Speaker 1: Welcome to the stream, guys. Today I have a very
Speaker 1: special guest. Do you guys know him as the Navy's
Speaker 1: developer of the UFL patents. Salvator Pias is back with
Speaker 1: me today on hard Trus. Let's get started right away. Welcome,
Speaker 1: please with me, salvat Or Pias, Sir, Welcome to the
Speaker 1: live stream.
Speaker 2: How are you doing, hey, brother, how are you doing
Speaker 2: for ORBS? A pleasure to be here. Hello to all
Speaker 2: your followers, your viewers, your subscribers. Hi, guys and girls.
Speaker 2: All right, let me start off the bed. Quick disclaimer.
Speaker 2: None of these statements I make here, opinions and so forth,
Speaker 2: are in any way associated with the United States Navy
Speaker 2: or the United States Space Force. I come here on
Speaker 2: this podcast as a private citizen. All the statements I make,
Speaker 2: all the opinions I make are my own. United States
Speaker 2: Government has absolutely nothing to do with this whatsoever. Now
Speaker 2: give me two minutes because I really got to get
Speaker 2: this off my chest and let me finish the thought
Speaker 2: before the stream is over. So whatever questions you got
Speaker 2: to ask, ask, but let me start with this. I
Speaker 2: have a feeling I know how these things move, how
Speaker 2: these orbs. It's very Oh my God, it's so freaking simple.
Speaker 2: I couldn't sleep last night, so I was thinking, dude,
Speaker 2: it all has to do with a very a rather
Speaker 2: simple relationship between time and frequency could be frequency of
Speaker 2: spin or frequency of vibration. If you do a quick
Speaker 2: dimensional analysis, you'll see that time swiggle line or is
Speaker 2: on the order of one divided by frequency just from
Speaker 2: a unit's point of view, But that also applies to
Speaker 2: the physics. If you apply the chain rule to that,
Speaker 2: T say equals a constant that has no dimensions, divided
Speaker 2: by saying frequency of spin. I prefer frequency of vibration
Speaker 2: because you can vibrate much higher. As you and I
Speaker 2: shall discuss eventually. We're not gonna give numbers, but anyway,
Speaker 2: so again, T equals a constant dimensional is constant divided
Speaker 2: by a frequency, say, of vibration. If you apply the
Speaker 2: chain rule chain rule. We're talking about first year college
Speaker 2: differential calculus, all right, chain rule. If you apply the
Speaker 2: chain rule to this relationship, you're gonna get something that
Speaker 2: basically says minus delta t T being time is on
Speaker 2: the order of delta frequency say delta omega divided by
Speaker 2: omega square. It's that freaking simple that minus delta T
Speaker 2: talks you can say to a reverse termporal excursion, if
Speaker 2: you want to go that way, or if you can
Speaker 2: consider the Minkowski space time metric. One of the solutions
Speaker 2: to it when delta x equals delta y equal delta
Speaker 2: zquals zero, one of the solutions to it is minus
Speaker 2: delta S for displacement equal c the speed of light
Speaker 2: delta T. Put in the delta T and notice how
Speaker 2: the signs all of a sudden become positive. It talks
Speaker 2: to a possible displacement. So in other words, what these
Speaker 2: orbs are doing, they're bathing. They're bathing the aircraft in
Speaker 2: a sea of frequencies non ionizing radiation. It's key, and
Speaker 2: I'll talk to it eventually. We have to possibly you,
Speaker 2: me and Dave ROSSI have to write a paper on this. Eventually.
Speaker 2: Maybe we'll do it in OSLF. It's huge, It's so
Speaker 2: freaking simple and beautiful. But the whole idea is it
Speaker 2: basically give a method of propulsion whereby when you have
Speaker 2: this bath of non ionizing radiation and developing the aircraft,
Speaker 2: when you dial up the frequency just from the formula itself,
Speaker 2: and if you go back into the recording, you'll see
Speaker 2: the exact formula that I was talking about. From application
Speaker 2: of the chain rule. You basically displace this thing, but
Speaker 2: it needs to shwingle limit. It needs for the quote
Speaker 2: unquote conditioning of the vacuum, so it allows the space
Speaker 2: the Minkowski space time metro to occur in a how
Speaker 2: should I say modified vacuum, Let's put it that way,
Speaker 2: A conditioned vacuum. We'll talk more about this, but this
Speaker 2: is how they display.
Speaker 1: More questions on that, and I want to get into
Speaker 1: it and a few but what I want to really
Speaker 1: start with though, with you, is on your background, because
Speaker 1: there's so much confusion I think over it. You know,
Speaker 1: first of all, let me ask you this, why are
Speaker 1: you doing public appearances at all? What is your motivation?
Speaker 1: And did you get permission from the Navy to do
Speaker 1: your appearances.
Speaker 2: Only as a private citizen. That's why I give the
Speaker 2: disclaimer at the beginning of all this. And then again
Speaker 2: I always speak to Ecube brother. I always say, we're
Speaker 2: not here to educate or in any way enlighten the
Speaker 2: enemy e Cube. So I do not give numbers, I
Speaker 2: do not give ranges. I give concepts ideas. Now, how
Speaker 2: to enable these ideas. You actually need numbers, you need
Speaker 2: specified condition environments. Period, go ahead.
Speaker 1: Are you doing it so that people will be privy
Speaker 1: to this information knowing, you know, not thinking that it's
Speaker 1: currently real, because a lot of people think that your
Speaker 1: your patents and your technology and the science that you
Speaker 1: push is pseudoscience. They love to say that. So I
Speaker 1: guess the question I'm getting is are you what?
Speaker 3: What?
Speaker 1: What are you getting out of this?
Speaker 2: I am a part of this. I this is my way.
Speaker 2: Nobody will accept my papers. Nobody. Uh. My way of
Speaker 2: of how should I say, of of of convincing the
Speaker 2: world that in any way my ideas were correct, was
Speaker 2: to publish patents and not even then these days are
Speaker 2: allowed anymore. Nowadays it's getting harder and harder to get
Speaker 2: certain ideas past the primary examiners. These are the guys
Speaker 2: that can actually have the office of action to allow
Speaker 2: the pattern. So what I get out of this is
Speaker 2: my ideas being heard number one and number two. Sometimes
Speaker 2: it's just for example, the Russians give us recently what
Speaker 2: orationik It's called I think Hazel not treat the exact
Speaker 2: translation from the Russian. And it's interesting because they're talking
Speaker 2: about subclass ammunitions like this hypers on thing actually clusters
Speaker 2: away or anyway, So the hazel lout tree speaks to clusters.
Speaker 2: I think up to five hazel nuts on one branch.
Speaker 2: So anyway, it's it's an interesting idea, but it just
Speaker 2: gives them an idea that we too have concepts that
Speaker 2: they have not heard of. So in a way, it's
Speaker 2: how should I say, be careful how you handle us,
Speaker 2: because if a private citizen can get on this, and
Speaker 2: how should I say, speak to a dance physics even
Speaker 2: though they it's called pseudo science. Look, the truth of
Speaker 2: the matter is in time. I don't know about space.
Speaker 2: But in time, all these ideas will be cleared, they'll
Speaker 2: be validated, they will be verified. Just like your idea
Speaker 2: that m three seventy what happened with it is correct,
Speaker 2: it's starting to take fruition. So will my ideas when
Speaker 2: they be accepted, and they will at that point in time.
Speaker 2: That's all. But yeah, of course, so.
Speaker 1: You put the so you put it out there so
Speaker 1: that in the future people will go this guy, you know,
Speaker 1: put marked his stamp on the world in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: in twenty nineteen and said this stuff's real and may
Speaker 1: take you a while to accept it, but it's out there,
Speaker 1: and the proof is there is that knacket representation of
Speaker 1: your motivations.
Speaker 2: You could say that, but also I represent all the
Speaker 2: people that were not heard, all the people who's the
Speaker 2: quote unquote pseudo science never stand.
Speaker 3: On the.
Speaker 2: Oh completely, they're there. For example, people like Harold putovsh
Speaker 2: have had a noble price, but because the man was
Speaker 2: associated with the remote viewing stargate and so forth, all
Speaker 2: these interesting names. But anyway, because let me, I got
Speaker 2: a lot of questions to ask you community, Yeah ahead.
Speaker 1: No, we're gonna get to all these things. So you know,
Speaker 1: let's just keep it h you know, somewhat brief and
Speaker 1: then we'll we'll, you know, we a lot of lesson
Speaker 1: to discuss here. So one more thing though too, in
Speaker 1: your background is so what is your background after in
Speaker 1: the early two thousands. There's a gap between when you
Speaker 1: were at Case Western, you were working with NASA Glenn
Speaker 1: as a research graduate student, I believe, and then all
Speaker 1: of a sudden no one heard about you until your
Speaker 1: patents come out. Were you working with the Navy and
Speaker 1: other military organizations that entire time?
Speaker 2: I wish there was a hiring freeze in NASA, and
Speaker 2: even though I had a graduate research fellowship and I
Speaker 2: would have been given a permanent government position once I
Speaker 2: had graduated from Case Western Reserve University with my PhD,
Speaker 2: because of that high and freeze, they were not able
Speaker 2: to take me on. So I had to find the thing.
Speaker 2: I was part of a consulting engineering company. I think
Speaker 2: it was called Cisco and Hennessy at one point, and
Speaker 2: there was a period that I was actually laid off.
Speaker 2: I have an interesting past, but when I was laid off,
Speaker 2: I started reading a lot on my own and developed
Speaker 2: some of these physics concepts even back then.
Speaker 1: So okay, that's good to know. So were you at
Speaker 1: the NASA Breakthrough Physics Propulsion Program workshop? Did you attend
Speaker 1: it at all? It's been rumored that you were in
Speaker 1: attendance because of the crossover and when you were working
Speaker 1: with NASA.
Speaker 2: I do not remember that, sir. I do not remember that.
Speaker 2: It's quite possible that maybe I was in one or
Speaker 2: two conferences, but no, I did not. My only paper
Speaker 2: at that time, I think, published in ninety five, was
Speaker 2: in the essay I think it was Technical Papers. It
Speaker 2: was something called the induced trust effect a method of propulsion,
Speaker 2: rather interesting propulsion method. You can read that paper. I
Speaker 2: think it's still as part of the se SAE series
Speaker 2: of papers. He can google it and find it.
Speaker 1: Did you see the most recent UFO hearings of this
Speaker 1: immaculate constellation and all this stuff that was going on?
Speaker 1: And you're familiar with that.
Speaker 2: You mean immaculate constipation?
Speaker 1: So I'll tell you yes, because have you seen this
Speaker 1: document that was released along with it that references you
Speaker 1: several times in it? And it looks to be a
Speaker 1: historical reference of all of people related to the UFO community.
Speaker 1: How pudas mentioned ninety three times in it here, it
Speaker 1: mentions your work and your PhD dissertation at Case Western,
Speaker 1: and it connects you to NASA Glen again in a
Speaker 1: weird way where it says that you were working at
Speaker 1: NASA Glenn and Nick Cook, the author of Hunt for
Speaker 1: Zero Point Energy, he was told that NASA Glenn was
Speaker 1: working on breakthrough physics which led to the creation of
Speaker 1: a device capable of high speed interstellar travel. Now I
Speaker 1: have to ask, like, are you connected to whatever is
Speaker 1: being talked about here? Because your patents are literally a
Speaker 1: interstellar faster than light device. So what is your thoughts
Speaker 1: on this?
Speaker 2: Nothing travels faster than the speed of light special relativity.
Speaker 2: We're going back to Einstein. Einstein is correct, Einstein shall
Speaker 2: always be proven correct. That's just the prophecy you've heard
Speaker 2: it first year anyway. Yeah, I don't think Einstein needs
Speaker 2: me as a profit to let the world know that
Speaker 2: his incredible work is will will always be valid given
Speaker 2: a certain medium. Again, as you will know, squal see
Speaker 2: zero divided by n square, where n is the index
Speaker 2: of refraction. So we are talking about within a giving medium.
Speaker 2: This speed of light is a constant. It's one of
Speaker 2: the fundamental assertions of special relativity on which that fundamental stands.
Speaker 2: As a matter of fact, this whole thing that I
Speaker 2: spoke about in the beginning using the Minkowski it's based
Speaker 2: on metric to show how the displacement of these orbs,
Speaker 2: how they take place, is based on special relativity, and
Speaker 2: in particular this idea, the speed of light within a
Speaker 2: given medium is constant, and no nothing can go past
Speaker 2: the speed of light in a given medium unless you
Speaker 2: condition the vacuum itself. So, in other words, unless you
Speaker 2: condition the medium for which this traveling way, whatever craft
Speaker 2: it is, occurs.
Speaker 1: So is that a yes you worked on it, or
Speaker 1: no you didn't work on it.
Speaker 2: Oh? No, no, absolutely not. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 2: I was in a whole different branch. I was in
Speaker 2: the flu dynamics branch. I was working on a CO
Speaker 2: and crossflow. Yeah, co and cross flow basically methods of
Speaker 2: heat t in space.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's gonna be relevant to it. And later discussion here.
Speaker 1: So I got more questions. I'm gonna shoot at you
Speaker 1: here as well. Are you aware of technology that is
Speaker 1: beyond the public's understanding that the public would just say
Speaker 1: doesn't currently exist right now?
Speaker 2: Absolutely not, sorry, Other than my own applications, my own
Speaker 2: patent applications that I came from. I tell you all
Speaker 2: these ideas I got by reading certain books. For example,
Speaker 2: my favorite remains to this day, and that's why I
Speaker 2: cannot even though he is a person that cannot tolerate
Speaker 2: my work in any way, I will always hold doctor
Speaker 2: Eric W. Davis in very high esteem because one of
Speaker 2: my favorite books of all time is Frontiers of Propulsion Science,
Speaker 2: that he co edited with markmel.
Speaker 1: Why do you think that he doesn't like you? Eric W. Davis?
Speaker 1: For the people in the chat who are not familiar.
Speaker 1: It's probably the number one world expert on wormholes and
Speaker 1: other advanced space propulsion concepts. Definitely has connections to black projects.
Speaker 1: John Ramuir's of the CIA alluded to the fact that
Speaker 1: he had seen him on his name on bigot lists.
Speaker 1: So what is it Do you think he's a gatekeeper
Speaker 1: of this technology? What do you think? Why is it
Speaker 1: you think he doesn't like you.
