Speaker 1: In the most conservative case scenario, I will be helping
national security, which is my civil duty as a citizen
of the United States, of course, but there is also
a chance that we might make a huge discovery, scientific discovery.
Speaker 2: And so you know they had me at hello, so
to speak.
Speaker 3: Welcome to the Good Trouble Show. I'm Matt Ford. This month,
the government quietly stood up a new structure to decide
what the public gets to see on UAP. On the
science side, they just turned to my guest.
Speaker 4: He's a Harvard astrophysicist who directs the Galileo Project, which
hunts for evidence of technology that well isn't ours, he says.
The White House, the Pentagon, and the intelligence community tasked
him to a symbol and lead a new UAP Science
Advisory Council. I have to tell you I'm super excited
at the talent that he has a symbol for this.
Here's he's here to tell us what all that means
and what it doesn't. One quick note, Obvio's here today
in his personal capacity speaking for himself. Please welcome doctor
Avi Lobe. Doctor Lobe, how are you, sir?
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me. We live in exciting times, as
you just noted.
Speaker 4: We we we certainly, we certainly do, that is for sure.
So yeah, so OBVI, it's it's great to have you back.
I think this is actually your your fifth time on
the show. So how are you doing And how has
this whole whirlwind of a week been.
Speaker 1: Well, it seems like the future will be better than
the past. And the reason I say that we had
three events over the past week. First, you know, Steven
Spielberg released his new movie Disclosure Day that's fiction based
on the imagination of Spielberg. And then on the same day,
the US government had the third batch of disclosing files
and videos and images this is reality. And over the
same week, I was tasked by the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence, the White House, the Old Domain
normally Resolution Office in the Pentagon, and the FBI and
all intelligence community members to provide the advice scientific advice.
Now this is quite unusual because first thing, the third
batch that was released on June twelfth included a report
from the director of the Old Domain normally Resolution Office
in the Pentagon, doctor John Kozlowski, in which he was
mentioning an event that lasted two days on October twenty
twenty three, where law enforcement officials witnessed very unusual objects.
Among them was an orb that gave birth to smaller
orbs and some other orbs hovering for very long times,
much longer than a flare could exist. And so they
concluded that forty percent of the reported phenomena in this
event cannot be risened out based on technologies that the
US has in its possession as well as adversarial nations
as far as we know now. It's how common is
it for a government official to admit that they're not
doing their job. You know, the job of the Pentagon
is to figure out the identity of objects near strategic assets,
and here they have an example that they haven't. They
couldn't really figure it out. And moreover, there is an
official report released publicly. He could have sent it as
a memo to Pitte Hexat, but instead we all see that.
And at the same time, they're tasking me as a
scientist to help government figure out these things. And that
is a major development because it implies, well, you know,
the down to earth interpretation is that all of these
unidentified anomalous phenomena are human.
Speaker 2: Made related to humans.
Speaker 1: They might be balloons, drones produced by the serain nations,
in which case it's a breach of national security, and
that this would be a matter that should be confidentially
discussed within the Pentagon, not released to the public, because
then we are basically announcing that we have holes in
our defense system.
Speaker 2: And you know that's not good news.
Speaker 1: When we spend nearly a trillion dollars on the defense
budget and we're unable to infer objects in our in
the sky, you know that's a major failure. But to
admit it publicly, that's even worse. So the other possibilities
that these are not human made, and that would be,
if true, the biggest discovery ever made by humanity. So
you know, for me as a scientist, it's like getting
into a candy store, and you know that it's just
a win win situation because in the in the most
conservative case scenario, I will be helping national security, which
is my civil duty as a citizen of the United States,
but there is also a chance that we might make
a huge discovery, scientific discovery. And so you know, they
had me at hello, so to speak.
Speaker 4: I totally totally totally get that the same thing here
and folks watching at home towards the end of the show,
Doctor Loebe will will take your questions and so put
your put your question in all caps, and our lovely
Good Trouble show Chat moderators will.
Speaker 3: Vet them, they'll send them to me and I will
pass them along to doctor Lobe.
Speaker 4: So, so I want to kind of dig into all
of this in a little more detail. So, uh so
explain exactly to the public what this, what this advisory
board or or panel will be able to do, and
and and what what is the difference we also have
heard about this governance board.
Speaker 3: What is the difference.
Speaker 4: Between what what your what your board is set up
to do, and what the governance board is set up
to do.
Speaker 2: Right, So, the U a p.
Speaker 1: Science Advisory consul will receive only unclassified data and that
our goal is to look into it and then see
what we can infer from it using.
Speaker 2: The scientific method.
Speaker 1: You know, the government is not a scientific organization, and
we potentially can unravel new details that they haven't noticed.
But on top of that, we can recommend how to
do better in the future. We can recommend the better sensors,
better artificial intelligence algorithms, and so it's sort of a
feedback loop where we can help government do better and
basically make the Pentagon accomplish its mission of identifying everything
in the sky, unless, of course, it's not human made,
in which case, you know, we might need to learn
new science, new technology that we've never seen before. But
in order to narrow down the possibilities to that, we
really need to get better data. That's the way that
the detective works, you know, And it's not a matter
of discussions on social media or philosophical arguments. It's a
really simple task of getting the best data possible so
that it will guide us to the truth. And my
point is this is a serious matter of national security,
and therefore we should get better data, and therefore we
should analyze it better. And at the end of the day,
as we get to the bottom of it, if it
looks like it's not human made, you know, we will
have to decide what to do with that information. But
you know, it's the same as a Galileo galileib looking
through the telescope and figuring out that the Earth is
not at the center of the universe. And now, of
course the Church was not happy with that. If he
was on social media back then, he would have been canceled.
It took them three hundred and fifty years after he
died to admit in nineteen ninety two that he was right.
And the reason they did that is because they had
no choice. They would look like fools because spacecraft were
looking at the Earth. Clearly the Earth was moving around
the Sun rather than the other way around. And in fact,
the Earth did that four point five billion times before
the Vatican even existed. So whether we have neighbors or
not is not up to social media influencers. It's not
up to the Kardashians of science. You know, there are
these people who comment about science. They have their opinions
about what science is supposed to do. No, it's not
about you know, whatever they say is completely irrelevant. What
we need is better data so we can figure it out.
And if it ends up being all human made, you know,
all these objects, all these ups can be explained as balloons,
drawns or some technologies we've never seen in the US before.
Speaker 2: So be it.
Speaker 1: We just helped the US government for phil its mission
of protecting the US in particular strategic sites where a
lot of these ups are seen.
Speaker 3: Sure.
Speaker 4: Sure, And I would say as far as the Kim
Kardashian of science, who comes to mind as Neil Degrass Tyson.
But I would say that Kim Kardashian is significantly betterally.
Speaker 5: That's that's just you know, And people might wonder, how
do you tell the difference between an influencer and a
player someone who is writing scientific papers doing research on
this subject.
Speaker 1: It's very easy to tell the difference. An influencer would
basically go with where the wind blows. In other words,
an influencer is maximizing the number of likes that they
get by attending to the popular view, whereas a player
in the field, you know, it's not always popular because
it takes time for the community, for the mainstream community
of science to recognize something. And you know, so the
main difference between me being in the field and doing
the research and nil, the Grist ties on is I
can score a goal. He will just describe the goal
after I score it, or he will make some money.
When it sees that this subject becomes popular, he would
write a book.
