. So do this math, Steve, find out how close the moon would have been a billion years ago, if it's doing one and a half inches a year. Would it be?

A billion?

Yeah, do the math. Do a billion times 1.5 and see how much closer it'd be. So it's, it's 300 and what? 50 million.

There's about 200,000. It's about 200. It's around 200,000, 260,000 miles away.

260,000 miles away right now. So yeah, you would have to do a, you would have to do a,

you can figure out how many, if you figure out how far it moves in a million years, so it's gonna be a million inches, right?

A million?

So about 1.5.

1.5 million inches, right?

1.5 million inches per year. And how many,

How many,

How many feet is that gonna be? Let's say it's, let's say 1.2 inches and then we basically have, so it's 1.2 million inches per year is gives you about .1 million, so about 100,000 feet per year,

a little more than 100,000 feet per year.

A hundred thousand feet per year,

how many miles is a hundred thousand feet? 5,000 miles per, 5,000 feet per mile, so you're probably looking about, so what is that gonna be, about 2,000 or 20,000? I'm trying to do the 20,000. So about 20,000 miles difference every million years.

20,000 miles.

And that's gonna change as it moves away because the gravitational force falls off as one over a square, so it won't be constant.

Oh, so it's not constant, right.

So it's not a simple, you gotta use some calculus to get the right answer. But you're looking at something like 20,000 miles per year, per million years.

So as it gets farther, is it gonna start moving faster? Or is it gonna start slowing down?

I think it should slow down. It should slow down because the interaction gets weaker. So. And also our moon is the only, correct me if I'm wrong,

but ours is the only ones that perfect sphere. Like a lot of them are potatoes, right?

Oh, a lot of the small ones are potatoes shaped, weird shapes, yeah. But the larger ones are pretty, pretty spherical.

They're all pretty, the volcanoes are pretty spherical.

Yeah.

Gravity makes things pretty round.

Yeah.

All right, I have to get a quick pee break. I'm gonna tell this guy to turn off his blower. We'll be right back. We're back. We were, yeah, we were talking about the moon. One quick, one more thing that just popped into my head.

You ever heard of a guy,

I ask this to like almost everybody here, Hal Pauvenmire? No. Okay. I think I would have remembered that name. That's all I have. I remembered having heard that name.

Yeah, I heard a crazy story about this guy who allegedly worked at NASA who was in charge of mapping the moon and his name was Hal Pauvenmire. So I've asked probably 50 different people that have come on the show if they've ever heard of him and they never heard of him. No. Okay. I had this guy on the podcast, I'm sure you're familiar with him, this guy Bart Sebrell,

who wrote the whole, his whole identity is revolved around proving that the moon landings were fake.

Oh wow.

Yeah, and he, one of his biggest, one of his biggest pieces of evidence that he shows or tries to prove that they were fake is because we can't get through this radiation belt called the Van Allen radiation belt, right? So, he says that it's impossible to send a life form through there and get back and we

can't do it and it's so thick or whatever that no one will be able to survive. And on top of that, he's like, oh, the moon's 250 degrees Fahrenheit or something, maybe it was more than that, in like the sunlight.

Pete Well, the surface temperature changes dramatically from sunlight to non-sunlight.

And the shadow goes like below 200 degrees Fahrenheit or whatever, and he's like, how could the lunar lander stay there for that long, blah, blah, blah, blah. And like, you know, he's done a bunch of crazy documentaries trying to show all this evidence of how it was forged.

And like when he came in here- of the landing sites. The Japanese probes have photos of the landing sites now. Oh, really?

You can see the landing sites. And you can see the prints from the, really, after all this time?

Well, there's no weather. It's not going anywhere.

Right, there's no weather.

A million years from now, they'll still be there. Exactly the same. Well, they'll be covered with more dust. Yeah, it that's it. Right, right. Eventually be buried in dust, but the meteorite rate, the cratering rates so low now. So, it's not going to happen very much.

Right. Take a long time.

Yeah.

Yeah, the-

Our society will be gone and erased from the earth and that'll still be on the moon.

That long?

Yeah.

Really?

Yeah, there was a study out of, it's another NASA study that estimated how long it would take for evidence of our civilization to disappear in something like 20 million years.

For all evidence that long?

Yeah.