Speaker 2: When I try to publish, I think it was a
Speaker 2: Journal of British Interplanetary Society. When I try to try
Speaker 2: to publish there, he really ripped into my work big
Speaker 2: time with the several emails to some really good people
Speaker 2: that loved my work at the time. Was Hermann, David Frohning, Frowning,
Speaker 2: fro n I n G. For some reason his name
Speaker 2: is not is not so much mentioned, but at one
Speaker 2: point in time it was him, It was put off.
Speaker 2: It was Paul Murad that were very high up in this.
Speaker 2: Of course, with Eric W. Davis, who's always been there.
Speaker 2: Quite possible he is one of the gatekeepers. He is.
Speaker 2: If you read that book Frontiers on Propulsion Science, that
Speaker 2: the section that he himself wrote in which he argues
Speaker 2: he argues for possibility of vacuum decay, the idea of
Speaker 2: vacuum melting again, modification of the medium through which is
Speaker 2: for you to travel, for reduction of inertial forces. I mean,
Speaker 2: come on, the man is an absolute genius on the
Speaker 2: level of put off, I would argue. So problem is,
Speaker 2: of course he doesn't like my work. Now he says
Speaker 2: he doesn't like my work. Maybe it's for a different reason,
Speaker 2: Maybe deep down he does. That's it possible. Maybe one
Speaker 2: day him and I will have a beer and laugh
Speaker 2: over this. I hope, hope, I hope so because I
Speaker 2: I yeah, I hold him in very high esteem.
Speaker 1: Good segue real quick, because we'll talk more about those
Speaker 1: guys in a minute. But so, do you think UFOs
Speaker 1: are real? There's something out there called the UFOs unidentified
Speaker 1: flying objects that are floating around in the sky.
Speaker 2: You need you mean, I acknowledge effing objects, absolutely, absolutely
Speaker 2: they What do you think this whole idea that their
Speaker 2: phenomena bothers me. I'll tell you the truth.
Speaker 1: We got this thing floating around here right, This is
Speaker 1: my UFO floater. I can be whatever you want. Give
Speaker 1: me a ball, like, give me a flying saucer or
Speaker 1: whatever it is. Salvat or pie is. And by the way,
Speaker 1: am I saying your last name correctly? Is that pies have?
Speaker 1: I've been saying it incorrectly as well? What is sal
Speaker 1: What is the energy source of this UFO? What? What?
Speaker 1: In your opinion, what's the energy source? Where's the energy
Speaker 1: source coming from for this thing it's floating around freely
Speaker 1: in the sky.
Speaker 2: Well quite possibly it's it's on board that craft, but
Speaker 2: exactly how it operates, whether it can manipulate the superforce,
Speaker 2: in which case it's their, or it can generate certain
Speaker 2: condition electromagnetic fields which generate gravitation waves of high frequency,
Speaker 2: in which case it's towers that that power source would differ.
Speaker 1: So yeah, So I don't understand how any power source
Speaker 1: could be on board because again Einstein equals mc squared
Speaker 1: the amount of energy levels that would be required just
Speaker 1: to levitate for a prolonged period of time. The more
Speaker 1: mass you put in your craft, it's a self defeating prophecy.
Speaker 1: The more energy it now requires for that thing to levitate.
Speaker 1: So how could it require how could it be something
Speaker 1: that's on board? To me, the only logical explanation would
Speaker 1: be there must require an external energy source that's not
Speaker 1: on board. How would you respond to that?
Speaker 2: I would beg to differ. Now, you and I have
Speaker 2: never had an argument, but in this I must stand
Speaker 2: my ground. I believe that the energy source of this
Speaker 2: of whatever is on board. And why because it doesn't
Speaker 2: need to be something extremely big. Again, there's a lot
Speaker 2: of things that you can achieve via resonance and non
Speaker 2: ionizing radiation, especially when you oscillate plasmas in a certain mode,
Speaker 2: certain fashion. I'll just leave it there. No numbers, we'll
Speaker 2: talk about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, okay, So let's just let's you know what.
Speaker 1: I'm fine. I'm happy to have disagreements, you know, and
Speaker 1: you know, professional disagreements and understanding. I'm still learning about
Speaker 1: this a lot. So anything where I off base, please
Speaker 1: correct me. Now go back to you.
Speaker 2: But you must eventually elucidate your idea that that the
Speaker 2: that the power source could be external to the craft,
Speaker 2: because it's interesting, it's very interesting. After all, you have
Speaker 2: to understand that if you consider something called god what
Speaker 2: did he call it? Was it radiative energy? What did
Speaker 2: Nicola Tesla.
Speaker 1: Called his radio energy?
Speaker 2: You know, radiant energy?
Speaker 3: That's it?
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, yes, And he had the ability to to
Speaker 2: to to in a way. Uh. He he had a
Speaker 2: very strange craft. I remember seeing it in one of
Speaker 2: his patents, but for some reason, Uh, it's it's very
Speaker 2: you don't find that patent. Uh, it's it looks very strange.
Speaker 2: It looks almost like an asymmetric capacitor speaking of the
Speaker 2: the brown So anyway.
Speaker 1: Yeah, do you believe in energy? Tesla?
Speaker 2: Did by that you mean zero point energy?
Speaker 1: Well, however you think of it, I think of it
Speaker 1: as zero point energy. What do you think do you
Speaker 1: think we can extract zero point energy?
Speaker 2: Some people seem to think so. So who am I
Speaker 2: to differ? Why why should I say no to that?
Speaker 2: I like to speak to things that I have knowledge of,
Speaker 2: and to me, I think the study of the super
Speaker 2: force is very important as to exactly how, for example,
Speaker 2: et guide their craft, because it seems to be far
Speaker 2: more than just something mechanical in nature or rather electromatic,
Speaker 2: however you want to see it. That it seems has
Speaker 2: to do with their consciousness as well, which is very
Speaker 2: very strange.
Speaker 1: But go ahead, go back to your patents real quick.
Speaker 1: And that's okay. So let's straight upat are your patents operable?
Speaker 2: Every one of them has been enabled. That's why they.
Speaker 1: Enabled, different than operable. Though enabled there's two different terms there,
Speaker 1: but operable would imply that one has been produced and exists.
Speaker 2: All these theoretical concepts. All these are theoretical concepts as
Speaker 2: far as I know. The only thing that's been attempted
Speaker 2: was the high energy electromagnetic field generator, and we were
Speaker 2: not able to obtain charges electrical charges photose ultracapacities higher
Speaker 2: than say ten to the minus eight coolambs. Yeah, we
Speaker 2: need at least one coolamb of charge to generate certain effects.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's an eight orders of magnitude different than what
Speaker 1: you were trying to achieve. So how do you reconcile
Speaker 1: those results with your belief and opinion that your science
Speaker 1: is going to be proven to be real in the future.
Speaker 1: And to me, there's a discrepancy. You know, you're looking
Speaker 1: at this result and the mainstream people are looking at
Speaker 1: and going, well, he had his high energy electromagnetic field
Speaker 1: generated result and the result is eight orders of magnitude
Speaker 1: too low. So how is it that you're so confident
Speaker 1: that it can produce these energy levels?
Speaker 2: Okay, from a solid, an electrified solid point of view,
Speaker 2: we should have gone with pelotrons vand graph generators, they
Speaker 2: can actually generate charges much higher than that. Then the
Speaker 2: whole idea was to prevent the subject from marking and
Speaker 2: losing the charge, So that would have to be done
Speaker 2: in specialized environments. I will not say exactly what can
Speaker 2: be done, but again Van the graph generators peleotrons which
Speaker 2: are dynamic in nature, but you can think of them
Speaker 2: as dynamic undergraph generators. They have the ability of generating
Speaker 2: very high electrical charges. The whole idea is how do
Speaker 2: you keep the electrified solid from arcing from giving away
Speaker 2: that charge? And that's not simple now, but I believe
Speaker 2: the Shwinger limit can be broken, but with plasma, not
Speaker 2: with electrified solids. It's possible that also there may be
Speaker 2: a way to engineer an electrified solid to bring about
Speaker 2: Schwinger limit breaking, but it would be much harder from
Speaker 2: an engineering aspect.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So this is what I was getting at is
Speaker 1: that I saw one of your other interviews and you
Speaker 1: did mention that, well, these solids can't obtain the energy
Speaker 1: levels are required, but plasma might be able to. So
Speaker 1: what I'm hearing here is that you're saying that, well,
Speaker 1: the experiment that we did didn't use the optimal medium
Speaker 1: in which to produce these energy levels, but that the plasmas,
Speaker 1: you know, therefore theoretically could if we were using that.
Speaker 1: I just want to know. Is that an accurate representation
Speaker 1: of what you're saying.
Speaker 2: There in a way. But even the experiment itself, even
Speaker 2: though it had such a small charge on it, you
Speaker 2: have to remember there were two anomalies if you fired
Speaker 2: that experimental the experimental results, which the Senate Arm Service
Speaker 2: Committee is the technical staffers that actually investigated the work
Speaker 2: that came and interrogated doctor Sihi over it, among also
Speaker 2: the Invention Evaluation Board at the time. They concluded that
Speaker 2: these two anomalies had to be looked into because even
Speaker 2: with small charges, you could not dismiss them. It'd be
Speaker 2: different if it was a one, you know, only one anomaly,
Speaker 2: but there were two, and they were specific to a
Speaker 2: particular biological sensation which was reproducible. Look carefully into that
Speaker 2: because if ten to the minus eight coulombs can generate
Speaker 2: that effect, can you imagine what a one coolamb of
Speaker 2: charge kutu? Anyway?
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, So what if these patents are so disruptive
Speaker 1: and I've been hearing this all or I've been hearing
Speaker 1: national security talker Carlson was just talking to Clayton Morris
Speaker 1: talking about he believes the truth of UFO disclosure is
Speaker 1: extremely disruptive. Then why would the Navy let these patents
Speaker 1: become publicly available? And I think I know the answer,
Speaker 1: but I want to hear your thought on it. You
Speaker 1: know these patents, Your patents represent a technology shift that
Speaker 1: could be free energy certainly means propulsion mechanisms that can
Speaker 1: make us an interstellar Why are we telling everybody about it?
Speaker 2: Given the nineteen fifty one Security Act. I asked myself
Speaker 2: the same thing. As a matter of fact, the pattern
Speaker 2: attorney for the organization I was working for at the time,
Speaker 2: in a way question why was this let out into
Speaker 2: the open? To this day, I'm not sure it could
Speaker 2: quite be that they could not find anything wrong with
Speaker 2: the physics, and yet to the Invention Evaluation Board this
Speaker 2: sounded very much like science fiction. The only reason that
Speaker 2: they put them out again is that they couldn't find
Speaker 2: anything wrong with the physics. There was nothing. And as
Speaker 2: a matter of fact, you're going to remember that five
Speaker 2: times I went in front of the Invention event is board,
Speaker 2: and I can maybe the passion in my voice, maybe
Speaker 2: the fact that I went to the drive board and
Speaker 2: actually showed them the equations, showed them the exact derivation
Speaker 2: for Maxo's equation, exactly what I was talking about. Not once,
Speaker 2: not twice, not three times, five times I did this,
Speaker 2: and maybe I was able to convince them I actually
Speaker 2: knew what I was talking about, and I do know
Speaker 2: what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: So Russia and China have this technology already. Do you
Speaker 1: think that might be a reason why they let it
Speaker 1: come out.
Speaker 2: I have no idea whatsoever. But you have to understand
Speaker 2: that I truly believe that I'm not an original in this.
Speaker 2: I'm one hundred percent sure that someone would have noticed
Speaker 2: this in the time of all of the heavy side
Speaker 2: and the how should I say, the heavy side version
Speaker 2: of Maxo's equations coupled well, simple Harmonica lator gives the
Speaker 2: price effect, of course, not taking into consideration the core plasma,
Speaker 2: the an equilibrium effects and so forth. That's a whole
Speaker 2: different matter, the whole idea of breaking the Shwingle limit.
Speaker 2: But someone would have realized that such electromagnetic energy flexes
Speaker 2: of such high intensity are feasible at that time, and
Speaker 2: quite possibly because there were such great engineers. I mean,
Speaker 2: these were times that gave rise to people like Nikola Tesla.
Speaker 2: They were most likely they they questioned, these were great
Speaker 2: engineers man, and I truly believe that at that point
Speaker 2: in time, it's as if it's as if there was
Speaker 2: a timeline shift. It's as if quantum mechanics took over
Speaker 2: the minds of everyone and instead of following say Max
Speaker 2: Swellin and Einsteinian physics on one path, freebody just went
Speaker 2: for the quantum mechanics way.
Speaker 1: So are you saying that we can amplify energy? Is that?
Speaker 1: Do you believe that that's possible, that we can just
Speaker 1: take energy in a circuit and amplify it using say
Speaker 1: like parametric.
Speaker 2: Oscillations resonance effects. Absolutely, look carefully at one particular paper
Speaker 2: I trip l E Plasma. It's it's published in I
Speaker 2: trip l E Transactions on Plasma Science. The title of
Speaker 2: the paper is the Plasma Compression Fusion Device. It's the
Speaker 2: one paper that was truly accepted by one of the
Speaker 2: most prestigious journals in existence on plasma physics. This is
Speaker 2: I Triple E TPS that accepted this and it's being
Speaker 2: cited by very high level Chinese research teams. One of
Speaker 2: them actually I Tropolate Journal of Cybernetics. You have to
Speaker 2: ask yourself why it's very interesting. But I look very
Speaker 2: careful in that paper equations five and six. There's one
Speaker 2: particular equation that speaks to a resonance effect that based
Speaker 2: on certain frequencies, based on certain conditions, you can have
Speaker 2: energy great energy amplifications started from a modest power level.
Speaker 2: Let's leave it at that. It's interesting that they have
Speaker 2: found that paper and they're really really it's interesting that
Speaker 2: the citing it's it's as if they're holding it up
Speaker 2: and saying, ah, look at this interesting. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So, I mean amplification of energy to me is massive,
Speaker 1: and that's something that I took away from our first
Speaker 1: interview a year ago, which could mean that you can
Speaker 1: achieve energy levels any energy level that you need for anything,
Speaker 1: which to me is extremely dangerous. And if that's true,
Speaker 1: that could explain why this science, this technology is kept
Speaker 1: secret for the interest of national defense. Whether or not
Speaker 1: we can pull infinite energy from the environment is a
Speaker 1: different question, and I think either of these being true.