Speaker 4: Yeah that's a difference, now, yeah, when he's got yeah
you got it now, yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: Well, so my point is there is a delay between
the responsive influencers and the progress in real science and
the delay is caused by the fact that they're not
doing the right thing. They're basically trying to be popular
instead of attending to the facts.
Speaker 2: And you know it's the Knicks just won, you know.
Speaker 1: And the reason they won is because they kept their
eyes on the ball, not on the audience. And my
point is we should keep our eyes on the orbs,
not on the audience.
Speaker 4: I agree with that, Okay, So I want to jump
back into the sport. So you said that that started
with a messenger that you hosted at your home, and
I'm sure you can't name that individual, but at the level,
can you say did this come from the White House
or any particular agency?
Speaker 3: Are you're willing to at least tell us that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as
well as the White House, as well as all the
other He came to represent all other agents. But the
actual research is done by ERO in the Pentagon. But
of course it's done in coordination among all these agencies. Now,
to answer your previous question about the governing board, and
then I hope to of course advise them based on
the deliberations within my council. So I hope to be
part of their conversation as well, but those are that
board will be composed of representatives from all the organizations
I mentioned before, the White House, the Director of National
Intelligence Office ERRO in the Pentagon, the FBI, and other
intelligence communities, and so all of these will have their
voice heard within this governance board. And the difference between
that and our council is that they would actually review
classified materials, so they will decide whether to declassify it
or not, and they will look into things that the
Council is not able to look into. Now there would
be in addition to the Science Council, that would be
most likely another advisory board, but it will serve a
different role, you know, of representing perhaps a broader community
of people. But my job as a scientist is to
do my best to help government figure out the nature
of these things. And it's exciting because it's like a
detective story. And the way that the detective cracks a
mystery is by looking at the clues, not going around
and asking people about what's the most likely answer and
doing a popularity contest, And you know, it makes the
work of a scientist is exciting. And I should say
that reality could be far more inspiring than script of
Hollywood direct because and the reason is simple, because our imagination,
the imagination of Spielberg, is limited to experiences on this Earth,
and most of the real estate is beyond the Earth.
So if we are being visited by some alien entity,
it may represent a much larger data set then all
the data centers that we are now establishing at the
cost of seven hundred billion dollars in the US this year,
you know, because all of these data centers represent what
we learned on Earth.
Speaker 2: That's it. And just think about how much bigger is
the universe?
Speaker 4: Now, I want to ask, so, so you spoke about
this just a few minutes ago. So so you do
not have classified access.
Speaker 3: There's kind of no legal authority.
Speaker 4: All the council will not have classified access, yes, okay,
and I take it the information that you'll be receiving
as well is unclassified.
Speaker 1: So my question, the Council will receive just unclassified them. Yeah,
but of course the governing board will have more of course.
Speaker 4: So my question to you, doctor Lowe, without having being
able to view classified material only unclassified, no budget, et cetera,
what do you expect the Council to actually be able
to do in terms of deliverables.
Speaker 1: Well, we can advocate for the release of important information.
It's actually a great benefit not to see classified data
because then you can do scientific work in an open way, uh,
and that's the way science is usually done. The best
science is done openly, when the brightest minds can look
at it and it could be shared with the scientific community.
So I see that as a virtue. But then we
can decide what is missing. You know, if we see
some data and we're missing some information, we can recommend
building new sensors and new AI algorithms that will uh
crack that mystery and figure it. So we can basically
highlight what is missing and what needs to be done.
All these reports from the past, you have to understand.
We can't go back in time and get better data.
That's the limitation. So most of the UAP community was
obsessed with reports from the past and people were arguing
what does it mean. The point is we can do better.
First of all, we have better sensors now, and secondly,
we can build even better systems so that in the future,
you know, in the coming months or years.
Speaker 2: We will get to the bottom of it.
Speaker 1: So that's the more hopeful approach where the future is
better than the past.
Speaker 4: Now, this governing excuse me, not the government governing board,
the Advisory Council that you're you're heading up.
Speaker 3: Who do you report to?
Speaker 4: Are you reporting directly to ARROW, to ODI and I?
Who do you send your recommendations to.
Speaker 1: To the governing board which is representing both the odin
I and the ERRO and other agencies as I mentioned?
Speaker 3: Okay, and what when? When? When do you expect number
one to be the first meeting?
Speaker 4: And then secondarily, is there an expectation that this board
will meet once a month, you know, once every three months.
Is there any kind of interval that is prescribed in
its charter whatever is sort of assembling us.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So the frequency of the meetings will really depend
on on the information data that we are getting, because
it's all about the data.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: If we don't get any data, there is nothing to discuss.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: I already coordinated a meeting just for for the members
of the team to meet each other, to know each other.
That will happen tomorrow, but that is not a substantive
meeting about content. And since you know, we are all
busy people, the frequency of the meetings will reflect how
much content we get through the pipeline. And you know,
if we don't get much content, there is nothing to discuss.
You know, I have better things to do. But it
really is the government that will control the level of
engagement that we have. And let's hope for the best.
Speaker 3: Now, doctor Lobe, I understand that you had to sign
a non disclosure agreement. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 3: You did not so far?
Speaker 4: So far, And I believe in another podcast you said
you were open to signing that.
Speaker 3: Am I correct?
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, even before I was contacted. You see, I'm curious.
I haven't changed much since the time I was a kid.
I was always very much connected to nature and wondered
about the big questions. That's what motivates me, That's what
gives purpose to my life. And I would just like
to know the answer. Are we being visited or not?
And if I'm asked not to reveal it to anyone,
I don't care.
Speaker 2: I just want to know. Okay.
Speaker 1: So if you invite me in the future and I
know the answer and I'm not allowed.
Speaker 2: To tell you, I will not tell you.
Speaker 1: But for me, I just want to figure out, you know,
what reality is, whether we have a neighbor or not.
You know, it doesn't really depend on what people say.
It's a very factual, existential question. And when Enrico fired me,
you know in nineteen fifty, asked where is everybody? You know,
it wasn't really very productive of him to do that,
because I would have told him if I was there,
you know, I was born twelve years later. But if
I were there, I would put my arm around him.
He was Italian, and I would say, en Rico, this
is a question that every lonely person asks, where is everybody?
And what you tell a lonely person that asks this
question is don't be so presumptuous.
Speaker 2: You're not that attractive. You should actually stick seek your
dating partners.
Speaker 1: And then Rico unfortunately didn't build any telescope, you know,
and they may have been you know, those visitors that
we are talking about, they may have been around for
a long time. In fact, we don't even know if
we were put on this earth by someone else, you know,
we have no idea. I was asked just a week
ago by a student in France, how come we don't
see any self replicating probes that for Noymann envisioned, And
he said, yeah, of course, if you do a simple calculation,
when if you assume that self replicating probes are produced
by even one civilization within the Milky Way Galaxy, and
they move at a small fraction of the speed of light,
let's say one percent of the speed of light from
one planet to another, then it would take them just
one hundred thousand years to fill up the Milky Way
Galaxy to colonize every planet, because they double whenever they
go from at least double or more modern double every
time they visit a new habitable planet. And so since
we don't see them, does it mean that we are
alone or there is nobody more advanced.
Speaker 2: Than we are?
Speaker 1: And I told him very you know, very simply that
every day I interact with self replicating intelligent probes.
Speaker 2: They are called humans. And so an interesting question.
Speaker 1: I mean, right now, we are developing artificial intelligence, and
we make it those systems out of silicon chips, but
we need to invest jigawatts in performing the cognitive tasks
that the human brain accomplishes with twenty watts compared to
jigawats to twenty WA's.