I would imagine it'd be shorter. Well, I mean, most of, that's almost Yeah, I Should be shorter. Well, I mean most that's all almost all the evidence

Would be gone you'd have some you'd have like a chemical the Washington Monument would still have chemical evidence Yeah, you I would imagine that like, you know, New York City all the skyscrapers I think somebody was on here one time and told me I mean like that's As far as my evidence goes somebody told me at once that the skyscrapers would basically be disintegrated in something like, ugh, 50,000 years or something like that. And all that would be left as far as like buildings from us would be like the Great Pyramids, which weren't from us, and like the

Washington Monument, the Hoover Dam, big kind of like stone structures. You've got to go to geological time scales to get rid of those, so.

Yeah, right.

Yeah, so that paper, the question was, has there been another civilization before us that we didn't know about? Oh. And that's possible if it's older than 20 million years ago, yeah, possible.

Older than 20 million years ago. Yeah, possible. Older than 20 million years ago. Why would it have to be that old?

Because you would still have evidence of it. So it takes about, it'll take, would take about 20 million years to get rid of the evidence, geologic time.

Oh, okay.

But you could have something that was older than that, that you would never know about.

But we do, I mean But we do have evidence of shit that we don't know how it was constructed, right? Like the pyramids, Stonehenge, things like this. We don't have any. I don't know if you saw, but that guy Zahi Huas just went on Joe Rogan's podcast. He's like the head of antiquities for Egypt. And it was an eye-opening conversation. wasn't open to any of like, any explainable theories of how some of these stones were

moved or raised at that level. Jared The stones are huge. Have you been to Giza? Pete Yeah.

I've never been to Giza, no. Jared They're ginormous. I mean, to climb up, I mean, one of the stones is like, it's five feet high. I mean, these are giant stones.

Pete Yeah.

Jared You know, you want to climb up the pyramid. not small. Yeah. And inside of the pyramids to like in some of like the chambers from what I understand is there's there's a massive pieces of granite, like like blocks of granite that way, you know, hundreds of tons that were supposed to be in the conventional explanation by the Egyptologist is that they came from the Aswan quarry, which is like 500 miles away. So these Egyptians would have had to move, you know, first of all, cut these giant stones, these granite, the hardest, one of the hardest stones on earth and move them 500 miles, then raise them hundreds of feet in the air inside these pyramids and

Jared Yeah, I would love to see this done because it would have been spectacular.

Pete And the conventional explanation as to how they cut this granite was with pounding stones and copper chisels. That's the archaeological evidence of tools that they had during that, I think it was the early dynastic pyramids or when the early dynastic Egyptians that built those. And there's just so many, so many unanswered questions. And, you know, this kind of goes to, you know, this conversation that we've been having a little bit because it really exposes the dichotomy between academic institutions and sort of like self-taught people who are

just looking at this stuff, questioning it from a self-educated standpoint, right? Because there's just this clash of people who spend their lives studying stuff in an academic sense who, um, they, they don't just study the fascinating mysteries they'd have to study. They have to start from like the ground level to figuring out, you know, doing a lot of the boring work along the,

along the way to understand the foundations of these societies or these technologies or the history of the stuff, and not just necessarily being like, oh wow, crazy pyramid, it must have been aliens. Would you have, you have people coming from that, from that perspective and kind of like reverse engineering

from there, figuring out, okay, you know, let's just say academic, the academic consensus is this was built with copper chisels and pounding stones and moving it with ropes and pulleys. Well, how do you explain these perfectly cut saw blade marks in this granite or these scoop marks out of this granite? It looks like it was melted with some sort of chemical or these. Have you seen these? These are granite vases that were found in the

bottom of the Bent Pyramid that were –

Jared Pellett Is that a real one or is that a replica?

Pete This is a 3D print. Jared Pellett 3D print, okay. Pete It's a perfect – they were scanned. A gentleman who lives close to here, Matt Bell, he bought a bunch of these off the antiquities market and they were supposed to be made around, I think the carbon dating for them is like around 2500 BC. So like 4500 years ago, something like that. And that is the that's when the kids that the academic Egyptologists say they were using copper chisels and pounding stones,

but this thing is perfectly symmetrical. They measured it with a light scanner and they brought it to a huge aerospace corporation in the US one of the top aerospace companies and they measured it with one of their scanners and the diameter of this thing from bottom from the top of the lip to the very bottom of it is perfectly symmetrical within the DV the biggest deviation in symmetry there is is like This less than the size of a human hair So, so how did they do that with that technology?

This is a mystery. This is something you won't get a reasonable answer from, from somebody in academic Egyptology. So, you know, this kind of goes to our whole, like astronomy versus aliens and, you know, how, you know, academics are kind of,

they kind of stray away from this stuff.

But, uh. Although I, people are clever. We really are very clever. And, and unfortunately, we don't know all of the technology that was always used, right?

Yeah.