Speaker 1: Either pulling infinite energy from the environment or amplifying energy
Speaker 1: that we already have are both just extremely dangerous and
Speaker 1: the implications are huge. But if that's also true, it
Speaker 1: can't be kept hidden forever. And the reason why I
Speaker 1: point this out is because you've mentioned and you mentioned
Speaker 1: it again just now that how could other scientists not
Speaker 1: have seen this in the Maxwell's equations. How could they
Speaker 1: not have seen this in the heavy sides versions of
Speaker 1: the equations that are out there. It's just simple math.
Speaker 1: You look at the energy level, it's equal to something squared.
Speaker 1: You know, that's an exponential growth indicator. Now what I
Speaker 1: want to do in that go ahead and commentation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you have very student observation, bro. I've noticed certain
Speaker 2: things about you. I got to say it to your
Speaker 2: audience because I do respect you greatly. I think within
Speaker 2: the last year you've really come up. You've it is
Speaker 2: amazing you are not of a physics pedigree, because I
Speaker 2: believe that you can actually hold your own with almost
Speaker 2: anyone in the field if they're willing to give you
Speaker 2: a chance to speak. See that's the big if. However,
Speaker 2: in my opinion, you have the three piece brother, all right.
Speaker 2: You have patience, you have persistence, and you have perspicacity
Speaker 2: which leads to the big P. I believe that one
Speaker 2: day you shall prevail in your quest to prove image
Speaker 2: three seventy is a very real thing.
Speaker 1: I hope. So yeah, And I think a lot about
Speaker 1: our last conversation where you said one of the things
Speaker 1: you said is, Man, you said something. I think about
Speaker 1: what Ashton would have to go through to prove that
Speaker 1: this stuff is real. And I think about that almost
Speaker 1: every day because man, it had to go through a
Speaker 1: lot of craft in order to try to get to
Speaker 1: get this information out there, which is why I appreciate
Speaker 1: you being here. And actually I want to ask you
Speaker 1: a few questions about the MH three seven zero videos
Speaker 1: here and just get right to it. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: my first question is when did you first hear about
Speaker 1: me or see those videos? Was it after I reached
Speaker 1: out to you, or had somebody reached out to you
Speaker 1: before that that made you aware of my stuff?
Speaker 2: Exactly when you reached out to me, I started looking
Speaker 2: into you because I had no idea what to expect.
Speaker 2: You told me that I was going to be your
Speaker 2: first Heart Truth podcast, and that's a really cool name.
Speaker 2: I got to say, Heart Truth because this is this
Speaker 2: is the hardest truth imaginable. So you you you hit
Speaker 2: you hit that nail right on the head.
Speaker 1: Bro.
Speaker 2: That's that's a great podcas name.
Speaker 1: So you saw it for the first time right after
Speaker 1: I got in touch with you. You saw it, And
Speaker 1: now I want to know what your impressions were when
Speaker 1: you watched And I'm gonna pull the video up here
Speaker 1: where we can kind of look at it together. And
Speaker 1: what were your impressions when you saw specifically this video
Speaker 1: here for the first time.
Speaker 2: Oh man, when I saw those orbs, I saw this thing,
Speaker 2: this one orb. Just start exactly what it's doing now,
Speaker 2: just start to go around this thing. And all of
Speaker 2: a sudden it started to join another one and then
Speaker 2: another one, and I said, oh my god, they're forming
Speaker 2: a bubble of non ionizing radiation around this thing. There's
Speaker 2: no way, there's no way what's about to happen? I anticipated,
Speaker 2: do you understand I knew before that black hole happened,
Speaker 2: let's call it a black was.
Speaker 1: Going to happen.
Speaker 2: Beforehand, I knew that would happen. I knew that would happen.
Speaker 2: That's why when I said, I said, this is it.
Speaker 2: This is the price effect. Of course, it's you know, Hubris,
Speaker 2: that's the only thing I got going for me. Brother,
Speaker 2: That's not one thing I'm losing anytime soon.
Speaker 1: So have you ever seen videos like this, military videos
Speaker 1: like this before, anything even similar remotely similar to this? Ugh?
Speaker 2: Never ever, And even if I have, because you point,
Speaker 2: I would not be able to discuss because that would
Speaker 2: give away methods.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that's fine. I had to ask anyway, now,
Speaker 1: when you watched this part at the end with the
Speaker 1: slow mod, what are you thinking as an engineer here? Like,
Speaker 1: what do you what is this? What does it make
Speaker 1: you think of when you're watching this?
Speaker 2: Oh? My goodness, I was absolutely I could not believe
Speaker 2: that this was happening.
Speaker 1: Why do you think there is like that?
Speaker 2: At the end, they're actually focusing as much nonine on
Speaker 2: its radiation around this craft in order to act to
Speaker 2: condition the local vacuum around the craft the aircraft in
Speaker 2: order to form this wormhole opening for one of the
Speaker 2: becker what's a warmhole. It's really a black hole connector
Speaker 2: to Whitehall. Whatever has an entrance will most likely have
Speaker 2: an exit. I do not believe in space time singularities.
Speaker 2: I'm afraid Penrose was one hundred percent wrong from this
Speaker 2: point of view, it never goes to zero. There's a
Speaker 2: quantum bounce as car is correct, there's an oshter car
Speaker 2: bounce at the plank scale. There's no such thing as
Speaker 2: a space time singularity. And this whole idea of spaget
Speaker 2: I can't even pronounce it. It's so idiotic. Every time
Speaker 2: I hear, oh, we're going to be pulled into the thing,
Speaker 2: and look, it's just a way to travel.
Speaker 1: Do you think that there is a Casimir effect happening
Speaker 1: here being offsetting a Coolan repulsion effect when they converge together,
Speaker 1: Because when I look at see that conversion, I immediately
Speaker 1: think of Coulan force distance between the two charged objects
Speaker 1: being reduced. You know, it's going to increase your force exponentially.
Speaker 2: You think that's force is really the force of repulsion
Speaker 2: between particles of the same charge. That's the way I
Speaker 2: view the Coulan force. Again. The whole idea of why
Speaker 2: I thought that they were getting close and started to
Speaker 2: oscillate around this thing is to basically create that resonance
Speaker 2: effect that would build a field to the levels it
Speaker 2: would need to break locally the Shwingle limit. That's why
Speaker 2: I thought that they would start pulsating inward. You see
Speaker 2: how they start oscillating around this thing, and at one point,
Speaker 2: you know, you can actually see them change course, change direction.
Speaker 2: That's also very interesting because now.
Speaker 1: You mentioned that with the vectory in earlier at the
Speaker 1: beginning as well as that you thought that it must
Speaker 1: be related to time.
Speaker 2: And yes, and it's so freaking simple because think from
Speaker 2: a dimensional scaling point of view. Just from a simple
Speaker 2: dimensional analysis, time goes as one divided by frequency. Could
Speaker 2: be spin or vibration. It doesn't matter. The mathematics are
Speaker 2: similar for both spin and vibrations. Anyone that wants to
Speaker 2: study that, go to a first year first year college
Speaker 2: book and you'll see what the why I say, the
Speaker 2: mathematics of spin and vibration are very similar. Now the
Speaker 2: whole once you have times on the order one divided
Speaker 2: by frequency if you use the chain rule, so we
Speaker 2: talk about first year for college, first year differential calculus,
Speaker 2: the chain rule, okay, in this case would be A
Speaker 2: divided by B, where a b are functions of say
Speaker 2: the same variable X. Just look up the formula and
Speaker 2: you will see that what you get once you applying
Speaker 2: the chain rule to T is on the order one
Speaker 2: divided by frequency, you get t sorry minus delta t,
Speaker 2: so minus the change in time is on the order
Speaker 2: of the change in omega. In other words, the change
Speaker 2: in frequency divided by the frequency square. That comes right
Speaker 2: out of the chain rule. And you have to ask
Speaker 2: yourself at that time, just think think Minkowski spacetime metric.
Speaker 2: When you have delta x equal delta y called delta
Speaker 2: z equals zero. So say you center this thing, you
Speaker 2: get as a solution of the space time metric of
Speaker 2: Minkowski space dimetric minus ds equals see the speed of
Speaker 2: light times dt. Well that minus d T. Put in
Speaker 2: this formula and you'll see how displacement can come from
Speaker 2: basically bathing this craft in a say frequency and nan
Speaker 2: ionizing radiation. It's important and actually it's very interesting because
Speaker 2: the price effect speaks to this. But anyway, uh, why
Speaker 2: not non ionizing because it would have been really easily
Speaker 2: uh detected on the infrared imagery if it was ionizing.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, that's a good point.
Speaker 2: We're so we talked about something small and then terror
Speaker 2: hurts level very interesting.
Speaker 1: Okay, Yeah, we're gonna talk more about that in just
Speaker 1: a second. There's a couple more questions on the videos.
Speaker 1: Do you think that video is a test if you
Speaker 1: were to look at this as somebody who's been works
Speaker 1: for the military, do you think, like you know, if
Speaker 1: you're if what you're looking at here is real and
Speaker 1: this is you know, breaking the swinger limit as you're
Speaker 1: claiming here, do you think that this technology has been
Speaker 1: used before? Or do you think any anything that you
Speaker 1: watch this video leans you one way or another on that?
Speaker 1: And really what I'm getting at here is, you know,
Speaker 1: how long do you think we've had this technology? If
Speaker 1: this video is real, this is ten years old?
Speaker 2: Ah, dude, If this is Look, the physics that I
Speaker 2: see here seems very plausible to me. Given the piece effect,
Speaker 2: given the idea of the super force, given the idea
Speaker 2: of time is on your order of one divide by
Speaker 2: frequency that we just spoke off, coupled with the Minkowski metric,
Speaker 2: all this makes sense. Number one. Instinctually call it intuitive
Speaker 2: science and technology. Yeah, I see this as being extremely
Speaker 2: plausible Number one. Number two, if this was a forgery
Speaker 2: and so forth, whoever did this would have had to
Speaker 2: be an expert in physics. Not only that, a mind
Speaker 2: of such great imagination would have.
Speaker 1: Maybe Eric Davis made the videos real quickly. Why is
Speaker 1: this black? You can actually see this open up and
Speaker 1: you can see it close as well. Black is cold.
Speaker 1: We know we can tell just looking at the engines.
Speaker 1: Laterally on what does this mean when this is black?
Speaker 2: So do you remember when you and I spoke, uh,
Speaker 2: when I say you can almost see a refraction way
Speaker 2: as if this was flu dynamics, as if what you're
Speaker 2: doing here throwing a pebble into a pool. Have you
Speaker 2: ever seen a pebble thrown into a pool? When it
Speaker 2: enters it forms this almost black like cavity because right
Speaker 2: does not penetrate in the quote unquote black hole that
Speaker 2: you're creating. There is you can't see food because you
Speaker 2: see what think of it from a fluid dynamics point
Speaker 2: of you. This is a medium. The quantum vacuum is
Speaker 2: a medium the so called vacuum energy state. Because a
Speaker 2: state represents a structure, and while we're looking here is
Speaker 2: a structure that has a certain vacuum energy. What you
Speaker 2: have done is is conditioned that vacuum energy manipulated to
Speaker 2: the point that it no longer at that particular point
Speaker 2: that you see so black. That's the actual nothingness. What
Speaker 2: you see around it is what you have done to
Speaker 2: achieve their nothingness. The medium, the quantum vacuum is a thing,
Speaker 2: is a material entity. Look at fre and will check
Speaker 2: and how he argues against Lawrence Krause. When Lawrence Krause
Speaker 2: goes on his die tribe about everything, Hey from nothing.
Speaker 2: There's no such thing as nothing unless you yourself created Yeah,
Speaker 2: negative energy, rantom vacuum.
Speaker 1: Would you call this negative energy?
Speaker 2: Then I choose not to use those terms because I'm
Speaker 2: again I that's going too far even not not even
Speaker 2: I there uh negative see to me, it's either not
Speaker 2: there or there's something to it. The idea of going
Speaker 2: negative to me is more like Cartesian coordinates. It's something
Speaker 2: that you yourself has. What is the word I'm looking for.
Speaker 2: It's it's a way that we're addressing things, all right, Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's it's it's it's I don't know, I got something
Speaker 2: on my screen.
Speaker 1: Well, I think of it is just going below sea level.
Speaker 1: But I think I guess what you're getting at is
Speaker 1: that you're pointing energy, but the energy is still just
Speaker 1: normal energy. You know, you're just, in my opinion years
Speaker 1: going below what we thought of as absolute zero.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right. The way I would think of then
Speaker 2: is negative energy density. That would speak to a negative pressure,
Speaker 2: and negative pressure I can deal with because it means
Speaker 2: a suction pressure. And that's exactly what you're doing. You're
Speaker 2: creating a conditioned vacuum whereby the craft is sucked into
Speaker 2: that condition vacuum. That hole that you're creating is a
Speaker 2: zone of negative energy density. Then you and I are
Speaker 2: on the same level of speak.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm talking about, Okay, So let me just
Speaker 1: get right to it. So did you make those orbs
Speaker 1: south in those that video? I mean, I'm looking at
Speaker 1: your patents and you have to understand that if I
Speaker 1: add up your patents, you have a magnetically confined fusion patent,
Speaker 1: high frequency gravitational wave, high temperature induce or piso electric
Speaker 1: induce high temperature superconductivity, inertial mass reduction for a trans
Speaker 1: medium craft, and high energy electromagnetic field generator. You add
Speaker 1: that up and it looks a lot like an ORB
Speaker 1: that could float around freely with no inertia and achieve
Speaker 1: superluminal speeds like we're seeing in those videos. And it
Speaker 1: might be the Navy recording that video as well, and
Speaker 1: it was in twenty fourteen, like right before you drop
Speaker 1: your patents, So do you have some connection to that video?
Speaker 2: Complete serendipity and synchronicity. Sometimes these things just happen. This
Speaker 2: is why I believe in something more than our quote
Speaker 2: unquote reduction is materialistic physical view of the world. I
Speaker 2: do not understand why it happened. I do not understand.
Speaker 2: Sometimes I wanted myself who gave me these ideas? Who
Speaker 2: put them in my head? They've been there for some time.