Speaker 2: Now, what does it mean.
Speaker 1: It means that as much as people in silicon Valley
are excited about their accomplishments and they get very wealthy
that in fact, the biggest advance forward will not be
for us to use silicon chips. It would be to
use chemistry in biological you know, in synthetic biology, creating
brains through synthetic biology that are much more capable than
the human brain, because that seems to be much more efficient,
much more effective, And we could send astronauts that would
be constructed through synthetic biology, through engineering of biological processes
rather than silicon chips, very different approach.
Speaker 2: Instead of taking sand and purifying.
Speaker 1: It the way we make silicon chips, you know, you
build out of chemistry a system that can use the
nutrients on the surface of a planet like Earth and
multiply and it's intelligent. So just think about it the future,
in the distant future, we might reach the point where
we use synthetic biology instead of silicon chips to make
intelligent But humans are already representing that. They can you know,
they are self replicating, they're intelligent. I mean, you can
imagine that if they were designed, you could that there
are some flows in the design. They live for a
finite time, but you can imagine a self repairing system.
And so my point is, maybe we have self replicating
probes that are intelligent here on Earth and that are
cold humans, and they were put here by some interstellar gardener.
This is a possibility that we should, of course explore scientifically.
Speaker 4: Sure, sure, But my only counter argument with with these
human probes, as I would say, some are a little
more intelligent than others.
Speaker 3: Clearly you're at the top of the heap. I'll say that.
Speaker 2: Well, I you know, I don't want to.
Speaker 1: Say anything about any individual, but I would argue that
you could imagine something better, that there is room for
improvement relative to the intelligence that we read about when
we monitor the news every day. Because if you look
at what happens in the world, you know, there are
two point four trillion dollars invested every year in military
budgets and the only goal is either to kill other
people or protect us from others killing us.
Speaker 2: And if you, you know, just.
Speaker 1: Think about it, that's ninety nine percent of our budget
goes in this direction and only one percent goes into
science or space exploration. And that's not the most intelligent
thing to do, because occupying territories on this rock, that
was left over from the formation of the sun.
Speaker 2: You know, makes no sense.
Speaker 1: And of course the change in the mindset of humans
may be triggered by an alien visitor, because once we
realize that someone is visiting us, you know, that arrived
at our backyard, it will imply that we are not
at the top of the food chain cosmologically speaking, that
you know, they reached our backyard before we reached their backyard.
And it might service a role model for us to
change our priorities to invest more in space. Just think
if we were to invest a trillion dollars a year
in space exploration instead of investing it in killing each other.
You know how much we can accomplish. We can build
a spacecraft that will carry humans and provide the habitat
for humans to live on.
Speaker 2: It's much better.
Speaker 1: Than going to Mars, where you know, the temperature verys
between day and night are hundreds of degrees. You are
exposed to cosmic rays, energetic particles that can kill you.
You know, it has no atmosphere. Why would we dream
of going to another rock that is much worse, has
much worse living conditions than Earth. That is not the
most intelligent.
Speaker 2: Thing to do.
Speaker 1: The most intelligent thing to do is build the habitat
the size of a city that carries humans to space
and have a self repairing mechanism for maintaining human longevity
for a very long time. And I'm saying it's just
a question of priorities. You know, we are now not
focusing on the important things. If we want to be
remembered in the history books of the Milky Way.
Speaker 2: Galaxy, we should do better, you know.
Speaker 1: And one reason for us to do better would be
to recognize a neighbor that is already doing better.
Speaker 4: I want to circle back to the boarder, and I
completely agree with you.
Speaker 3: On all of those fronts.
Speaker 4: Now, you know, you said you have a a meeting
coming up where everybody gets to know each other and whatnot,
and you have assembled truly a great board. Many of
the folks on there have been a guest on The
Good Trouble Show. So you have doctor Gary Nolan Stanford,
who's Stanford Pathologist, Matthew Sedagis who's not been on our show,
but he's wonderful, and another brilliant mind, doctor Kevin Kanouth,
Admiral Tim Gallia Datt. Although I have to say I
completely butchered his his name, first time you ever came
on the show. You have Dr Peter Skafish from Soul Foundation,
another brilliant mind who's been on the on the show.
And then you have Michael Shermer, and I want to
read to you some of the quotes that he has
said over a period of time on Twitter. I'm going
to read four of them, and then I just want
to get your reaction. So one from twenty twenty six,
why why do otherwise rational people not get this? Show them,
show them photos of blurry lockness or grainy bigfoot or
double exposure ghosts, and they exercise their rational faculties, tell
them it's aliens, and their brains turned to mush.
Speaker 3: Another one in.
Speaker 4: Twenty twenty three, after thirty years of studying pseudoscience, cults,
cons and conspiracies, I would have to rank David Grush
in the top ten of all time bullshitters. That was
a masterclass in buncom blather, cold swap.
Speaker 3: Another one.
Speaker 4: Uapers are a cult or in a cult of belief
for which evidence is irrelevant.
Speaker 3: It's faith, not science. Another one, the extent of.
Speaker 4: Which observers and pilots are highly respected, professional or trained
to confirm you AP is unnecessary, who cares actual evidence,
supplants credentialing. Then another last couple of ones eufology is
a religion, there will never be empirical evidence.
Speaker 3: And then finally, I need you And.
Speaker 4: He removed this tweet, but he compared one of the
whistleblowers I just mentioned to the leader of the Heavensgate Culton.
Of course, that entire cult committed suicide. Uh at the
at the sort of guidance of this leader, and UH
and Michael Shermer Uh directly compared this guy and then
and then uh and then said, well, maybe if these
folks had had applied or been subscribed to a skeptic magazine,
maybe that wouldn't happened. So my question is, you know,
why should someone who says things like that deserve a
seat at a table that you have clearly set up
with some of the most brilliant minds.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So, first, I completely disagree with all these statements, but
that's exactly the reason why I need him to be
on the table. And my hope is that he will
change his tunes and actually admit that that he was wrong.
And the point is that every committee needs to have
a devil's advocate, someone who is a skeptic. That's required
in order to make sure that we don't follow biases
within the committee, that we don't miss important clues. I
want to hear someone who disagrees with me. Okay, now
it might sound to you like a very strange thing,
given that you know, people are not willing to invite
their relatives to Thanksgiving if they think differently on political matters.
We reach the point where the political polarization is so
great that people are not speaking to each other even
though their family and they hate whoever disagrees with them,
and they live in their echo chambers. That's very common
right now in politics, but also in science. And I
don't like that because in my view, you know, we
should understand the other side and then demonstrate why we
have the correct opinion. That's the better way of getting
at the truth. And so I decided, you know, that
it would be a good idea to have a dissenting view.
Speaker 2: And I actually have a bet with Michael Shermer.
Speaker 1: The bet is that by the year twenty thirty we
will have a clear evidence for an extraterrestrial technological visitor.
Speaker 2: And you know.
Speaker 1: So obviously you can tell my opinion it's very different
than his. But my hope is that he will agree
with me in case we do see that evidence as
a result of the deliberations of the committee, and I
have hopes that in the coming months and years you
will hear a very different tune coming from him.
Speaker 2: So, in fact, having someone that started.
Speaker 1: With the quotes that you just mentioned ending up in
a different place would be quite remarkable.
Speaker 2: If I managed to pull this, that.
Speaker 3: Would certainly be the case.