And I think that's part of the problem. We don't have records of all the technology that was developed and...

If they were using some sort of like ancient chemical slurries or something to make stone soft, we probably wouldn't have evidence of that or if they had metal tools, power.

Jared Yeah, and technology gets lost. I mean, that

happens. Pete If they had toasters, we wouldn't see them, we wouldn't have any evidence of toasters.

Jared Yeah, that's right. I mean, and technology gets lost. I mean, the Romans learned how to make cement, right? So, you've got the, what is it, the Pantheon, right, is a cement dome, right? It's Roman cement. It's solid. It's still there, right? And when Bruno Leschi wanted to make a dome for the cathedral in Florence, they didn't know how to make cement. So, they made theirs out of brick, right? They had to go make it out of brick, but, because the technology for making cement was lost, but.

Yeah.

You know, so we don't know a lot about, and then you've got, what is the, the Antikythera mechanism? I don't know if I'm pronouncing that right.

The Antikythera mechanism.

That actually.

Was found in a shipwreck, right?

It was found in a shipwreck that actually has gears, you know, several hundred years before Da Vinci's gears. And it's – so, we didn't know they had gear technology back then. We have one example of it, right? And so, was that one artisan learned how to make gears and use them, or was it a widespread technology? And so, that's – because you can very often have a gifted artisan

come up with their own technology and maybe make that vase like that, right? But then that gets lost when the person dies.

Pete Yeah, right.

And they don't have, I mean...

Pete So, somebody, I think a lot of this, technology is a complicated thing and complicated stories. And not all technology that gets developed is widely used. It's not all, and not just because it's a secret in the government. It could be just a few people just know how to do it. Right.

Right, and you know, all the records that we use to learn about the shit that was happening thousands of years ago in antiquity is, you know, is written down, I mean, think of the stuff that before we had the written word, what was going on and how were they able to keep records of it and how can we study that? Because even the written stuff now is all copies. It's all been copied and copied and translated and, you know, it's been thousands of years, so it's just like we're playing this game of telephone trying to get the most

Jared It's a game of telephone, right?

Pete The most accurate possible picture that we can. But some of these things don't, some stuff just doesn't add up. And there's people that are in these, you know, some of these ivory tower institutions that just aren't going to let go of it.

Petey Whittemore Yeah, you get these simplistic pet theories that just won't go away. Yeah, that's true. And that's really why you have to look at all the data. You've got to explain everything. And if you can't explain why that vase is so symmetric, you've got a problem. And those are the anomalies, right?

Yeah. But it's like, it's so disheartening when you just, it's like human beings, they just like, we prefer to argue about who's right versus like trying to maybe have an open mind and maybe look at this from a different angle and try it. But it's like, we don't want to rewrite history though. You know, that's the thing. We don't want to undo all of that work that's been done over the years. Jared Right, that's part of our worldview and we don't like changing worldviews, right? That's a problem. Jared Yes. And you know, this is one of the things that I've been thinking about a lot is the way humans have evolved forever with the development of

technology and how it's changed us. Like, before we had the written word or our ability to store our memory outside of our brains, I'm sure that we had, I mean, I imagine we must have had a far greater degree of sensory abilities to sense other things in nature that we may not be able to sense now or the things that have atrophied, right?

Because it's, it's obvious. I mean, I would imagine that our memory, wouldn't our memory had to have been far greater back before we were able to store our memory and store things on phones or in writing and stuff like this with technology.

Like you were alluding to before how now, when the Apollo astronauts were able to figure out the stars to figure out exactly where they were before they had the ability to just like figure it out with AI and a computer, they were, they had, their minds were,

whoa, what the fuck?

What was that? This thing just fell off.

I'm gonna say that leaf blower hero is.

Is that thing really loud right now?

It's getting loud, yeah.

All right, let me go talk to this guy.

Be sure to remember your thought

because you stopped in the middle.

Give him 20 bucks.

Yeah, no, I imagine that with like technology, the evolution of technology in relativity to the evolution of human beings, I would imagine that technology is eventually going to compensate for a lot of our abilities and a lot of like the function of the brain, right?

Because like how I was explaining, like I think ancient humans probably had far more sensory abilities than we do now. Like how now we become more lazy, we rely on AI and technology to do all these things, including compensate for our memory. So I wonder how that is going to affect us.

Yeah, I suppose you could still look at that with some existing cultures that still pass things down verbally, right? That would be interesting. People who study that probably would have a lot to say about our memory and how that works and how they were able to encode cultural information

that way, that's interesting.