Speaker 2: It all started with that paper Conditional Possibility of spacecraft
Speaker 2: propulsion at superluminal speeds. Took me four and a half
Speaker 2: years to get that paper published. Finally it was published
Speaker 2: only when that other paper, High Energy Electromagnic Field Generation
Speaker 2: was published. And again all the time I've had to
Speaker 2: work for it, extremely hard to get these ideas through,
Speaker 2: and yet at that point in time it all worked out.
Speaker 2: You have to ask yourself why, who gave the okay?
Speaker 2: What made certain things occur for this to happen? Then?
Speaker 2: And there, I tell you, man, I think what deal
Speaker 2: What we're dealing with here is a war between the
Speaker 2: children of darkness and the children of the light, and
Speaker 2: It's been going on for epochs for eons. Sometimes they
Speaker 2: have a small victory. Sometimes there's something happening. Everything is
Speaker 2: being driven towards a certain culmination point. I don't know
Speaker 2: what that point is. And I know this sounds weird, but.
Speaker 1: I'm that weird. But I mean, like, are you recognizing
Speaker 1: your patents in this video? Like the thing I couldn't
Speaker 1: get past last time was why you were praising me
Speaker 1: so much when you're a Navy engineer. And I was
Speaker 1: just some guy being like, hey, these videos are crazy,
Speaker 1: like can this be real? And I literally thought that
Speaker 1: you had gone to the future and met a future
Speaker 1: version of myself or maybe I went to the past
Speaker 1: or something. But then I thought about it some more
Speaker 1: and I went this guy must be recognizing his technology
Speaker 1: in these videos, and there's not a lot of people
Speaker 1: on earth that would have that revelation. Like That's why
Speaker 1: I asked you the question, or what you you recognize
Speaker 1: in this video? So are you recognizing your work or
Speaker 1: any component of your work in these in this video?
Speaker 2: Let me just answer it this way, brother, If I
Speaker 2: was the creator of those warps, I would be in
Speaker 2: a skiff within a skiff, within a skiff. You understand
Speaker 2: you would have never heard of my name, you would
Speaker 2: have never heard of my existence. I would be one
Speaker 2: of those people you have never heard of. There was
Speaker 2: incredibly genial that all the powerful beings in this world
Speaker 2: would come to me as an at that I don't know,
Speaker 2: as an article you know of science and technology. Kind
Speaker 2: of think of him, think of me at that point
Speaker 2: in time, kind of like an invincible, invisible Elon Musk type.
Speaker 2: You know, It's that's not the case. Brother. I am
Speaker 2: not the inventor of those warps, although I wish I
Speaker 2: had I would have been.
Speaker 1: Do you think that half Eric Davis know who made
Speaker 1: those orbs?
Speaker 2: Quite possible? I mean, these are people of extreme brilliance,
Speaker 2: and I'm pretty sure that, uh, they know a lot
Speaker 2: more than I do. Ye remember that they associated with
Speaker 2: a certain individual by the name of Jay Stratton. Why
Speaker 2: it was extremely to meet, although our paths did not
Speaker 2: intersect after that to my dismay, But yeah, Ja Stratton
Speaker 2: was one of the best. I'm not sure if it's
Speaker 2: quite possibly.
Speaker 1: Is you ever meet help poot Offer Eric Davis in person?
Speaker 2: No? I wish him, No, No, I haven't. In fact,
Speaker 2: the only person I met was Jay Stratton.
Speaker 1: A chance who Ken Shoulders? You ever meet him?
Speaker 2: By I've heard of ken Shoulders, E Vos and so forth.
Speaker 2: But Bostic another one. Bussard, Oh my goodness, I love Bussard.
Speaker 2: He's so funny. Everything he says about the idea that
Speaker 2: will never achieve fusion and a takamac is so right
Speaker 2: on the mink.
Speaker 1: I need that quote because I'm one hundred percent all
Speaker 1: in on tokamax just being a scam. What was the
Speaker 1: quote that like, he's never seen a star in the
Speaker 1: shape of in tape of a toroid before look.
Speaker 2: Up, look up on YouTube. There must it must still
Speaker 2: be there he gave him. I think it was a
Speaker 2: Google talk and uh, he was so funny in it
Speaker 2: that the whole audience, and we'll talk about these are
Speaker 2: Google scholars, you know that, the whole audience just died laughing.
Speaker 2: He said, I do not recall ever seeing a star
Speaker 2: in the form of a donut something like that, but
Speaker 2: the way he said it was so comical. Everyone just
Speaker 2: broke down and laughed.
Speaker 1: It's like, so, when did you figure out that it's
Speaker 1: all about plasma.
Speaker 2: The mathematics if you look carefully at the price effect
Speaker 2: there's a O make a square term in the and
Speaker 2: that speaks to something that has to do with plasmos.
Speaker 2: I'll leave it there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so when when did you figure that out? How
Speaker 1: long ago?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: Man, nineties thousands?
Speaker 2: No, well, twenty fifteen, something of the nature that when
Speaker 2: I started putting stuff on paper, when I said, I
Speaker 2: must try to at least publish these but nobody will
Speaker 2: take it as a matter of fact. Yeah, that SA
Speaker 2: paper and high frequency gravitation. Wait generation, thank you very
Speaker 2: much for putting that out because it got a lot
Speaker 2: out of views. Brother, I tell you you are you're
Speaker 2: starting to change the world. Man, You'll see. But anyway,
Speaker 2: so so I hope that these papers, you know, with
Speaker 2: your support, are gonna be seen by a lot of people.
Speaker 2: We just need a lot of people looking at these man.
Speaker 2: I'm I'm I'm done with the MIT physicists. I'm done
Speaker 2: with the Harvard type. They will never accept this number
Speaker 2: one because of n by number two. I don't know, jealousy, huh,
Speaker 2: prestige whatnot? And also and also the idea that an
Speaker 2: engineer thought these ideas before physicist did. There's an almost
Speaker 2: an unspoken war between the physicists and the engineers. Nobody
Speaker 2: likes to touch it. But put it this way. Even
Speaker 2: Einstein said, the smartest man he's ever met was Tesla.
Speaker 2: So the greatest physicist of all time recognized the greatest
Speaker 2: engineer of all time. How interesting it's about first victory.
Speaker 1: You should have given up on the academia in a
Speaker 1: while back. It's all I mean, media is dead. Academia
Speaker 1: is dead. It's all about social media. It's all about
Speaker 1: how many views you can get on social card.
Speaker 2: Man, it's hard. I come from them. I am one
Speaker 2: of them. You have to understand. I'm of a certain pedigree.
Speaker 2: I went through that process. I sweated blood and tears
Speaker 2: for the PhD qualifier. I was in that freaking room
Speaker 2: for six and a half hours after doing ten days
Speaker 2: trying to solve an unsolvable problem. Basically, it didn't sleep
Speaker 2: for ten days. And then anyway, it's so once you
Speaker 2: go through that process, once you go through that process,
Speaker 2: it's hard to turn your back. These are my people.
Speaker 2: When your own people, when your own tribe does not
Speaker 2: accept you, what do you do?
Speaker 1: Anyway, I want to ask a couple more questions, and
Speaker 1: then we got Dave back in the in the back room,
Speaker 1: I'm going to bring him up and then we can
Speaker 1: chat about some more science, and I'm gonna ask you
Speaker 1: guys about some UFO stuff as well. But I want
Speaker 1: to get your thoughts real quick on cold fusion Ponds
Speaker 1: and Fleischmann, so are familiar with their work at all?
Speaker 1: You mean do you mean do you mean.
Speaker 2: Low energy nuclear? No?
Speaker 1: Sorry, Sal, I'm just like the UFOs. I'm not rebranding
Speaker 1: into UAPs. I'm calling it cold fusion still, some people
Speaker 1: calling it low energy nuclear reactions. Now the new rebrand too,
Speaker 1: is catalyzed fusion that they're calling it.
Speaker 2: But it's a whole different physical mechanism. We're not talking
Speaker 2: about very high temperatures, very high pressures. This is a
Speaker 2: whole It's as if you're coercing, not you're not forcing,
Speaker 2: you basically pantalizing.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: It's like having a the ugly dude and a beautiful
Speaker 2: supermodel meeting on the dance floor, all right, and all
Speaker 2: of a sudden you see the supermodel being attracted toward
Speaker 2: this really ugly dude. But why because he's certain movements
Speaker 2: he's doing. He's doing the bah bah luli. You know
Speaker 2: what I'm saying. Yeah, he's got those moves, brother, So
Speaker 2: that's what I'm talking about there. Look, there are many
Speaker 2: roads that lead to Rome. The whole idea is to
Speaker 2: get to Rome, but there's only one via apia. Remember that.
Speaker 1: Well, you answered like half my cold fusion questions in
Speaker 1: one response, which I appreciate because I was gonna build
Speaker 1: up to the point that I think that cold fusion
Speaker 1: is not being judged based on the right metrics, by
Speaker 1: the right results, because like you said, it's a complete
Speaker 1: different beasts. We're not dealing with high temperatures. I've heard
Speaker 1: you mentioned the Maxwell Bozeman equation or Bolts bol Boltzman
Speaker 1: sorry Matchael Boltzman uh curve, and that's used to figure
Speaker 1: out in hot fusion, like where the ignition level, the
Speaker 1: ideal temperature is for the ignition level. But when you're
Speaker 1: dealing with cold fusion, you're dealing with a complete different mechanism.
Speaker 1: You're not dealing with temperature is your main variable to
Speaker 1: You're actually dealing with like this pressure gradient where you're
Speaker 1: just like you said, I love your analogy.
Speaker 2: Of the fact i'd dude with a supermodel. No, it's
Speaker 2: not necessarily fat, because you know, when you're of a
Speaker 2: certain weight it's hard to do certain inertial reduction moves.
Speaker 2: But again, the whole idea is that the guy is
Speaker 2: not quote unquote on the same level as the chick,
Speaker 2: but she's extremely attractive to him. Why because of the
Speaker 2: movement in the ocean.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Now, anyway, so so.
Speaker 1: You're not you hadn't seen Ken's shoulder stuff that you're
Speaker 1: familiar with his work, because basically Ken's shoulders the same,
Speaker 1: and we can produce the self coherent balls of plasma
Speaker 1: that are self sustaining, self organizing, they are long, long lived.
Speaker 1: And when I look at that, I go, oh, that's
Speaker 1: what we're looking at in these videos. We've got this
Speaker 1: ball of plasma that's not dissipating. You look at the
Speaker 1: heat signature. Heat signature, there is uniform with the background.
Speaker 1: Have you read Jackna Champkins Force Free Time Harmonic Plasmoid's
Speaker 1: paper By any chance.
Speaker 2: I have not, but please send it to me.
Speaker 1: Okay, So you didn't get your inspiration from any of
Speaker 1: those guys went on your plasma fusion confinement.
Speaker 2: Very simple, simple stuff, everything simple. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 2: the navit, the pattern attorney, who happens to be a
Speaker 2: very good friend of mine, His name is Mark Lute
Speaker 2: g l ut of Ukrainian American Ukrainian, but Glute is
Speaker 2: pronounced not blood glute, Mark Lute. He basically said, the
Speaker 2: price effect is like a bag of chips. You keep
Speaker 2: on taking one after another after another, you keep on
Speaker 2: wanting some more. The whole idea is that the same
Speaker 2: physical phenomena can apply to different applications. That's the whole thing.
Speaker 2: And when it came to the plasma compression fusion device,
Speaker 2: everything just you know. I actually saw, I actually saw
Speaker 2: the dynamic fuses, how they would have to work, how
Speaker 2: they would counter rotate. For the first time in my life.
Speaker 2: I remember reading up a Tesla having a similar thing
Speaker 2: having run through his mind. He already knew his invention
Speaker 2: would operate before he actually put it into practice. I
Speaker 2: saw that plasma compression fusion device working. I know it
Speaker 2: will work.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And the reason why I bring it up is
Speaker 1: that in Jackna Champion's paper nineteen ninety two force free
Speaker 1: time Harmonic Plasmoids, he is specifically bringing up the energy
Speaker 1: levels and that are these massive energy levels. How Fox
Speaker 1: that worked with Ken's shoulders also brought up the energy levels.
Speaker 1: I have a link to that but in here he's
Speaker 1: also saying it seems like that the temperature would be
Speaker 1: equivalent to the background atmosphere, which is what we see
Speaker 1: in those videos. But then down here at the bottom
Speaker 1: says casmir forces will arise in situations we're owing to
Speaker 1: the high conductivity of the plasma. Due to the large
Speaker 1: number of free electrons, components of the electromagnetic zero point
Speaker 1: background energy cannot penetrate uniformly into the plasma. This will
Speaker 1: result in a lower energy density within the plasmoid and
Speaker 1: an apparent pressure gradient due to the vacuum. Now I
Speaker 1: read that, and I read what you just mentioned, and
Speaker 1: then I go, wow, you haven't read this, because it
Speaker 1: sounds like you're saying the exact same things that you're creating.
Speaker 1: You're pushing out zero point energy from a certain region
Speaker 1: of space, changing the primitivity of that region of space,
Speaker 1: which change the speed of light, and now you're creating
Speaker 1: a bubble. Creating a bubble there is that? How would
Speaker 1: you read that?
Speaker 2: I would read it as a plasma bore. That's what
Speaker 2: I was created within my dynamic fuses. But no, this
Speaker 2: is one. This is on the record. I have never
Speaker 2: read that paper before, nor seen it again. All the
Speaker 2: price effect inventions are original. They came out of the
Speaker 2: acastic field. Let's call it.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's let's bring Dave on. If you're ready, we
Speaker 1: can just kind of nerd out a little smiling in
Speaker 1: the background. Here we go.
Speaker 3: What's going on?
Speaker 2: You feeling, man? How you feeling much better?
Speaker 3: Thank you? Thank you much better. This has been a
Speaker 3: fantastic stream I've been watching from the beginning. This is beautiful, awesome.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you guys for both for being here. I
Speaker 1: want to talk some science. I want to talk some physics.
Speaker 1: But before we get to that, let's talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about this UFO community stuff that's going on. Actually,
Speaker 1: I want to start with the letter that sal you
Speaker 1: submitted through Dave Rossy. Here, we got everybody here, got
Speaker 1: Dave banned actually on Twitter. I don't think he's on
Speaker 1: by the way, so's out there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, come on, elon, just watch the last project Unity pod.