Speaker 4: You know, the only way I would respectfully push back,
doctor Lobi is I mean, I totally understand needing dissenting opinions,
but are scientists such as yourself not automatically skeptical. You know,
you're you're looking at the scientific method, You're not just
buying things on you know, on the surface.
Speaker 2: No, no, not at all.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm completely open minded and looking forward to
the data to guide us. But then, you know, and
I had no issue also with the.
Speaker 2: Vice President JD.
Speaker 1: Van saying that these UAPs are demons. You know, anyone
can you know, have their own explanation to the knowledge
that we currently have about this phenomena. I'm completely fine
with that. You can have believers. You can have skeptics,
no problem whatsoever, as long as everyone agrees that we
can figure things out by getting better data. As we
get more evidence, more clues, it will be clear to everyone.
And you know, the reason I bring this up is
because that's exactly why the Vatican ended up changing their tunes.
Eventually they realized that indeed the Earth moves around the Sun.
There is no doubt about it, and it would be
foolish of them insisting the other way. Now, most of
the time in science you have to understand most of
the time we have large uncertainties. We don't know what
is the explanation for a mystery. For example, eighty four
percent of the matter in the universe is invisible. We
call it dark matter, and that was realized ninety years ago,
and so far the scientific community, the mainstream. You know,
initially in the first few decades, it was not believed.
People said, oh, maybe these are objects made of ordinary
matter that we can't see them the dark or something.
But then it ended up, you know, based on a
variety of arguments, including the early universe, we can say
beyond any doubt that such matter exists. If you adapt
Einstein's theory of gravity. There is no doubt about it,
because if everything was made of ordinary metal, we would
not exist. Because we see the radiation, the cosmic radiation
background from the Big Bang, and that was smoothing out
all the inomogen eities that were responsible for the formation
of galaxies like the Milky Way in the ordinary metal
that was coupled to this radiation. But the dark matter
is invisible, doesn't couple to the cosmic radiation. As a result,
it gave birth to galaxies like the Milky Way. So
in fact, we owe our existence to the existence of
dark mat But we don't know what it is. And
you know, we are still ninety years after its discovery.
We still cannot figure it out. And we invested billions
of dollars in direction that proved out to be wrong.
The mainstream said, oh, it's a weekly interacting massive particle
that makes it. We build the Large Hadron Collider with
the hope that it will discover it.
Speaker 2: We didn't discover it.
Speaker 1: So very often the mainstream is wrong. Okay, so that's
the way science is done. We are we live in
a state of uncertainty. A lot of people in the
public feel uncomfortable when they see anomalous phenomena. And by
the way, dark matter or invisible matter is an anomaly.
It's something we don't understand. We don't know the nature
of it. So it's just like QAP. You know, it's
an anomaly that we don't understand. A lot of people
in the public uneasy, so on social media, they have
a belief system. They know that this anomaly represents something
that they believe in. But that's not good enough because
we need evidence to guide us. You can believe in
whatever you want, as long as you agree that at
the end of the day, we will use the evidence,
the clues that we collect to figure out the nature
of this thing. And you know, it's just like in
the courtroom that very often you have eyewitnesses that give
testimonies under oath, and sometimes, you know, people are put
in jail, but not only in jail, they are put
on death row based on testimonies under oath. So the
people who said that there are the criminals were absolutely
sure they were willing to bring death to those in
front of them, and then it turns out that when
the DNA evidence came along, these people were exonerated. There
are dozens of cases like that. So what does it
tell us? What is the lesson from this? That you
can't believe stories told by people. You have to have
evidence from you know, scientific quality, from instruments like the
DNA test.
Speaker 2: That is the reality check.
Speaker 1: You know, we can believe each of us can believe
that we have a trillion dollars in our bank account.
There is one person who has more than that. It's
ill on musk. But all of us, you know, can
believe in that because it gives us pleasure. And then
the reality check would be to go and check how
much money do we actually have. So my point is
you can enjoy believing in something it gives you pleasure,
but reality is under.
Speaker 2: No contract to give you pleasure. Okay.
Speaker 1: In difference from Steven's Steven Spielberg when he asks people
to go to the movie theater and see his creation,
he is he is under an obligation to give them pleasure,
so he can imagine whatever he wants.
Speaker 2: He can give them red meat, you know.
Speaker 1: Basically, here are bodies of aliens that you can see
in videos. He can give that to the audience. But
that's because he has artistic freedom. I really want to
see these bodies in reality before I would assume that
they exist. That's the difference between the work of a scientist.
We have to abide by evidence. Once the evidence is presented,
you know. That's what the beef is. Once it's presented.
Once I have a chance of seeing it firsthand, you know,
then I can convince everyone else, just like Galileo's evidence,
you know, eventually convinced everyone.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: And I tell you what if you talk to talk
to Elon Musk, ask him if he can give some
of the Australian dollars to fund our shelves so well,
because we're barely barely paying the bills here.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't ask him to fund the show. I would
ask him to fund the research.
Speaker 2: On the on the following question, is.
Speaker 1: Elon Musk the most accomplished space entrepreneur since the Big
Bang thirteen point eight billion years ago? If you ask me,
I would say no. But if you ask him, he
might say yes. And I'm willing to bet with him.
Each of us will put one percent of our net
worth to address this question.
Speaker 3: I'm happy to do that, agreed.
Speaker 4: And I want to interrupt and starry interrupt a lot
of questions. I want to try and get through. Okay,
So so better better scientific results are reliant on and
better censors, better investigations and whatnot. How can this board
accomplish this without any funding?
Speaker 1: Oh, because the government has funding and we just need
to guide them. You know, when someone asks for your advice,
you can be very influential. If they have the money
and they follow your advice, then you can accomplish whatever
their money can accomplish. If they are going in the
wrong direction, they would not use the money wisely. So
you know, the defense budget is a trillion dollars this year.
You know that's quite quite a lot of money.
Speaker 4: Sure, Sure, And I want to circle back one last
question regarding Michael Shermer. If he were to make continued
derogatory posts.
Speaker 2: Or no, that is that is completely unacceptable.
Speaker 1: I would be happy if he already were to regret
what he said. You know, I cannot force him to
do that, But what I can do is through the
work that, through our deliberations, eventually bring him to admit that,
you know, he was on the wrong side of history.
Speaker 4: Okay, So in your view, as I'm as I think
I'm hearing you saying, if he were to continue with that,
that would possibly.
Speaker 2: Just accepted that is unacceptable.
Speaker 1: I think you know, the one thing that I see
on social media very frequently are personal attacks, and I
myself am being attacked from both sides. I'm being attacked
by mainstream or actually science influencers for actually pursuing these
subjects scientifically, and I'm also being attacked from believers who
know the answer. They don't. They don't need me to
do that my scientific research. So as long as you know,
if these people were just attacking the idea of the
work that i'm that's different. But that tack me personally.
They say bad things about me that are completely incorrect.
But I don't want to engage in mud wrestling because
that gets everyone dirty. So I just focused on the orbs.
As I said before, I don't pay.
Speaker 2: Attention to the audience.
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to be liked, very different from nil
degrass sas I'm not. You know, I don't care if
both sides of the spectrum.
Speaker 2: Are angry at me. Who cares? You know, At the end,
what matters is what are the orbs?
Speaker 3: Right? I agree? I agree with that.
Speaker 4: So you're going to take a quick break, folks, if
you're not already subscribed to our show. Please hit that button,
ring the bell, drop a comment, believe it or not,
all of that kind of stuff. I know every show
asks you to do it, but YouTube sees all of that,
and YouTube says to itself, Hey, we're going to recommend
The Good Trouble Show to people that are not current subscribers.