Yeah, yeah, it would be interesting to see a study on like, you know, I know there's a lot of people right now that are, you know, there's a lot of uncontacted tribes that are just completely disconnected from the rest of the technological world. You know, just like imagine the civilization

that we have now, like in the most advanced metropolitan cities on earth. You know, you have Dubai and simultaneously on the other side of the world you have people running around naked. You know?

So like, couldn't it have been, if you go back 50 to 100, 200,000 years, wouldn't it be possible that there could have been two types of civilizations there, maybe a really advanced one and maybe a not so advanced one, that saw some sort of catastrophe coming or could have foreseen some sort of cataclysmic events coming and they were able to like escape or go underwater or whatever.

And a lot of people- It's one of the theories for what the UAP are, right? And being underwater too. We don't know who creates these things and who these people are.

Yeah.

Are they humans from the future? Are they humans from the past?

Are they-

Are they humans from the future? Are they humans from the past? Are they? Are they both? Both. Are they humans that broke off of the rest of us for at some point in time? It's a lot of, or are they extraterrestrials, you know, through all those possibilities too?

Yeah.

So what were you,

you were explaining briefly on our break, you have a friend who,

who's your friend that had that nuclear oh yes my friend Matthew are you

kidding me haha fooled that Danny Jones take this you've got to be kidding

before you took another break I was asking you about your friend who came up

with that nuclear Oh Matthew yes yeah Matthew, yes. Yeah, Matthew. Yeah, we were – so we were – especially after our Catalina mission, Matthew and I were brainstorming about how we might be able to get the attention of UFOs. How could you get some of their attention and have them come and check you out, right? What could you do? You know, and so we started with simple ideas. What if we went out on a boat and just let off a bunch of fireworks and then wait and see what happens, right, or something? But

that's not that interesting and that happens a bit and they're probably not interested in that. Pete Slauson You know, so, so the question is, what are they interested in? Well, they're interested in our nuclear weapon sites, right? So how do you think they detect them? Well, there's really only two main ways you could do it. You could detect gamma rays coming off of them,

unless there's lots of shielding, in which case the only thing you can't shield are neutrinos, right? So maybe they can detect neutrinos, but that's hard to imagine because neutrinos, right? So, maybe they can detect neutrinos, but that's hard to imagine because neutrinos don't interact with very much, which is why we use giant tanks of water to try to catch a neutrino, right? So, we were thinking, yeah, it'd be cool if you could get, then,

what if we had a small nuclear reactor? We could have a small nuclear reactor, start it up, and whatever it pumps out, you know out you know the radiation pumps out they'll see it and they'll come check it out and yeah we can study them I mean we're just brainstorming and and you know kind of like you would if you were 10 years old right just coming up with crazy ideas and what can you do um and neither one of us would dream of taking a nuclear reactor out into the public somewhere to try to, I

mean, highly illegal, highly dangerous, and highly dangerous for us and everybody. You know, you just don't do things like that. So we were just brainstorming. And a few weeks later, he comes, Matthew comes to me and goes, I have this great idea on how we can make a nuclear reactor. I'm like, but we can't really use that thing. He goes, no, but the idea for a nuclear reactor is kind of cool.

You've got to listen to this. So he explains to me he's got this idea for a lithium fission reaction. And of course, my first thought is, you know, like what most physicists would think, well, you use fission for heavy nuclei, which — and iron's the most stable. So, fission is when you break apart a nucleus, right? So, uranium, you give it a neutron, it becomes unstable and breaks apart, and you get energy

from that, but it makes two smaller nuclei. So, you break apart big ones. And plutonium is the same way. So I was like, well, lithium, that lithium comes right after helium, right? So it's a very light nucleus.

And I said, well, lithium, you mean fusion, right? And he goes, no, no, no, fission. I'm like, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. How does this work? He goes, no, no, no fission. Like, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. How does this work? He goes, you can actually get, if you add neutrons, you can have nuclear fission.

You can have the nuclei break apart into tritium, which is heavy hydrogen. And then this tritium is a radioactive gas, which two good things about it. One is it only has a half-life of 25 years, not like 25,000 years like something like uranium or plutonium that you have to

bury and hope that nobody goes there for the next 25,000 years. But this only has a half-life of 25 years, and it's hydrogen, so it escapes to space,

basically.

And so that's very nice. And you could actually use the tritium in other nuclear reactors as well. So you could actually collect the tritium and use it. So this is a cool reactor. And so he actually set out to actually build this thing, and he did it. I mean, he has a lithium crystal that he got.

And he's-

Pete T. Leakey, Jr. A what?