Speaker 2: Come on, see what I have to say about you.
Speaker 2: Come on.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I watched that Projectility interview, and in that
Speaker 1: interview you actually were asked about something similar related to
Speaker 1: this letter. The thing that stuck out in the letter
Speaker 1: to me was that you say you believe in human technology. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and Project Unity Jay asked you about this and and said,
Speaker 1: you know, so, are you saying that we could have
Speaker 1: figured this out? You kind of allude to the fact
Speaker 1: that we humans could have figured this out. But the
Speaker 1: thing that I took away with just see I want
Speaker 1: to know your opinion on is that it almost seemed
Speaker 1: like you were saying that, like, we've figured some alien
Speaker 1: technology out and now we're trying to weaponize it in
Speaker 1: a way that the aliens would not have used the technology. Man,
Speaker 1: that was a freaky thing. Is that what you were
Speaker 1: trying to say, is that what you're trying to get
Speaker 1: across when you talk about using human technology and that
Speaker 1: you believe in human technology, or what do you mean
Speaker 1: by that?
Speaker 2: No, I'll basically what I was saying is that any
Speaker 2: reversed engineer technology based on quote unquote these ancient, antique
Speaker 2: whatever et craft that we happened to find in a
Speaker 2: pyramid like structure or so forth, the let's call them
Speaker 2: the non human or rather the extraterrestrials or who knows
Speaker 2: exactly what they are, but whoever these individuals are, whatever
Speaker 2: these entities are, Okay, they would know their own technology
Speaker 2: far better than us. So if God forbid there was
Speaker 2: an armada, say by approxima sound Tory, about to attack
Speaker 2: our solar system and take over Earth for its natural
Speaker 2: resources and so forth, we will stand a much better
Speaker 2: chance not having to deal with the trojan horse. So
Speaker 2: in other words, they know their own technology. Anything developed
Speaker 2: based on their own technology, they can defeat against what
Speaker 2: could take them by surprise. And man is man made
Speaker 2: technology something that Alliver heavy Side and Tesla dreamed up.
Speaker 2: Say you understand that's simple oscillator hooked into say a
Speaker 2: Tesla coil of some sort, generating a certain plasma vibrating
Speaker 2: a certain frequency, could generate some wild that can take
Speaker 2: this ship down. That's all.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a pretty crazy thought. Plasma, but we
Speaker 1: figured out how to turn into a death ray.
Speaker 2: Because we heard that a long time. That's right. I
Speaker 2: speaking of our president elect Trump, ask him what's up
Speaker 2: with this? His uncle over there. I'll let you he
Speaker 2: knows certain things I don't.
Speaker 1: Speaking of that, let me hear both your guys opinions
Speaker 1: on do you think that there's gonna be any difference
Speaker 1: in the new administration? Do you think who administration is
Speaker 1: in charge makes any difference at all when it comes
Speaker 1: to disclosure of this technology and UFO stuff.
Speaker 3: It'll be a fight. In my opinion. Who's gonna win,
Speaker 3: I don't know, but it'll be a fight. It's it's weird.
Speaker 3: There's some people that are in the position to bring
Speaker 3: these things forward that are saying to certain individuals or
Speaker 3: groups that if you do this strategically and correctly, there
Speaker 3: might be a way to do it. And there's other
Speaker 3: people that don't ever want it to see the light
Speaker 3: of day. From where I am, my little corner of
Speaker 3: the world, and I'm not speaking for sal or anybody else,
Speaker 3: but from what I see, it's an on going fight.
Speaker 3: At the moment, that's what I see.
Speaker 1: I could.
Speaker 3: I hope I'm wrong. I hope it's more beneficial and forthcoming,
Speaker 3: but that's that's what I see at the moment.
Speaker 1: So what about you. Do you think the administration makes
Speaker 1: any difference As somebody who's worked on the inside with
Speaker 1: the military.
Speaker 2: Even as a private citizen, Given that I am a
Speaker 2: government employee, I will and I'm still obligated under the
Speaker 2: Hatch Act to reserve any and all such opinions. However,
Speaker 2: from an alternative idea point, of view, this whole idea
Speaker 2: of camps again, the children of the darkness versus the
Speaker 2: children of the light. This is an ongoing war. This
Speaker 2: will not stop, This will not change in any way,
Speaker 2: shape or form. I'm not even sure if any side
Speaker 2: should win, because light cannot exist without darkness.
Speaker 1: Now let me let me jump onto that thene so
Speaker 1: Peter Thiel was on Joe Rogan and one of the
Speaker 1: things that he said was, what if if aliens are
Speaker 1: getting to Earth and they've got this warp drive technology,
Speaker 1: this fancy technology that's basically your patents, that potentially they
Speaker 1: would have to be a civilization that's either all angels
Speaker 1: or all demons. And he says that because he's saying
Speaker 1: that we have to be all perfectly altruistic or some
Speaker 1: type of totalitarian, pre crime minority report situation where we
Speaker 1: can all hear each other's thoughts so that nobody would
Speaker 1: use this technology to annihilate the entire civilization. Do you
Speaker 1: agree with that? What are your guys' views? We'll start
Speaker 1: with sal.
Speaker 2: Oh, my goodness again this unfortunately, this physics can be
Speaker 2: greatly weaponized. I mean, it can make say, the Rashnik
Speaker 2: look like looking uh I don't know, a pencil thrown
Speaker 2: in the air that comes apart, you know, clusters of pencils,
Speaker 2: still a fucking pencil. Excuse my language. Uh So I
Speaker 2: passed it on to Brad Rassi, please.
Speaker 3: I think it's a mixed bag. And what I mean
Speaker 3: by that is, for example, if you have a species
Speaker 3: that is more advanced in a certain field, then with
Speaker 3: regards to you know, propulsion or a form of engineering,
Speaker 3: the space time metric, in my opinion, it doesn't necessarily
Speaker 3: mean that they're entirely altruistic or entirely evil. Completely. If
Speaker 3: we think of the notion of what you've studied quite
Speaker 3: a lot about on your on your show's action of
Speaker 3: you know, fractals, and you know, there's talk of, you know,
Speaker 3: on the spiritual side, people talk about you know, higher self,
Speaker 3: lower self, et cetera. It's possible some of these species
Speaker 3: may be more matured. But again, when we think of
Speaker 3: the notion of pure philosophical perspective, that doesn't necessarily mean
Speaker 3: within our I guess you could say, vector of understanding
Speaker 3: that they that they're doing good or bad relative to us,
Speaker 3: or even relative to them. I think it's a it's
Speaker 3: a mixed bag. I think it depends who we're dealing with.
Speaker 3: How why I think we're dealing with a mixed bag.
Speaker 3: I really do. That's just my opinion.
Speaker 1: But so all these UFOs have been an increase in
Speaker 1: sightings in the last just week alone. Where do we
Speaker 1: stand on what these things are? Do we think this
Speaker 1: is a craft of somebody inside it? Do we think
Speaker 1: this is a plasma orb that's floating around. Do we
Speaker 1: think it's a drone with lights connected to it? Do
Speaker 1: we think it's some combination while of the above? Where
Speaker 1: do we stand?
Speaker 3: Almost? Could I if I could say really quickly and
Speaker 3: forgive me Ashton, because I don't mean to deviate from
Speaker 3: the when you guys had talked in the beginning of
Speaker 3: the stream about a power source on the craft, I
Speaker 3: just want to say, in the way I interpret it,
Speaker 3: And again, as brothers Sell said, there are many different
Speaker 3: ways you could skin this cat. So one way that
Speaker 3: I interpreted is that the craft in many in some
Speaker 3: cases may have occupants on it. There is, in my opinion,
Speaker 3: a power source. But I would argue the power source
Speaker 3: acts more as a facilitator between the local vacuum and
Speaker 3: the actual what's inside the craft. Now inside the craft.
Speaker 3: You're going to have the mass of everything way completely
Speaker 3: differently than everything outside of the craft. So you'll be
Speaker 3: able to have something that would be hypothetically, you know,
Speaker 3: many many hundreds of pounds heavy on the craft, but
Speaker 3: from an external observer or measurer, the craft and the
Speaker 3: all the objects in it weigh almost zero in its weight.
Speaker 3: Now in terms of are there, I think you were
Speaker 3: dealing with motherships. I think then from there we're dealing
Speaker 3: with probes like you know, orbs probes the way we
Speaker 3: send you know, we have a you know, a Boeing
Speaker 3: seven fifty seven, and then maybe we throw some drones
Speaker 3: off of it to veil a certain area on the
Speaker 3: land before we send our soldiers in, for example, we
Speaker 3: could be dealing with something like that. Perhaps.
Speaker 1: So do you think that element one fifteen is a
Speaker 1: real thing?
Speaker 3: Then? I here, here's what's interesting. I have to say.
Speaker 3: I go back and forth. I really do, because when
Speaker 3: you look at the specifically Edward Teller, what Edward Teller's
Speaker 3: lawyers had said about when he met Bob Lazar or
Speaker 3: allegedly I'm paraphrasing here, but Edward Teller's lawyers shortly before
Speaker 3: mister teller died had in the late nineties said our
Speaker 3: clients never met mister Lazarre, but if he did, then
Speaker 3: they never spoke. And if they never spoke, then they
Speaker 3: didn't meet. But if they did meet, then they never engaged.
Speaker 3: So it was a very carefully crafted response with regards
Speaker 3: to if they actually met or not. Do I think
Speaker 3: element one P. Fifteen is real? I think that's moscovium
Speaker 3: if I'm not mistaken. I believe it's been reproduced in
Speaker 3: a German lab for like a fraction of second. If
Speaker 3: that it's I think it's possible. At the same time,
Speaker 3: if I could just say quickly, I think the reason
Speaker 3: why nobody wants to admit about admit any truth with
Speaker 3: regards to the Bob Lazar story and the S four
Speaker 3: stuff is because just by admitting to it, you're incriminating
Speaker 3: yourself if you had any knowledge on it. Because the
Speaker 3: programs were so off the books that it's it's basically
Speaker 3: they're trying, you know, trying to whitewash, not make a
Speaker 3: witch hunt, so to speak. And there's our arguments about that.
Speaker 3: Do I lean towards the way generally what mister Lazarre
Speaker 3: says being true yeah my opinion.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Now what about you, what do you think, Bob Zar,
Speaker 1: what do you think about element one fifteen?
Speaker 2: I don't know about element one fifteen. But one thing
Speaker 2: that he said is that the sports model, this thing
Speaker 2: that he was describing, it's as if it was three
Speaker 2: D printed out of the fabric of space time itself.
Speaker 2: That speaks directly to the super force, super force that
Speaker 2: acts on the spatial temporal geometric structure locally to create
Speaker 2: energy density hence matter, generation of matter directly as if
Speaker 2: three D printed out of space time itself, the nature
Speaker 2: of our reality. I truly believe Lazar is correct.
Speaker 3: If I can give another hint as well, Lazarre had
Speaker 3: talked about his gravity A wave and gravity B wave.
Speaker 3: In my opinion, I think what he's describing is identical
Speaker 3: what he described there is dealing with DC gravity and
Speaker 3: AC gravity. There's certain researchers I won't say the names,
Speaker 3: but they stumbled upon the same thing about fifteen twenty
Speaker 3: years ago before they disappeared, dealing with there being two
Speaker 3: types of gravity that could be gravitational waves that could
Speaker 3: be generated electromagnetically specifically dealing with again static gravity, and
Speaker 3: then an alternating current type of gravity. So I'll just
Speaker 3: leave that there. There are cons distancies when you if
Speaker 3: you have the if people have the resources to dig
Speaker 3: deep enough, there are consistencies that you'll find between various researchers,
Speaker 3: and and what Lazar said in many regards.
Speaker 1: Mainly as one of those researchers, Eugene Popkinov, you think.
Speaker 3: I don't want to I don't want to get anybody,
Speaker 3: including brother sal or myself in trouble. So that's why
Speaker 3: I'm just going to say there were researchers out there.
Speaker 2: Speaking of which brothers at this point in time, quick interruption. Sorry,
Speaker 2: Brother Ashton, sorry Brother Rossi. Neither Brother Rossi, nor Brother Ashton,
Speaker 2: nor myself. I'm not speaking for them, but I'm one
Speaker 2: hundred percent sure they're of the same mindset. None of
Speaker 2: us are in the mindset that or thought of suiciding ourselves.
Speaker 2: Just in case anybody out there gets brilliant ideas.
Speaker 1: There, you got.
Speaker 3: What I will say. What I will say is that
Speaker 3: there are experiments that are slowly considered now as being
Speaker 3: part of what's been called extended electrodynamics. They're somewhat being
Speaker 3: discussed at an unclassified level dealing with certain objects that
Speaker 3: may or may not be rotating, where they either gain
Speaker 3: or lose their weight in very minuscule levels, and there
Speaker 3: may have been attempts to scale that, and if the
Speaker 3: attempts to scale it were successful, they would probably not
Speaker 3: have made those results public.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that it really comes down to plasma.
Speaker 1: Though you know, a lot of those results, one of
Speaker 1: the things I've always noticed about them is that the
Speaker 1: results are never really that great. Well, when it came
Speaker 1: to these evos, there's something amazing about it, which is
Speaker 1: that these electrons are clustering together in huge densities that
Speaker 1: they wouldn't normally cluster together in it something called cold plasma.
Speaker 3: I'm just like, Yeah, this is the part where I'll
Speaker 3: just openly say it, and this is what I'm about
Speaker 3: to say here is not a reflection on any of
Speaker 3: the views that brother sal has. I just want to
Speaker 3: clarify that in any way these are my own views.
Speaker 3: But I would dare to say that when we talk
Speaker 3: about again the words, you know, negative energy, it's possible
Speaker 3: that electricity, the way that we normally think of current
Speaker 3: as being hot, it's possible it can be it can
Speaker 3: get cold if you can reverse its entropy, and I'll
Speaker 3: leave I'll leave that there again. If I've said this before,
Speaker 3: I think a year, year and a half ago, if
Speaker 3: people look into what the source charge problem is that
Speaker 3: has still been unresolved in mainstream physics, and it's I
Speaker 3: don't even think many people even know about it today.
Speaker 3: The electrodynamicist experts of many years ago did the source
Speaker 3: charge problem dealing with where energy actually comes from. And
Speaker 3: if and I'll just leave that there, I think there's
Speaker 3: something with the vector and scaler potentials that i'll I'll
Speaker 3: leave that there.