And then also we don't have any Elon Musk or
a Peter thiel teal howevery hell you say his name
supporting us. We are completely completely supported by people alike yourself.
So super chats are open. We've already seen some really
generous donations.
Speaker 3: Thank you for that.
Speaker 4: And also we are on Patreon at www dot patreon
dot com.
Speaker 3: Forward slash the Good Trouble Show.
Speaker 4: Your donations is what allows us to rent this a
great studio in Los Angeles bring you great guests like
we have today with doctor Loeb. So we would very
very very much appreciate that. So anyway, so back to
doctor Lobe. All right, so I want to talk about
the disclosure politics you've You've sided with doctor Sean Kirkpatrick,
the former director of Arrow Over Annapoline Laluna. Of course,
some of the things that she has said about doctor
Kirkpatrick is.
Speaker 3: Not complementary.
Speaker 4: What would you say if Anna Lena Luna, which she
is a fan of the show a matter at real
time with Bill maher huge fan of Congresswoman Luna, just
outstanding human being. What would you say to her about
doctor Sean Kirkpatrick that you think that maybe she has wrong?
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, I should say that the representative
Luna visited my office at Harvard last month and that
was a very useful meeting.
Speaker 2: For ninety minutes.
Speaker 1: We described the Galileo project that I'm leading, where we
operate three observatories. I conducted an expedition to the Pacific
Ocean to retrieve materials from the.
Speaker 2: First interstellar meteor.
Speaker 1: There will be a Netflix documentary about that coming out
within this year. And so we discussed a lot of
matters and we see eye to eye.
Speaker 2: I really salute.
Speaker 1: Her for her visionary work for pushing the narrative forward
trying to get disclosure. She's doing amazing work and we
resonate on many levels. I met her a year ago
when I spoke at the House and she was there.
I will meet her next week in the Senate. There
will be a disclosure forum there, and you know, we
agree on everything so far. And with respect to Kirkpatrick,
you know that I don't have anything to say about
that I met him. He came to my home like
many other people. You know, I had a lot of
interesting visitors to my home over the past five years.
Many of them are multi billionaires that came to either
support my work or ask about it, or to actually
in one case, build an observatory on top of sphere.
You know, in Las Vegas we have three units, one
on top of sphere and two others separated by ten
kilometers thanks to a visit by Jim Doland to my home.
And you know that the latest visit was the person
who asked me to lead the you know, it came
from government who asked me to lead this council. But
there were a lot of visitors in between, and you
know one of them was when Shaun Kirkpatrick, shortly after
he was appointed as the Director of Error, he came
over and discussed things with me and at some point
asked that we maybe collaborate on a paper. So, you know,
it was a relatively superficial relationship where we met several
times and wrote this thing that I basically put some
of my some of my content into it. But it's
not as if what he did later is supported by me.
Speaker 2: I mean I don't.
Speaker 1: I didn't really get into those details, and I will
let Representative Luna have her verdict. I mean, I'm not
in a position to change her opinion about him, and
she knows much more also from the briefings in a skiff.
Just so that everyone understands, skiff is just a Paraday cage.
It's a place where electromagnetic signals cannot penetrate in or out,
and the skiff will play an important role in our future.
I just want to mention that because right now, the
biggest problem in education is that students use AI, and
the only way to test their intelligence, the natural intelligence
of students is to put them in a Faraday cage
so that they cannot use their cell phone and get
the advice of AI. So these Faraday cages will not
be used only by government in the future. I think
they will be used in order to allow us to
test the natural intelligence of students without the help of
artificial intelligence.
Speaker 2: And by the way, this is the biggest threat.
Speaker 1: That I see for AI in the future, the fact
that the people who rely on AI, they lose their
cognitive abilities. Many of the people that use AI all
the time become dumber, and I see that among students
and post docs. As much as those students and post
docs are able to do tasks much faster. The reliance
on AI is similar to taking the bus instead of walking.
You know, the bus offers you a very fast transfer
from point A to point B instead of walking, And
if you do that, your muscles will deteriorate. And the
same is true about the human brain if we use
AI too often.
Speaker 4: Of course, the next thing I want to turn too
is the some of your comments about doctor Beatrice d
o Real's work on the on the anomalies or whatever
you want to call it. I'm not a physicist. I
barely passed college. I drank way too much and was
doing things I probably shouldn't have or probably landed me
in jail. So so a week ago you around Brian
heating and you were asked about I can asked You're
asked about can these be YouTube? Are cosmic rays when
they go dark exactly when orbiting when orbiting object enters
the earth shadows?
Speaker 3: Can you elaborate on that? I think I believe. I
believe you said.
Speaker 4: That something you wanted to get to and the later
on in the show and I think you guys may
have run out of time.
Speaker 2: What did you want to?
Speaker 3: Let me?
Speaker 2: Let me explain.
Speaker 1: So, you know, what many people don't understand about science
is that it's not about detecting signals. Science is not
about signals. It's about isolating signals from sources of noise.
Because you can detect signals all the time, and if
it's just noise, then you are chasing ghosts. You are
paying attention to things that have nothing to do with real,
real entities. And so the trick of doing science is
to isolate the signal from the noise. Now, all I
did was point out that, you know, there was a
paper that correlated the transients these events in the photographic
plates from the Paromer Sky serve in the early nineteen fifties,
correlated them with geomagnetic storms. And what that paper found
is that there is an anti correlation that you know,
these transients are more numerous when there are no geomagnetic storms,
or when there is geomagnetic storms, there are fewer of them. Now,
if you think that these transients are real sources of
light in the sky. You have to ask the question,
why would UFOs or uap anti correlate with geomagnetic activity.
You have to ask this question.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Of course, it may be possible that the aliens don't
like geomagnetic storms. These are plumes of plasma coming from
the Sun, you know, and going through the earth magnetosphere.
But what I noticed just by googling this is that
cosmic rays show exactly this behavior because a plume of
plasma coming from the Sun of hot gas carrying magnetic
fields usually pushes away cosmic rays away from Earth, so
you end up with fewer cosmic rays intacting the Earth
as a result of a geomagnetic storm. You would expect
exactly this anti correlation. And I did a simple calculation
that there should be sixty thousand heats on every photographic
plate of the Paromer Sky survey over the one hour exposure.
So these events do take place, there are large number
of heats. And then the question is are we noticing
at least some of the transients as being cosmic rays
that we miss read as if they are sources of
light in the sky. So that's a source of noise.
I'm not saying it's definitely that. But I'm saying we
need to consider that. And you know, because astronomers, whenever
they take data, they are fully aware that there are
cosmic rays all the time, and so you just need
to consider that, I'm saying with betternally And then the
second and by the way, I got into this just
because the second batch of the UFO file release showed
them images from Apollo astronauts and there were sources of
light blue lights in those images. But I realized that
in the film, the Codact film, there are also sources
of blue light at other locations that are not under
the camera lens, and that indicated to me that we're
dealing with with cosmic raise. So that's the only and
I'm just saying, this is a source of noise.
Speaker 2: We have to consider it.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that this work is wrong, but I'm
saying the anti correlation tells you that you have to
worry about cosmic race, because why would UFOs be anti
correlated with geomagnetic activity. The second aspect is that you know,
we are familiar with satellites and the nowadays, of course
they appear in a lot of images of the sky,
and we have to take that into account. Back before Sputnik,
you may ask what could have been in the sky,
And there was this CIA report from nineteen ninety two
that was released on June twelfth as part of the
UFO file release. This CIA report basically says the you
two airplanes were responsible for half of the UFO reports
in the late nineteen fifties and the nineteen sixties. Now,
I'm pretty sure that before it became operational, the two
airplane was tested, and so we have to worry about
YouTube airplanes potentially having glints that appear in photographic plates.