Pete T. Leakey, Jr. It's a lithium fluoride crystal that he got. And he is, it's a subcritical reaction. So you have to add, it only works while you're adding neutrons. It'll keep itself running for a little while,

but it dies down. It doesn't, it isn't going to blow up. It's not possible for it to blow up, which is the other good thing about it. So he likes to call it instead of the demon core, which is what they had with plutonium, right, that was actually dangerous, he calls this the angel core.

Pete Slauson Oh, wow.

Pete Slauson Which is kind of a nice name. I like that So he calls it the Angel Core, because it's not dangerous. And he has already done experiments activating it with neutrons. And yeah, you can get the thing running and producing energy. Pretty amazing, yeah.

And you were explaining, so like the side, as much of that stuff you could fit in like a little mug like that would last for how long?

Yeah, it was something like the piece he has is about the size of this coffee cup. And he's, and if I remember right, I don't, I'm not misquoting him, but it was something this big could produce enough power to power your house for a million years, which was amazing. I mean, it's a game changer. It's a huge deal.

And what, what is standing in his way from implementing something like this? Or like doing some sort of bigger test? David Bollinger You need money to do the tests. You need money to do tests. You need to figure out how to get the energy out of it, because the energy is coming out in the form of high-energy particles. So you've got to convert those high-energy particles to electricity to be able to use it, and so on. And that's the classic problem from nuclear power because nuclear power, you get – you have to couple this 21st century technology with 18th century technology.

Steam engines, right? You use the high energy power particles to heat up water, boil water, make steam and you power a steam engine. So nuclear power has been pretty crummy because you can't couple this nuclear technology with mechanical technology easily. And so he's been working on that as well.

Yeah, something like that. I mean, it's amazing that more funding and research and focus isn't going to things like that. That could literally change the trajectory of humanity.

Yeah, there's been, I mean, the little focus that's been has been in fusion research, which is reasonable, but you should be funding other things too. I mean, you have to, and typically you've got two types of fusion research that's been done. You've got laser confinement fusion, where you shine laser beams on hydrogen pellets and get them to implode. Or you've got magnetic confusion, or magnetic confinement fusion, where you hold a hydrogen plasma on a magnetic field and you pinch it with a magnetic field and

make it compress it and make it fuse. So you've got those two different types, and they compete for funding, right? So almost all the funding goes to those things. There had been some funding, some work done, actually at RPI had been done in sonofusion, which is with air bubbles in purified water. You can actually use sound waves to compress them and you can get fusion that way. And so that can be done on tabletop.

And there had been some research done on that and that got nixed by competitors and a lot of drama. So that was done at RPI for a while. But a lot of these ideas that really haven't been explored because there's no money to explore them because the money goes to,

the money, the little money there is, goes to the big ones, the laser fusion or magnetic confinement fusion.

Yeah, it's just shocking that there's not people out there with exorbitant amounts of money, like Elon Musk type people who would be willing to throw money at something like this that could change the paradigm.

It could change. Yeah, that would be worthwhile.

Yeah, you would imagine. Frustrating.

It is hard. I mean, when you're making new discoveries, you really have to explore lots of possibilities. And this is what nature does when, you know, you can see it in evolution, the Precambrian explosion, right? This is the explosion of the evolution of many types of life forms in the Precambrian era. You know, when you had the first animals, right? There were many different kinds. And then most of them die out because they don't work, and then the ones that survive are good ones and they keep going, right? And they evolve. And that's

how you should do it. And that's what you saw with the bicycle. The bicycle gets invented, and what happens? You get an explosion with many different kinds of bicycles. You get bicycles with giant wheels in the front, giant wheels in the back, which didn't work well, so you only saw a few of those. And you try everything and see what works.

And the same thing should be happening with other technological advances, like nuclear power. You should try some of these other ideas. Put some money into it, see what happens.

Yeah. Fascinating stuff, Kevin. Thanks again for coming and doing this, man. I really learned a lot today.

Thank you for having me. This has been great fun.

Where can people that are listening or watching find out more of your research? Do you have a website or any social media stuff?

Yeah, I have a website at the University at Albany, so you can search for both of us there. We have our UAPX website, which is right now we're working more closely with SCU, the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies. So you can Google and find us.

Darrell Bock Fantastic.

Oh, look at that.

Peter Jobins There's our UAPX website.

Darrell Bock There we us. Fantastic. Oh, look at that. There's our UAPX website.

Amazing. Well, we'll link it all below and hopefully we can get to the bottom of this.

All right, thank you so much. We'll have to do it again soon. That would be great. That would be great.

Good night, everybody.