Speaker 1: So how do you believe in the ether?
Speaker 2: I believe in the quantum vacuum? Well the lum again,
Speaker 2: brother man, you gotta remember my tribe. What's the see?
Speaker 2: And you one hundred percent right, you know, I will
Speaker 2: I will only try to be part of them because
Speaker 2: I am part of them. And it's that's why it
Speaker 2: hurts so much to be cold a pseudoscientists. That's why
Speaker 2: I truly hope somebody out there will will will run
Speaker 2: a quick experiment of the Piace effect and prove me right.
Speaker 3: Well, I think I think what I'm about to say
Speaker 3: here too. One final thing, forgive me sal for interrupting you.
Speaker 3: What I'm about to say here is is going to
Speaker 3: be very controversial, and it does not represent anyone else's
Speaker 3: views in any way. I believe that the energy densities
Speaker 3: that sal has been discussed in his amazing papers and
Speaker 3: in his patents are achievable when you have the implementation
Speaker 3: of negative energy working in a very conducious like form
Speaker 3: where the cold side or the negative side offsets the
Speaker 3: heat or positive side. So you can attain these densities
Speaker 3: in a certain way that would that do break the
Speaker 3: Shwinger limit. It is that is not considered to be
Speaker 3: mainstream in any capacity. I probably get made fun of
Speaker 3: a lot if I said that in open groups, although
Speaker 3: again many closed groups I've spoken to have acknowledged this,
Speaker 3: So you start getting into, you know, controversial territory. But
Speaker 3: I am very confident that sells inventions are very feasible.
Speaker 1: Yeah, do you think it's Do you guys think that
Speaker 1: it's analogous or exactly the same as the dynamic Casimir effect.
Speaker 1: Do you think the dynamic Casmir effect is breaking the
Speaker 1: shower limit and causing photon pair production to I.
Speaker 3: Think if you can use resonance to scale up what
Speaker 3: the Casmir effect does, then you can break it, Yeah,
Speaker 3: I think so, Yeah.
Speaker 1: What about you, Sal, what do you think about dynamic
Speaker 1: Casmir effects?
Speaker 2: Interesting mechanism. Again, quite complex for my palate, But then again,
Speaker 2: I go with simple things trying to solve complex problems.
Speaker 2: I've always believed that the solution to all complex problems
Speaker 2: is simple, depending on perspective how you look at it.
Speaker 3: So there's there's a pathth into regarding the Casimir effect.
Speaker 3: Sorry Ashton, that I'll send to you that your audience
Speaker 3: may be interested if you haven't seen it already, dealing
Speaker 3: with deploying a certain type of monoatomic gas inside the
Speaker 3: cavity to lower the ground state of the vacuum fluctuations,
Speaker 3: to extract more energy from the potentials that now become
Speaker 3: real observable particle fluctuations. And then if again, if you
Speaker 3: can use resonance to scale that up. I'm not going
Speaker 3: to with respect I will not go into how to
Speaker 3: how to engineer that practically on the stream here, but
Speaker 3: if one could use resonance, I think that there's an
Speaker 3: entire field of physics that Tesla was onto, that brother
Speaker 3: Sal is onto very strongly, that is has completely been
Speaker 3: whitewashed from from the from the field.
Speaker 1: Yeah, are you talking about it? And Bernard Hayes's cosmir
Speaker 1: cavity pattern that I'm gonna steal in a couple of
Speaker 1: years when it expires.
Speaker 3: There's another one as well. It's from some Asian individuals,
Speaker 3: but they uh, I think they're I'm not sure if
Speaker 3: they're Chinese or not. But anyways, the point is is
Speaker 3: that you have to think geometry.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That was one thing that I never expected with
Speaker 1: a lot of this is how much of a difference
Speaker 1: frequency plays a role.
Speaker 2: So uh oh, speaking of what talot, you hit on
Speaker 2: something when you said frequency, it's really important. Okay, that
Speaker 2: frequency square term. If you get me in a skiff
Speaker 2: with some very important people, Phutov can be there, w
Speaker 2: Davis can be there, of course, Dave you, everyone that mattis,
Speaker 2: Jay Stratton, everyone that madis and has some say saying
Speaker 2: this whole thing possibly elan down the road. I can
Speaker 2: show in less than five minutes when I'm talking about that,
Speaker 2: given that omega square term, I can we we can
Speaker 2: break the Shwinger limit.
Speaker 1: Do you think those guys don't know that though, like
Speaker 1: I feel like they have to know.
Speaker 3: No, they know, they know. No, they know.
Speaker 2: That's why I'm not That's why I'm not being brought
Speaker 2: into a skiff and question anyway.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so that that kind of goes to my next
Speaker 1: point is sal you told me, you said, if you
Speaker 1: go on Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson, bring me with you.
Speaker 1: So that still hasn't happened, but that offer stands out there.
Speaker 1: If Tucker Carlson people are watching, Joe Rogan is watching,
Speaker 1: what is it that you want to say to Joe
Speaker 1: Rogan or Tucker Carlson, Why do you want to go on?
Speaker 2: Unification? Brother? The only way this Earth can survive given
Speaker 2: what is coming. And I tell you what is coming
Speaker 2: will be a test like humanity has never sinned before
Speaker 2: since the flood. The unified Earth can withstand it. It
Speaker 2: takes advanced physics to deal with it. If we do
Speaker 2: not come together as a united Earth, leave aside all
Speaker 2: our differences, enjoy the idea of homo sapient sapien jubilate
Speaker 2: in the fact we are humans. We shall fall like
Speaker 2: we've never forfell before. We had a chance after the flood,
Speaker 2: given the historical narrative, I don't think we'll have a
Speaker 2: chance this time. Unless we come together for the event occurs.
Speaker 2: I will not say what the event is. I dare
Speaker 2: not even think it because your thoughts become actions under
Speaker 2: certain conditions, So it's better you leave it.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it's kind of where do we
Speaker 1: talk about it? Because people out there speculating, there's so
Speaker 1: much confusion in the UFO community about is there gonna
Speaker 1: be a Project Bluebeam? Are the aliens invading us? Are
Speaker 1: we gonna get hit by an asteroid?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 1: You know, sure your thoughts can manifest reality, but how
Speaker 1: do we stop something unless we are already talking about
Speaker 1: it in the open? You know, So what are we
Speaker 1: dealing with here? We're dealing with alien invasion? Are the
Speaker 1: aliens gonna come out of the water? Are they gonna
Speaker 1: come back from you know, they visited us fifty years ago?
Speaker 3: Or you know, if I could say a natural cycle
Speaker 3: of the planet that is in harmony with the cosmos
Speaker 3: that lifts the veil energetically on certain phenomena that we're
Speaker 3: always right in front of us, but we're too energetically
Speaker 3: covered up for us to notice. I think that sales
Speaker 3: technology could help stop it. My opinion is that I
Speaker 3: could be wrong my technology.
Speaker 2: It's our technology. Sure, thank you, sure, speaking of this NonStop.
Speaker 2: So now it's our technology, and that the three of us,
Speaker 2: the entire worlds. Yes, I believe these patent applications were
Speaker 2: let where where by some great act of God, I
Speaker 2: don't know what else to call it. They were led
Speaker 2: into the public consciousness to facilitate a possible way out. Yes, nightmare.
Speaker 3: There's what I'm going to say here has already been
Speaker 3: public knowledge by mister Boyd Bushman, the controversial Lockheed Martin
Speaker 3: engineer who made a few videos before he died dealing
Speaker 3: with the possibility of what's called the apophice comment uh
Speaker 3: in correspondence with a potential poll flip of the planet.
Speaker 3: It's pass every twelve thirteen thousand years, the planet and
Speaker 3: we as a species go through a cycle, and we
Speaker 3: may be coming up to the end of that cycle
Speaker 3: once more.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I've heard all the doomsday stuff, but
Speaker 1: it's something like that. There's nothing we can do about,
Speaker 1: you know, the polls flip whatever. I mean, doesn't matter
Speaker 1: where you're going to be, You're you're just lucky to
Speaker 1: draw at that point we can annihilate and if the
Speaker 1: aliens come invade the heck. If they don't have teleportation
Speaker 1: technology or annihilation whatever the heck we're doing, then you know,
Speaker 1: good luck to them. Now with a let's assume that
Speaker 1: the A three seven zero videos are real. I already
Speaker 1: know they're real, but let's just assume they are. You know,
Speaker 1: we're uh role playing here. When would you guys assume
Speaker 1: human beings would have figured out not just that we
Speaker 1: can make a floaty ball of plasma superconductive harmonic orb
Speaker 1: as I called it, how would we when would we
Speaker 1: have figured out that they combined them together and all
Speaker 1: of a sudden you break the swing er limit, you know,
Speaker 1: because one or the energy levels are large, extremely large?
Speaker 3: You as sorry? Are you asking about the historical timeline
Speaker 3: like in the last eighty years when you think.
Speaker 1: Yeah, when do you guys think that? I mean, do
Speaker 1: you think humans have figured it out? The biggest drama
Speaker 1: is this is that a lot of people in the
Speaker 1: UFO community are sure that what we're looking at those
Speaker 1: videos represents non human intelligence. Maybe, but I think that
Speaker 1: you guys would also argue that, well, humans like this
Speaker 1: goes back the math and equations go back to the
Speaker 1: early nineteen hundreds, which is a long long time ago.
Speaker 1: I'm so my question is a you know, what do
Speaker 1: you think that humans have had enough time to reverse
Speaker 1: engineer or figure this out by ourselves? And when do
Speaker 1: you think we would have taken it to the next
Speaker 1: level where it's like now we're just zapping these things
Speaker 1: together and proofing planes out of existence.
Speaker 3: If I could say very quickly in terms of the
Speaker 3: historical timeline, I don't. I'm not an expert on that.
Speaker 3: I claim to know when what happened and where. We
Speaker 3: have to keep in mind a lot of these alleged
Speaker 3: special access programs, a lot after they're completed, or the
Speaker 3: you know, compartmentalized programs are finished, they kind of get
Speaker 3: shredded and nothing gets put on record. So they do
Speaker 3: get they do get washed away to history. So as
Speaker 3: to who specifically cracked it first, I don't know. But
Speaker 3: what I can say to that is the look at
Speaker 3: what brother sal was able to do with not to
Speaker 3: speak for him, but with what I believe was a
Speaker 3: four hundred thousand dollars grant from the DoD. Look at
Speaker 3: what he was able to do. Just with that, imagine
Speaker 3: if you had, you know, twenty thirty one hundred million
Speaker 3: dollars what you could do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And the one thing I learned about this science
Speaker 1: is that man super weapons are cheap. Like this stuff
Speaker 1: is not relative how much people spend on other projects.
Speaker 1: The government's been wasting on hot fusion. We spend like nothing.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, it's interesting, brother sal mentioned earlier the
Speaker 3: Vandergraft generator and that speaks to you know, particle accelerators
Speaker 3: and so on. And it's interesting when you look at
Speaker 3: the history. I'm not saying this in a good or
Speaker 3: bad way. If there are photos from MIT's website of
Speaker 3: doctor John Trump, donald Trump's uncle, with mister Vandergraf in
Speaker 3: the nineteen twenties or thirties looking at a big version
Speaker 3: of a vandergraph machine, we can say that a Vandergraph
Speaker 3: machine is an early version of what the CERN particle
Speaker 3: accelerators are. So I think you know something was understood
Speaker 3: back then.
Speaker 2: A couple of the vandigraph generator with a Tesla coil
Speaker 2: by put it this way.
Speaker 3: Oh wow, yeah, yeah, what do you.
Speaker 1: Think about that? I mean, and do you think it
Speaker 1: could be a combination of things going on as well?
Speaker 2: Then? Brother, I have a slightly different I go from
Speaker 2: books because they show people. People are especially all the
Speaker 2: books or books that are no longer in print. Once
Speaker 2: upon a time we used to read read the actual books,
Speaker 2: you know, hard copy things that we used to open,
Speaker 2: and actually the leaves we would turn one by one,
Speaker 2: very interesting thoughts, very interesting ideas. There's one such book
Speaker 2: by Charles fort f Rt. It's called the Book of
Speaker 2: the Damn. The Damn d a m n ed what
Speaker 2: we're about to become. Anyway, It's called the Book of
Speaker 2: the Damn, And in chapter twelve he says something incredibly profound.
Speaker 2: He says, I think we are property in that I
Speaker 2: believe somebody has ownership over us.
Speaker 1: Planet.
Speaker 2: Brother, there's so many any things we don't know. Look, man,
Speaker 2: a lot of people have been making fun of Graham Hancock.
Speaker 2: A lot of people have been making fun of anyone
Speaker 2: that has tried to point us, for example, doctor Joseph
Speaker 2: Perrol that has been trying to point us to the
Speaker 2: idea of the Enuma leash, the Book of Creation, the
Speaker 2: War among the Gods, the Tablets of Destiny. You think
Speaker 2: all these were just wow, mythical ideas that we just
Speaker 2: came How about Troy, my brother, how about Troy Schleimann
Speaker 2: with a copy of the Odyssey under his arm, found
Speaker 2: what we think is now Troy, possibly various vestiges of
Speaker 2: what Troy is. So if you can do that with
Speaker 2: a book that supposedly was written by some dude called Homer,
Speaker 2: then how should I say, imagine what you can do
Speaker 2: with actual books that supposedly were written by the gods
Speaker 2: who were the Anu Naki, the children of heaven and Earth.
Speaker 2: What do we not know about our own civilization? In
Speaker 2: Graham Hancock's own words, are we a civilization with amnesia?
Speaker 2: I believe we are.
Speaker 1: I'm a big fan of that thought process as well.
Speaker 1: I mean, just we don't civilization doesn't go far back
Speaker 1: enough in my opinion for us to be as advanced
Speaker 1: as we have been as we are today, which I
Speaker 1: do think there's a lot of crossover between that work
Speaker 1: and Joseph P. Farrell. I mean, I found a clip
Speaker 1: from him back in twenty fourteen, roughly a day or
Speaker 1: a few days after the plane disappeared, and he was
Speaker 1: talking about the United States using a teleportation super weapon
Speaker 1: on the plane, which I don't think any nobody was
Speaker 1: talking about that except for him. I'm surprised that he
Speaker 1: hasn't wanted to reach out and talk to me just
Speaker 1: because of.