I'm saying I'm not saying it's the necessarily the transiens,
but it's a potential source of noise that we have
to consider in the priests put nick era and I
don't know what the Soviet Union at the time was developing,
whether they had similar programs to the YouTube airplanes or not,
but my point is we just have to consider this.
I didn't mention by name, Beatrice, I didn't mention by
name any of the researchers. I am just referring to
the potential sources of noise as something that needs to
be considered, and it has nothing personal, you know, This
is standard practice within science where you are discussing a
signal to talk also about the noise. Now, some people
were upset because they said, oh, how dare you bring
up these possible noise sources if you are willing to
consider the possibilit the three iyatlasts is a technological artifact.
And the point is I did not say the three
iatlast is a technological artifact. I just said it has
anomalist that we should examine as potential technological signatures. Now,
this is again the standard practice of science, where you say,
here is a hypothesis, and get the only reason for
putting it forward is so that we can look at
future data, collect future data that will test hypothesis.
Speaker 2: We do it all the time.
Speaker 1: We do it in the context of dark matter, as
I mentioned, for decades. We do it all the time
in science. People who are not used to the way
science is done, they get extremely upset if you express
an opinion that is perhaps different than their narrative. And
also if you say, here is a hypothesis about three
iyatlasts and then you say cosmic RaSE could be a
source of noise, how dare you? How dare you bring
up a source of noise when you allow for three iatla. Well,
that's done all the time in science, So these people
do not understand how science is done. You can come
up with hypothesis and at the same time come up
with sources of noise that other people should consider. I mean,
it's not contradictory in any way because we all are aiming,
you know, to find eventually the truth. Right, So so
you have to consider these possibilities.
Speaker 4: Now, if you were talking about that possibly some of
this uh is Spot, maybe some early prototype versions of
spotnek et cetera.
Speaker 2: None of you two?
Speaker 3: You two okay, sorry, sorry if you too.
Speaker 4: So and as I understand it in what I've been told,
the exposure time of the these plates was a significant
amount of time.
Speaker 2: It was about an hour. It was about an hour.
Speaker 4: So what you would those not have shown up as
streaks as opposed to a point of life.
Speaker 1: Well, okay, so you can ask the same question about
the sources that were.
Speaker 2: Hypothesized to be the UFOs.
Speaker 1: The idea there is that we are dealing with satellites
orbiting the Earth before the time that humans started using satellites,
and the idea there is that we don't see them
as stricts because there is a glint that tenth of
a second or less, a very short duration glint because
some reflective surface, let's say a flat surface of a satellite,
is just the right orientation relative to the observatory and
the sun, so that you see the glint at a
particular point in time, but that flash of light lasts
for a tenth of a second or less. So that
because otherwise it would appear as a strict as well.
So in the hypothesis that we are dealing with UFOs,
you have to argue that it's a glint from a
surface that is that the right orientation between the sun
and the observatory for a short period of time. And
I'm just saying this is also this could also be
true in the case of you too, that you're seeing
this glint for a short time. Now, why is this
important Because you cannot then verify if it's a glint
for a short for a tenth of a second out
of the full hour, it means that you cannot see
it from another observatory at the same time. Let's imagine
a hypothetical observatory, not at Palomar, but another you know,
there were.
Speaker 2: Telescopes looking at the sky. At first, I thought.
Speaker 1: Oh, I will check the record of other observatories to
see if they can corroborate the evidence about these transients.
But if we are dealing with a glint, you would
never get the glint towards two observatories at the same time.
You know, the chance of two observatory is seeing a
tenth of a second flash is extremely small for that
to be coincident because they were intention of the sun
is different relative to these observatories, So you know, obviously
this issue is unresolved. The other question that one has
to think about is if in the nineteen fifties there
were satellites around the are they not around right now?
And if they are around right now, is the Director
of National Intelligence aware of them? Because if there are
hundreds of them, you know, this would be unidentified satellites,
and I'm sure that that would be a red flag
within the within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
because it may indicate that another adversarial nation is using
spy satellites that we are not aware of. So it
would raise the alarm and immediately immediately the United States
will start getting more and more data on these objects.
So the fact that there is no alarm right now,
that we can pretty much understand all the satellites. You
know that fifteen thousands of them, and some of them
are military. You know, the fact that there is no
alarm to me, indicates that there is no population, a
large population itself, one hundreds thousands of satellites right now
that are not understood, unidentified. And therefore, if we don't
see them right now, why don't we see them? Why
did we see them in the nineteen fifties and not
seeing them now?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 4: But if these anomalies or whatever whatever you want to
call them, as I understand that they were in perfect focus,
which would then as I was told, if they were
in focus, it would have they would have been at
a minimum of.
Speaker 3: Three hundred thousand kilometers from the Earth.
Speaker 4: So these things that are designed to you know, to
have stars and focus over a long period of time,
it would seem to me that anything in low Earth
orbit or higher orbit would be blurry.
Speaker 3: Is that not the case?
Speaker 1: Well, if we are dealing with three hundred thousand kilometers,
you know we're dealing with I mean, the radius of
the Earth is six thousand kilometers, So just think about it.
It's fifty times more, and that means that we're dealing
with an object that is very far from Earth. Now,
there were arguments that said, oh, these objects actually cluster
around nuclear explosion sites. But if you are at a
distance that is fifty times bigger than the size of
the Earth, what does it really mean to be above nuclear.
Speaker 2: Test sites if you are so far away from Earth?
Speaker 1: And you know, of course it could be objects very
far away, But then why would they be anti correlated
with geomagnetic storms that are confined to a much smaller
region around the Earth. You know, the geomagnetic storms are
basically locked by the earth magnetosphere and they generate a
lot of effects within the earth magnetosphere.
Speaker 2: But when you go to three.
Speaker 1: Hundred thousand kilometers, you know, it's not clear to me
why there should be an anti correlation. So there are
many details in this discussion that we don't fully understand.
I'm not slaming that the interpretation of some of these
being UFOs is incorrect.
Speaker 2: I mean it may well be the case, and maybe.
Speaker 1: They disappeared, They stopped their activity since the nineteen fifties
and today they don't exist.
Speaker 2: Maybe that's the case. We haven't seen them.
Speaker 1: The other thing is, you know about the Apollo missions
to the Moon, so there was this suggestion that in fact,
those coduct photographs that were released in indicate the UFO
activity near the Moon. But we had the artmies to
astronauts taking thousands of photographs with much better cameras and
they went over the dark side of the Moon. They
didn't see any unusual activity except for six flares, six
flashes of light from the impact of asteroids on the
surface of the Moon. So you know, my point is,
of course, we can debate forever about what happened in
ancient times in historical reports. The problem is we cannot
go back in time and get better data. However, if
we want to resolve the case, you know, we want
to look right now with better sensors, collect new data.
So my point is the future can be better than
the past. Instead of us arguing about what may have
happened in the past, the better way to figure out
things is to get new data with higher quality, so
that everyone is on the same board and we understand
what we are doing and just figure out if there
are any anomalies there. And you know, when I see
interstellar objects like three iAtlas just visited us for the
past years. So in the inner solar system, you know,
when I see the data showing anomalists, I say, okay,
let's collect new data on this object. It's very exciting.
And the same with you aps that the government keeps
reporting about.
Speaker 2: They cannot identify them. Let's get better data.
Speaker 1: That's the whole purpose of the new Council, to advise
government how to get better data. But when someone tells
me back in the fifties, a long time ago, there
were some unusual things, or in biblical times there were
some unusual things. Okay, that's a possibility, but I cannot
test it. I cannot figure it out. I cannot verify
that it's correct. And that's my problem with engaging and
being obsessed with past three pots. The way I see
for us gaining new knowledge is not relying on I mean,
we should be intrigued by past reports. I'm very intrigued,
and I'm really you know, excited about the testimony of
David Brush in Congress and what people say happened in
the fifties.
Speaker 2: That's very exciting.
Speaker 1: But in order for us to figure things out and
make sure about the interpretation of those things. We must
get new high quality data. We have the Rubin Observatory
right now in Chile that is using a camera of
three point two gigapixels and it could survey the Southern
sky every four days and if it finds unidentified objects,
you know, these satellites at three hundred thousand kilometers away
from Earth. You know, I would be the first to
admit that we are being visited.
Speaker 4: Sure, okay, so let's let's get to some questions if
you don't mind. So let's see this is from an individual.
It says your own council's mission says it will focus
on new, higher quality data rather than re examining older
material that can't be independently verified that describes archival plate work. Exactly,
is your federal mandate now being used, in your opinion,
to rule out via real'es data by category before your
canceled counsel has had the ability to look at its parents.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, I mean we are focusing on data that
was obtained by the US government, not by the paramer
Sky serve, which is an open database. Anyone can go
there and analyze this data. So anything that was obtained
by astronomers over the years. You know, with open data
sets from telescopes is available to all of us to
look at that. You don't need a council to look
into that. Everyone can look into that. Scientists can look
into that and write papers about it. That's exactly what
is being done. This is open data. There is nothing
to discuss here except the interpretation and to ask whether
the signal is more significant than the possible noise sources.
That's the whole discussion. Is the signal that is being
claimed of UFOs of some sort? Is it robust or
could it be explained by noise sources?
Speaker 2: All the data cannot be changed.
Speaker 1: What I'm dealing with is potentially historic data collected by
the US government that should intrigue us, and we may
have not seen the most interesting data. In fact, it's
most likely that the richest data is classified as of now.
But we can ask the government to release it and
then examine it, and if it's not clear from this
data what it means, then we can advise the government
how to get new data that will allow us to
get to the bottom of this.
Speaker 4: I guess my question is to you, and I understand,
let's focus on new stuff.
Speaker 3: But I think the.
Speaker 4: Question many people have is why are these plates a
continual thing, right say, continual something that you've brought up
over the last.
Speaker 3: Few times on Brian Keating and on others.
Speaker 2: No, because I was asked about it.
Speaker 1: You are asking me about it, so I talk about it.
Speaker 2: That was true if.
Speaker 1: Brian getting those people on social media keep asking about it,
so I have to answer them if I'm speaking with them.
Speaker 2: There is no other reason.
Speaker 1: And the only reason that I got into this in
the first place was the disclosure of these photographs from
the Apollo astronauts that indicated the blue light in those photographs.
Speaker 2: And I said, this could be cosmic rays.
Speaker 1: Buzz Aldrin said, you know, he's reported saying that he
saw flashes of light, and I said, well, patients treated
by energetic particles, you know, for medical purposes, they see
flashes of light because of Cherenkov radiation. This is a
well known phenomenon. And then I wrote an essay basically
saying that we should not misinterpret cosmic rays for UFOs,
that's all.
Speaker 2: And I was.
Speaker 1: Triggered to discuss it by the Apollo astronaut and the
buzz Aldering report. And then I mentioned in you know,
so this essay focused on the Apollo astronauts, and then
the last bit of it mentioned that, oh, cosmic rays
could also be a source of noise. Now, a lot
of people on social media were alarmed, how dare you
bring up this possibility?
Speaker 2: And then I had to explain.
Speaker 1: So then I'm being asked about it, and I explained
just like I explained to you. It's not as if
I care. You know, I'm not part of that analysis
of the data. I'm just saying this is a source
of noise that needs to be attended to, and it's
not something that you can immediately ignore because of the
anti correlation that was reported in one of those research papers.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's see here.
Speaker 4: So let's see JB says enjoyed the show, Thank you
for the super chat, Matt, your phenomenal and thank you
for your candid approach. Appreciate your guest. Thank you for that.
Let's see here, and maybe you understand this question. I
don't if BMS symmetries and gravitational mem preserve information and
space time, could aliens deliberately encode and later recover message
using those that just went over my head?
Speaker 5: Yes?
Speaker 1: Well, so The question is, you know, there are some
symmetries of nature and some ways of encoding information in
a more compact way and perhaps communicating it in a
more compact way. You can think of it as encryption,
where you have some way of relaying information that others
cannot figure out because they don't know the code of
if they're not intelligent enough.
Speaker 2: And so, yeah, it may well be.
Speaker 1: And I will broaden this question to say, we are
limited at what we imagine, and we are limited in
terms of our understanding of physics, because you know, what
we know right now is that we don't know a
lot of things. We don't know what the invisible matter
in the universe is. We don't know what the dark
energy is in the universe. We don't know what happened
before the Big Bang, what happens inside the black hole.
There are lots of things we don't know. You know,
the island of knowledge is surrounded by an ocean of ignorance.
I completely agree there is a lot we don't know.
So I can imagine that the civilization that had more
than one century of science and technology since the discovery
of quantum mechanics, you know, we just had one century and.
Speaker 2: Look where we are.
Speaker 1: We have AI systems based on our understanding of quantum mechanics.
But suppose we had a thousand years or a millionaires
or a billionaires. You know, most of the stars from
billions of years before the sun, so it's very reasonable
to say an advanced civilization that didn't die out of
self inflicted wounds, you know, could have developed science over
a billionaires. And they are ahead of us by a billionaires.
Now we can imagine what they know, and they may
use propulsion systems that go beyond the imagination of Steven Spielberg. Obviously,
they can use the craft that we cannot see. Okay,
because we can't see the dark metal, which makes eighty
four percent of the matter in the universe. You imagine
that they have engineered dark matter. They can use it
to build craft. It will be invisible to us. Or
imagine a craft that moves the fraction of the speed
of light. You know, when astronomers look at the sky,
such a thing would appear as a very faint streak
even for relatively short exposures. We would not notice these
things if they pass through the inner Solar system. So
we're definitely blind to technologies that go well beyond the
rocket technology that we have. But my point is even
with voyager you know, technologies of the nineteen seventies from
fifty years ago, even with those technologies, we can cross
the Milky Way galaxy over a time scale that is
less than a billionaires. So that means that they could
have arrived to our backyard with voyager like spacecraft. And
that's what many people don't understand. You don't need to
travel faster than light. You can travel with a voyager
like spacecraft and you will make it on a time
scale shorter than the age difference between the Sun and
other sun like stars. The Sun form just in the
last one third of cosmic history.
Speaker 2: We are late comers.
Speaker 1: We are late to the party, and others may have
been much more accomplished than we are. And you know,
these are siblings of our family of intelligence civilizations, and
the most accomplished among them will be the first to
reach our backyard, and we should be open to that possibility.