Speaker 2: Doctor Joseph P. Farrell is one of these polymphs, even
Speaker 2: though he has a certain degree and ah something to
Speaker 2: do with the original Church Fathers. I believe he is
Speaker 2: of the Eastern Orthodox religion. I think it was, but yeah,
Speaker 2: he was of the Protestant religion or maybe Roman Catholic
Speaker 2: at one point in time. But anyway, his his doctorate
Speaker 2: is in in in theology religious studies. The way this
Speaker 2: man researches, the profundity of his work, the way that
Speaker 2: he has stepped into works for example by Igor Vitkovski.
Speaker 2: We'll talk about the gloca, the truth about the wound,
Speaker 2: among other things. All right, no need to get you demonetized,
Speaker 2: so I'll just leave it there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, please don't.
Speaker 2: I like, I love that dave about as we're talking
Speaker 2: about all.
Speaker 1: Kinds of crazy stuff. So, uh, you know, you guys
Speaker 1: think plasma was conscious? Like what do you think? You think?
Speaker 2: What is? Read The Demon in the Core. It's the
Speaker 2: latest book by doctor Joseph P. Farrell. Read very very
Speaker 2: carefully what he has to say about Doctor Hands Alpha
Speaker 2: Nobel Prize winner for Magneto Hydrodynamics one of the greatest
Speaker 2: minds in magnetic fluid dynamics ever to exist. See what
Speaker 2: this man thought about the sensions of plasmas under certain
Speaker 2: conditions when driven far from equilibrium. See what he has
Speaker 2: to say. The very fact that this man brings about
Speaker 2: ideas from different domains is able to read his Secrets
Speaker 2: of the Unified Field. Amazing book hardly ever mentioned. See
Speaker 2: what he has to say about Gabriel Crone and all
Speaker 2: those grates that once upon a time existed on the
Speaker 2: surface of the Charles Proteus Steinmetz a giant of a man.
Speaker 1: The man.
Speaker 2: Was of a very small statue, but as far as intellect,
Speaker 2: this man was a giant among giants. See what Proteus
Speaker 2: Steinmanz has to say about the impulses and electric discharges.
Speaker 1: Anyway, do you think that there's a connection between hypersonic
Speaker 1: spy planes from the sixties and the seventies and balls
Speaker 1: of plasma floating around now? I guess what I'm saying
Speaker 1: is that these hypersonic planes would use a plasma sheath
Speaker 1: in front of them. As far as I can tell,
Speaker 1: that's the earliest documentation of the military using plasma to
Speaker 1: achieve extremely high velocities. Do you think there is something
Speaker 1: inside of these plasma orbs or do you think they
Speaker 1: are something that's produced externally and then achieve some sort
Speaker 1: of equilibrium, or then there's a combination.
Speaker 2: Rather ROSSI take it. Ooh see, this is the questions.
Speaker 3: The questions are very good, Ashton. That's why I stay quiet. Yeah, well,
Speaker 3: I think I don't mean to dodge. Let me just
Speaker 3: say this. There are certain papers out there, I think
Speaker 3: from the nineteen fifties and early nineteen sixties, before before
Speaker 3: he told his colleagues that he was leaving his academic
Speaker 3: community as friends behind and going into a world that
Speaker 3: they wouldn't accept because it seemed too crazy at the time.
Speaker 3: If you look at the work of what Gabriel Krone did,
Speaker 3: you'll find that there was discussion of things like the
Speaker 3: mention of negative resistance being feasible, but then in that
Speaker 3: same paper he mentions that it is but it isn't,
Speaker 3: almost as if he was forced to have to there
Speaker 3: was censorship of his work. I think that if you
Speaker 3: look at the possibility of the ether acting as a
Speaker 3: sort of negative resistor, what that would do in combination
Speaker 3: with the plasma sheath, would inhabit certain properties in phenomena
Speaker 3: that classically, as we even think now, it would expand
Speaker 3: the law of first law of conservation of energy. It
Speaker 3: would violate the second law of thermo to expand it
Speaker 3: to use the implement the quantum vacuum. I think, I
Speaker 3: forgive me because I've worked on some contracts that deal
Speaker 3: with that, so I really have to watch there. But
Speaker 3: I think that plasma sheets are very interesting. I don't
Speaker 3: mean to be vague, I'm sorry, but do.
Speaker 1: You think plasma sheets are very interesting?
Speaker 2: Put it this way, Let's do the fluid dynamic analogy
Speaker 2: of what the Russians called the sal I believe that
Speaker 2: I do not have the correct pronunciation the whole idea
Speaker 2: of this, this super cavicating torpedo that rides within what
Speaker 2: a bubble of air?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: Well, think what plasma is. It's the next state into
Speaker 2: instead of being a gas, it's a plasma. In otherwids,
Speaker 2: the electrons have ionized. Why don't we think of plasma
Speaker 2: as a transition state transition to what transition from what
Speaker 2: we understand as three dimensional matter to quintessence, a fifth essence?
Speaker 2: What is this fifth essence? You see? Could very well
Speaker 2: be the quantum vacuum.
Speaker 3: I strongly agree with that. Yes, I think maybe it's
Speaker 3: possible for a better description, or not better a different perspective,
Speaker 3: it's possible there's a sort of memory in the quantum
Speaker 3: vacuum that is only observable and physically realizable when you
Speaker 3: involve plasma in that transition stage in a form of
Speaker 3: geometrical disequilibrium. From an engineering perspective.
Speaker 1: Like a Bose Ein condensate, fit somewhere into that range
Speaker 1: of sure.
Speaker 3: I mean some people have proposed, you know, there's that
Speaker 3: proposed water, some people proposed hydrogen. Some propose uh you know,
Speaker 3: ar gone Bose Einstein condensate. Yeah. Yeah, so.
Speaker 1: Let me ask a couple of quick questions. Go ahead and.
Speaker 2: South, just a quick one and then I'll stop. Victor
Speaker 2: Lacno's paper, page three, he describes the physical mechanism of
Speaker 2: the piece of electricity induced room temperatures for a conductor.
Speaker 2: Because of my great hubris, I call it the pie effect,
Speaker 2: our t SC superconductor. Anyway, you know why not? Well, yeah,
Speaker 2: so the whole idea on pastry. He basically says, we
Speaker 2: use a what an alternative magnetic field to create the
Speaker 2: Bose Einstein condensate. Once we have the condensate, we set
Speaker 2: it in motion by what a alternating current? A pulse current,
Speaker 2: that's it. Rogen Academy of Scientists, in one freaking phrase
Speaker 2: lacked the room temperature that I'm one percent sure one
Speaker 2: day that will be proven correct.
Speaker 3: I believe firmly that. Sorry, if I could say that
Speaker 3: the Bardon Cooper Schaeffer theory on super conductivity has a
Speaker 3: deep flaw in it, in my opinion, they don't. They
Speaker 3: don't look at what happens when you deal with uh
Speaker 3: lattice holes and those things.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I read the Victor lock now the way
Speaker 1: at a high temperature superconductivity, Uh yeah, do you find
Speaker 1: pulse pulses, alternating current alternating I don't.
Speaker 3: I don't mean to I don't mean to speak for
Speaker 3: sal here, but and I don't mean to say it
Speaker 3: to be uh disrespectful to your audience assion by being
Speaker 3: very vague here. But I I there's something that's right there,
Speaker 3: whether it's room temper to room temperature, superconnectivity or negative
Speaker 3: energy from an engineering perspective. There and Ashton, you know
Speaker 3: we've talked privately about this. There's something right there that
Speaker 3: people have missed it's right there, that it's it, And
Speaker 3: in a way it pisses me. It pisces me off
Speaker 3: because I know that Seal knows, and I know that
Speaker 3: we we know, but it's it's it's right there, it's
Speaker 3: been it's been done, and yeah it's yeah.
Speaker 1: Well so this brings me up to another point, which
Speaker 1: is that oftentimes I've found that one of the drawbacks
Speaker 1: of disclosure is that a lot of scientists have thought, oh,
Speaker 1: everybody's gonna figure this out. Is that I've figured this
Speaker 1: amazing thing out. Everybody's gonna come and realize it themselves
Speaker 1: relatively soon, but always turns out that no, we don't
Speaker 1: and uh coming through with it. I mean, I was
Speaker 1: just reading, uh, some correspondence between and Shoulder and some
Speaker 1: other people in the nineties where they're like, everyone's going
Speaker 1: to figure out the cold fusion is real now blah
Speaker 1: blah blah. It's thirty years later, still hasn't happened. So
Speaker 1: what I guess I want to ask you guys, is
Speaker 1: do you believe that somebody on this earth as technology
Speaker 1: that is beyond the paradigm of what humanity currently believes
Speaker 1: as possible.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, I know we do.
Speaker 1: Yes, Now why are we doing we being the United
Speaker 1: States government in this case, or intelligence communities or defense contractors.
Speaker 1: Why do you believe we are doing evil shit to
Speaker 1: keep it silent, whether that be suppression, that be quite
Speaker 1: literally killing people.
Speaker 3: In some cases, it depends how high up the chain
Speaker 3: you want to go in this conversation. It depends how
Speaker 3: high up you want to.
Speaker 2: Go, because brother, remember Charles fourth all right, Book of
Speaker 2: the Damn I think we are property, brother, We're nothing
Speaker 2: more than slaves, and fear is for fucking slaves, and
Speaker 2: the way they control us is for fear.
Speaker 1: That's a good point. And so somebody did ask in
Speaker 1: the chat I was looking at some of the questions,
Speaker 1: you know, they wanted to know how consequential is this information? Well,
Speaker 1: that's one answer is that if we are quite literally
Speaker 1: slaves on a prison planet, then you could imagine that
Speaker 1: they would hide technology that would break us free from that.
Speaker 1: Absolutely that makes sense to metentia.
Speaker 2: Nihil seen it looks cognitio espotentia. Knowledge is power. You
Speaker 2: don't give the fucking shapes power because they rebel.
Speaker 1: What do you think?
Speaker 3: Well, I think to address the overall concept here, I know,
Speaker 3: for a fact. There have been people in laboratories, whether
Speaker 3: NASA or elsewhere, that have discovered this effect on a
Speaker 3: small scale. And this is where it's become. I call
Speaker 3: more of it a mental brainwashing more than anything that
Speaker 3: has over that has sort of put a blanket, uh,
Speaker 3: psychosis on a lot of the masses. Although many people
Speaker 3: are waking up to be fair, which is beautiful to see,
Speaker 3: it's amazing. It really warms my heart. However, there have
Speaker 3: been people that have made certain discoveries where experts then
Speaker 3: come in. Those experts are also gatekeepers that of these
Speaker 3: type of technologies that basically gaslight them into thinking that
Speaker 3: what they see in the lab is not what they're
Speaker 3: actually seeing, and then they just label it as you know,
Speaker 3: electrostatic repulsion when it's it's not. And then they then
Speaker 3: they then they deprive you of the right measurement tools
Speaker 3: to confirm or deny that it's happened a few times.
Speaker 3: Uh yeah, hopeful, hopefully that answers the question.
Speaker 1: But yeah, yeah, it does so. And I guess you
Speaker 1: guys are probably somewhat familiar with the aar O. I
Speaker 1: did speak to an officer that was going to ensure,
Speaker 1: you know, insured to me that the case of that
Speaker 1: mistry Simveonzero would be part of the ar's official record.
Speaker 1: I don't know what they're gonna find or not find.
Speaker 1: I think at the end of the day, they probably
Speaker 1: are not going to confirm the videos are real, but
Speaker 1: they won't be able to deny the videos are real.
Speaker 1: What do you guys think of the ARH and do
Speaker 1: you think the government will ever admit to this or
Speaker 1: do you think it's going to take people like us
Speaker 1: right now talking about this. What is your opinions on
Speaker 1: what it would take for disclosure to happen.
Speaker 3: It's going to come through you and others, not Errow
Speaker 3: my opinion, sal what do you.
Speaker 2: Think the Office of Immaculate Constipation?
Speaker 1: Sorry I didn't catch that.
Speaker 3: Well, is it.
Speaker 2: The Office of Immaculate Constipation?
Speaker 1: Got it?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: And this makes me think about the letter to Ash
Speaker 1: and Forbes, where at the end says all you can
Speaker 1: do is talk about it. You know, if somebody has
Speaker 1: this type of technology that is this powerful, they have
Speaker 1: access to, in my opinion, unlimited energy based on the
Speaker 1: conversation that we've had today, as well as manipulating space
Speaker 1: time itself, which is teleportation, and probably a lot of
Speaker 1: other really magical type effects, so they would have unlimited
Speaker 1: power compared to what we think from the public perspective today,
Speaker 1: there might Do.
Speaker 2: You know one person that I really don't get and
Speaker 2: I've said this in the j Anderson interview on Project
Speaker 2: Unit Dan, I'll repeat it here. Richard Dolan with his
Speaker 2: idea of breakaway civilization, which doctor Joseph Ferrell followed on,
Speaker 2: and the two of them together brought upon a very
Speaker 2: interesting way of thinking towards the possibility of a breakaway civilization.
Speaker 2: It's as if after twenty seventeen, the entire history of
Speaker 2: design knowledge fucking objects has been white clean. Now we
Speaker 2: only talk about UAPs, we talk about the SOULFA and
Speaker 2: there whatnot. You know, all of a sudden, we have
Speaker 2: new faces with new histories instead of the old faces
Speaker 2: with the correct histories.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, so that's this is a good thing where
Speaker 1: let's just talk some smack about the UFO community a
Speaker 1: little bit and maybe we can close after this as
Speaker 1: well as that I heard you talk about Richard Dolan,
Speaker 1: and I remember I was brand new to the whole community.
Speaker 1: He was one of the first people that I found.
Speaker 2: The remarkable mind. He truly is a great researcher.
Speaker 1: And he was talking about the technology and the breakaway
Speaker 1: civilization concept. And now the reason why I started to
Speaker 1: interrupt there is that what I've realized is that a
Speaker 1: lot of these people are kind of connected in a
Speaker 1: little click. And the problem when you make clicks, in
Speaker 1: my opinion, is that people have a tendency of peer
Speaker 1: pressure the ash conformity experiment. So one of the narratives
Speaker 1: that I've seen, and this is why I wanted to
Speaker 1: bring up with you earlier, is that a lot of
Speaker 1: these people are pushing the idea that humans could not
Speaker 1: have under figured this technology out or understand this technology,
Speaker 1: that it's some somehow it's just beyond human comprehension, which
Speaker 1: would then rule out this idea that we've developed this technology,
Speaker 1: that we've reverse engineered it, or that there was a
Speaker 1: breakaway civilization. They say that it must be aliens that
Speaker 1: figured this out, and you see them all droning the
Speaker 1: same narrative about it. Even Loue Alzando will say, well,
Speaker 1: we have the temporal problem. But then I listened to
Speaker 1: Sow say, well, once you look at Einstein's equations from
Speaker 1: nineteen fifteen, anybody could have figured this out. So I
Speaker 1: guess what I'm getting at is, like, what would you
Speaker 1: want to tell the UFO community or what reps do
Speaker 1: you have with that community right now? On what I
Speaker 1: would consider it to be this controlled disclosure that's being
Speaker 1: pushed by a community that's in a click together, Like,
Speaker 1: what do you think, what would you tell those people?
Speaker 1: And what do we need to do to open our minds?
Speaker 1: More to the various options related to disclosure.
Speaker 2: Hold the fucking line, hold the fucking line. Stand by
Speaker 2: your principles, remember your history. Do not buy into these
Speaker 2: ephemeral dreams, illusions, delusions that have such a beautiful facay
Speaker 2: to them.
Speaker 1: I like it.
Speaker 3: What do you think I would say? The field right
Speaker 3: now is a shit show. You have disinformation agents. You
Speaker 3: have a few people in there telling the truth. Again
Speaker 3: relative to their field of expertise. There may be people
Speaker 3: that you know are telling the truth in one area,
Speaker 3: but in other areas they have sources that feed them
Speaker 3: things that are either wrong. We're dealing with probably the
Speaker 3: most messed up, psychological, psychologically manipulative field probably on the
Speaker 3: planet from a human perspective. I have not seen any
Speaker 3: other field that has been so infiltrated by intelligence that
Speaker 3: has been so manipulative and so deceiving and conniving as
Speaker 3: I have in the the alternative science UFO UAP field.
Speaker 3: There are very good people out there doing very good work,
Speaker 3: don't get me wrong. But there are also a lot
Speaker 3: of people that are doing things on purpose that they
Speaker 3: know is incorrect that they're spread with regards to spreading information.
Speaker 3: And then there are other people that are legitimately being
Speaker 3: used as useful idiots. So that's that's where I would
Speaker 3: leave that. I would say, try your best to go
Speaker 3: with your intuition, your own discernment. I'm not sitting here
Speaker 3: claiming I can look at the field and know everything
Speaker 3: about everybody, but I'd like to think I have a
Speaker 3: general idea of what groups are dealing with what and how,
Speaker 3: And you start it becomes tough, right because you have
Speaker 3: if you have a one group that's telling the truth
Speaker 3: about one thing, but then they have to you know,
Speaker 3: stop at a certain point and then they have to
Speaker 3: tell a lie because it overlaps with you know, American
Speaker 3: national security. It becomes a tough situation to deal with
Speaker 3: for the people hearing the information and the people providing
Speaker 3: the information. With good intent the ones that have bad intent.
Speaker 3: But now what I'm hearing is pre energy is possible.
Speaker 3: We got floaty orbs of plasma. They can probably teleport airplanes.
Speaker 3: The United's governments figured it out.
Speaker 1: And we can't really talk about it because it's adversarial
Speaker 1: issue of nash security where we're in an arms race
Speaker 1: against China and Russia. I ran in North Korea here, uh,
Speaker 1: and it comes a lot more awkward than just aliens.
Speaker 1: That's that's what I've taken away from today's conversation.
Speaker 2: So two hours, and that's why he took away. What
Speaker 2: about time, It's not the order of one divided by frequency.
Speaker 1: And when you worry, I'm going to get all the science.
Speaker 2: Don't forget what I said in the beginning to do
Speaker 2: the chain rule on time is on the order of
Speaker 2: one divided by frequency. And you'll see what I'm talking about.
Speaker 2: You hook that with a Minkowski a space time metric,
Speaker 2: and you'll see how these things displace and you see
Speaker 2: how that negative sign all of a sudden becomes positive.
Speaker 2: It's a beautiful thing anyway, man. I like keeping things
Speaker 2: in the positive.
Speaker 1: It's just me, you know, no one, And I think
Speaker 1: that the negative side is we're probably going to destroy
Speaker 1: ourselves with this technology. I mean, that's just how I
Speaker 1: see it. But hey, there's a chance that we might not.
Speaker 3: There's if I could leave on a positive note before
Speaker 3: I have I have to go myself and thank you
Speaker 3: so much guys for having me. This has been an honor.
Speaker 3: I will say Ashton that whenevery so often when you're
Speaker 3: doing your streams every week or every couple of days,
Speaker 3: when I tune in wherever I am, if I'm traveling
Speaker 3: or I'm at home or whatever, there's certain things I
Speaker 3: see people say in the comments, and I go, how
Speaker 3: the hell did they see that? You know, There's certain
Speaker 3: things I look and I go, my god, I go
Speaker 3: this this should maybe shouldn't be put on a live
Speaker 3: stream chat. So what I'm trying to say is you're
Speaker 3: you're you're doing good work. You're doing very good work.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Yeah, I see it too. There's people in
Speaker 1: my live streams probably right now watching where I'm going.
Speaker 1: Oh boys, several times where I don't I don't highlight
Speaker 1: their comment because I'm like, there's so on the on
Speaker 1: the money that you know, it could actually like help
Speaker 1: out people that are our adversaries. But it's a fine
Speaker 1: line between what do we disclose safely that we aren't
Speaker 1: going to destroy ourselves versus you know, change the whole
Speaker 1: play in it forever, you know. And I think that's
Speaker 1: what makes this topic so so tough to say.
Speaker 3: If I and also if I can mention one more thing,
Speaker 3: there's a for a lot of people in this field,
Speaker 3: the ones looking into the science that you tend to
Speaker 3: attract with your audience, which is beautiful, there's a lot
Speaker 3: of I noticed, there's a there's everyone goes through their
Speaker 3: journey where they discover a certain terminology or a certain
Speaker 3: experimental concept and they don't fully understand it. And because
Speaker 3: they don't fully understand it, I don't mean this in
Speaker 3: a good or bad way, they then plaster it all
Speaker 3: over the internet. But then, you know, six months later,
Speaker 3: after they learn more about it, they remove those posts
Speaker 3: because they realize how sensitive what they said earlier was
Speaker 3: and they didn't realize that. So it's a learning journey
Speaker 3: for a lot of people when they realize, for example,
Speaker 3: we talk resonance in a cavity, that sounds harmless, but
Speaker 3: then if you go and new experiment with resonance in
Speaker 3: a cavity with maybe some more you know, engineering adjustments.
Speaker 3: You start to think, holy shit, should I even talk
Speaker 3: about resonance? So it's a it's a it's a learning
Speaker 3: journey for a lot of people. And it's very interesting
Speaker 3: to see because your platform Hash has been the most
Speaker 3: open about it, and I love it.
Speaker 1: I have plausible deniability. It's like, oh, if I accidentally
Speaker 1: give away the secret sauce, I didn't know. So that's
Speaker 1: what I love about open.
Speaker 3: You know what makes you know? What makes me laugh?
Speaker 3: You know what makes me laugh. A lot of this
Speaker 3: ship is on the web. It's just you have Yeah,
Speaker 3: that's what makes me.
Speaker 2: It's considered pseudoscience. It is so shot upon that everybody
Speaker 2: dismisses it out of hand, right speaking of something they're
Speaker 2: gonna dismiss right out of hand because remember Hawking brought
Speaker 2: to us the whole idea of chronological protection, the idea
Speaker 2: that you cannot have reverse temporal excursion. Look very carefully,
Speaker 2: I watch just just a time equals or rather yeah
Speaker 2: equals a constant. This constant has a lot to do
Speaker 2: with breaking the Shwingle limit. But I'm not going to
Speaker 2: go into it to it too interesting because it speaks
Speaker 2: to certain thing. But what I'm about to say now,
Speaker 2: I hope you follow us about. They will enjoy this.
Speaker 2: Given that Hawking said you you cannot go back in time,
Speaker 2: how about that time? Look how simple it is. Time
Speaker 2: is and the ordo one divided by frequency. Apply the
Speaker 2: frame the chain rule to that you get negative delta
Speaker 2: t zanti ato of uh delta omega di vita by
Speaker 2: omega square. So, in other words, under certain conditions, if
Speaker 2: I was to say, stay in a chamber of a
Speaker 2: certain ionizing radiation given a certain frequency, so all of
Speaker 2: a sudden dial up the frequency, Oh what might happen?
Speaker 2: Because it speaks to a negative delta t gentlemen, reverse
Speaker 2: temporal excursion.
Speaker 3: It might be possible. It might be possible to engineer
Speaker 3: something where you you increase, you you reverse the entropy,
Speaker 3: and therefore you get phenomena that thing. In classical physics
Speaker 3: has been able to explain.
Speaker 2: Simple stuff resulting in a highly complex phenomenon. That's all
Speaker 2: I'm arguing for.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so free energy is real. Teleportations, real orbs that
Speaker 1: float around freely are real. And also, by the way, guys,
Speaker 1: you can live forever.
Speaker 3: So if you need motivation when you say when you
Speaker 3: say when you say free energy, you mean coffiicient of
Speaker 3: performance over one like a like a heat pump in
Speaker 3: a home.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you know, you know how I talk, it's
Speaker 1: always going to be free energy and cold fusion and
Speaker 1: UFOs to me. So you know, if other people want
Speaker 1: to come up with other fancy terms, it's more palatable
Speaker 1: for normy out there, that's fine.
Speaker 3: But uh, you know, let me ask, let me ask you.
Speaker 3: Do you think it's possible to get more energy out
Speaker 3: than what you put into a system.
Speaker 1: Yeah? I think that they And yes, we will rewrite
Speaker 1: the first and second laws, but we're not going to
Speaker 1: rewrite them out of necessity. We're going to rewrite them
Speaker 1: out of convenience, because it's a matter of once you
Speaker 1: have this energy source of our UFOs, that is our
Speaker 1: zero point energy field that's all around us, if you
Speaker 1: have an external energy source, you can easily get around
Speaker 1: the first and second laws. The first law you get
Speaker 1: around because you're constantly exchanging energy.
Speaker 3: Let me if I can leave one last hint, and
Speaker 3: this is very well the Miisner effect with superconductors. Nice
Speaker 3: people don't realize what they're with. Respect people don't I
Speaker 3: don't mean this towards your audience. I mean towards the
Speaker 3: mainstream physics world. They don't realize what they're looking at.
Speaker 3: When the if you have a liquid nitrogen with a
Speaker 3: magnet over a superconductor, and that as long as there's
Speaker 3: a constant fuel of liquid nitrogen, the magnet stays levitating.
Speaker 3: What what does that mean in a thermodynamic sense? A
Speaker 3: lot of people, A lot of people don't realize that.
Speaker 2: What what what what?
Speaker 3: That's already it's violating the second law right there by
Speaker 3: the way, And I'm just gonna say it, because fuck it.
Speaker 3: But people don't realize that.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean when I look at something floating freely, like
Speaker 1: I'm looking at over here on the side of the screen.
Speaker 1: This is the LK ninety nine, one of the videos
Speaker 1: of the debunked superconductor. I mean, I'm looking at something
Speaker 1: just levitating freely here. You know, this is a magnet
Speaker 1: without it being stuck to anything. It's just not it's
Speaker 1: just floating suspended.
Speaker 3: Yep. And this is why I love the question I
Speaker 3: noticed in the comments here. I think Bob Greenier said
Speaker 3: flux pinning. Yeah, right, Bob, flux pinning. But there's a component,
Speaker 3: a thermodynamic component to the flux pinning that people don't
Speaker 3: realize is interacting with the local vacuum between its critical
Speaker 3: state and the just what's just outside of it the
Speaker 3: flux there's there's there's a negative entropy component there that
Speaker 3: people don't realize.
Speaker 1: So just to wind it down, uh, sal what would
Speaker 1: be your final positive message that you would want to
Speaker 1: leave for people? And thank you very much for having
Speaker 1: this conversation with me again here today. It's been great.
Speaker 2: It's been my pleasure. Brothers Ashton you you coming up
Speaker 2: to speed brother like and by the way, hello to
Speaker 2: Bob since I heard these over there. So it's like
Speaker 2: we finely should have a four sum sometimes you know,
Speaker 2: it's like you know what I mean, like a physics
Speaker 2: thing these days you have to say it, you know.
Speaker 2: But anyway, so look, you you and brother Rossi. It's
Speaker 2: an absolute pleasure to engage with you on this subject.
Speaker 2: I've spoken to brother Rossi a many time not to
Speaker 2: use words like negentropy and other things because it rubs
Speaker 2: certain people the wrong way. Now, eventually again people will
Speaker 2: get used to the terminology and the ideas and so forth,
Speaker 2: but not right now because they will call us pseudoscientists.
Speaker 2: So that's what I see. I understand what Brother Ashon
Speaker 2: is saying. F the mother efforts and let's do our thing.
Speaker 2: The only problem is it's the mother efforts that are
Speaker 2: in proud, are in power, and they're the ones that
Speaker 2: give the grants. They're the ones that dispense the favors,
Speaker 2: they're the ones that give the promotions. Again, we're all slaves.
Speaker 2: The problem is the mofos don't recognize they slave them.
Speaker 2: Trust me, it'll hit them one day. They will be
Speaker 2: absolutely amazed. Anyway, Thanks Brother Ashton, it's been absolutely a pleasure.
Speaker 3: Thank you for having me as well. Thank you guys,
Speaker 3: it's an honor. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Yep, and I want to shoot my big thanks to
Speaker 1: both Brother sal and Brother Dave for jumping on with
Speaker 1: me here today. It really helped ingrain a lot of
Speaker 1: the scientific concepts that I've learned over the last year.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't have been able to do any of it
Speaker 1: without either of these guys that are here. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I'm Shrew seventy X for following along. Guys, I had
Speaker 1: a great interview. You guys have a great day, and
Speaker 1: we'll be talking again.
Speaker 2: Soon, Bravo, thank you,