And of course, you know, if we are not at
the top of the food chain cosmologically speaking, we can
learn from them. And some people worry will it shake
our religious beliefs? And I don't think so, because thinking
that God can attend to only one child is a
very limited view. You know, we might have siblings in
our family and we might be jealous that they are
more accomplished, but we can learn from them.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I know people are always jealous of my good look,
so I can relate to that. Okay, let's see this
is from A JB. Madd just wanted to say thanks
for being the best. I especially appreciate your anger when
it really matters. And great respect for doctor Loeb. Let's
see here. Let's see from Michelle here to support the
open minded scientists like Avi instead of celeb scientists that
negate all data and testimonies until governments come out and
then they write a book on UAP, which is what
that pretends scientists a certain.
Speaker 1: Well, it's really a question of what your goal in
life is. If your goal is to be liked, then
that's what you will do. But if your goal is
to figure out the reality that we live in, then
you shouldn't care about what people say.
Speaker 2: It's just like a detective story.
Speaker 1: You just figure it out, and you know, And since
I was a child, I was never I never cared
about what other people said. You know, there was a
gathering of one hundred people at the Center for Astrophysics,
where I just completed the terms. For twenty one years,
I was director of the Institute for Theory and Computation,
and so that there was a gathering, and I opened
my speech by saying that I enjoyed jogging every morning
at sunrise in the company of ducks, wild turkeys, birds,
and you know, nature basically, and I don't care much
about people. I enjoy nature and I want to understand nature.
And my wife and daughters were not really happy with
this opening. They said, well, here are a hundred people
that came to celebrate your leadership, and all you can
say to them is that you don't care about people.
But that's really the case, and that's why I'm not
trying to maximize the number of likes that I get
and I get you know, I'm not getting likes from
both extremes of the spectrum. But if I managed to
propel forward our understanding of whether we have a neighbor
or not, that would be my biggest reward.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's see here going through more of our questions.
Speaker 4: Let's see from Anthony, you're in a position now or
revealing what has been hidden from the population. We are
tired of having us go in circles. Will you be
transparent on this issue?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: So, I was a chair of the astronomy department at
Harvard for nine years. That's three terms. It's the longest
serving chair. And you might ask how because I'm not
a politician. You know, I'm not manipulating people. And the
reason is that the faculty and the students they had
trust in my leadership because what you see is what
you get.
Speaker 2: I'm never manipulating people.
Speaker 1: My wife told me when we met that she will
immediately tell she can tell if I have an affair,
because you know, I cannot live in two realities. One
that carries my you know, makeup where I tell her
one story, but the other reality is the one in
which I have an aff I cannot. I cannot function
in such area. So I'm very straightforward with the people
that work with me, and I usually represent my constituency.
And what you see is what you get. And the
point is that my leadership style is based on being true,
being sincere, saying what I think.
Speaker 2: I may be wrong.
Speaker 1: You know that that could definitely be the case, but
at least you know where I am, and.
Speaker 2: That brings trust.
Speaker 1: And so that is the style that I will apply
to my assignment with this council.
Speaker 2: And rest assured.
Speaker 1: Now you can actually test that, because if you look
at what I said for years about this subject and
you look at what I say right now, you will
find that it's the same. The only places where you
would think that, oh, I said something different is when
people quote me as saying something because they want to
get clickbait, and so they misquote me, and then oh,
it sounds as if AVIS said something different.
Speaker 2: But if you actually check.
Speaker 1: What I said, you will find that I was always
saying the same things.
Speaker 2: That's my approach, So just pay attention to me.
Speaker 1: And by the way, just a couple of months ago,
I was invited to a movie set to play myself
in a cameo role and the main character that was
played by Brandon Route. He played the Superman back in
two thousand and six, and he was playing the main character,
Saul Hershkowitz, who had an encounter with aliens and as
a result, he wants to ask for advice from Professor A.
Speaker 2: Blow.
Speaker 1: So I was part of the script and I was
sitting in front of him and basically playing.
Speaker 2: Myself, which is the easiest thing for me to do.
Speaker 1: I cannot play anyone else, and that is true on
the movie set as well as in life. I cannot
play anyone other than myself of course.
Speaker 3: Okay, another question. Let's see here.
Speaker 4: You built your name arguing that science dismisses nomalies too fast,
and you were willing to go public saying Amu amua,
a single interstellar object with no image might be alien technology.
Beatrice view Real's team published a peer reviewed paper on
more than one hundred thousand anomalist TRANSI transients with actual
plate imaging, and that also show up in other observatories
across Europe during the same timeframe. You've criticized this on
several shows your Channel article A straight question. Did you
read the paper before you criticized it, because if one
object was worth your public argument, it's hard to see
why one hundred thousand isn't worth a read.
Speaker 2: I didn't criticize it.
Speaker 1: I just said that there is a source of noise
that needs to be attended to.
Speaker 2: That's all.
Speaker 1: I did not refer to Beatrice Villa Raal by name.
I did not specifically say that the paper is wrong.
I did not argue that the conclusions are definitely wrong.
Speaker 2: I didn't criticize.
Speaker 1: This was created by social media people that wanted to
create an argument where I just brought up the fact
that cosmic rays provide noise, a source of noise, and
we have to understand the role of cosmic raise. So
the simplest way to address this argument would be to say,
here are the reasons why cosmic rays cannot explain those phenomena.
Now that should include all so the anti correlation between
geomagnetic activity and cosmic rays. So it's not as if
I'm arguing that the work is wrong. I'm just saying
there is a source of noise that needs to be
attended to, and if you are not willing to entertain
sources of noise, then sorry. Cosmic rays will not go
away just because you don't like them, for the same
reason that the Sun will not start to move around
the Earth just because the Vaticans said that. You know,
back then, it was even more popular to believe that
the Sun moves around the Earth than it is to
believe that UFOs exist. In nineteen fifties, Okay, so there
was a whole community, the entire world believe that the
Sun moves around the Earth, and yet it's not true.
Speaker 2: Okay, so the Sun doesn't change its trajectory just.
Speaker 1: Because it's the popular view, or the cosmic rays will
not go away just because you don't like them. So
the way for you to deal with that is not
to say, how dare you bring this up? Which is
what the Church, the Vatican said to Galileo, how dare
you bring this up? This is not the right argument.
The right argument is to say these transience cannot be
cosmic rays because ABCDE because you know, and the anti
correlation with geomagnetic activity cannot be explained as a result
of cosmic raise being modulated by geognetic activity because of this,
and that you just need to explain that it's not
a personal attack. It's not an attack on the validity
of the results. It's just bringing up a source of noise.
And the fact that it makes some people upset just
discussing a possible source of noise tells you that for
them it's a matter of belief. They're not willing to
engage in a rational discussion about a possible source of noise.
I'm not saying the conclusions are wrong, I'm just saying
we need to demonstrate, and after we demonstrate that these
are not cosmic raise, we will be at a stronger position.
This is a completely integral part of doing science, and
all of these people that get upset do not understand
how science is done. They think it's personal. I have not,
I mean, excellent relationship with Beatrice. We converse very often,
we are on zoom calls together. We have nothing personal
against each other. I'm just talking about cosmic RaSE being noise,
and all these people on social media making it a
personal attack.
Speaker 2: That's not a personal attack.
Speaker 3: There, we're talking about cosmic rays. Wanting him to go away.
Speaker 4: I wish Nil de grass Tyson would go away, and
that hasn't happened. So you know, sometimes what you wish
for is gonna happen. Let's see here, let's see doctor
Loebe says his committee will get the unclassified data. That's
the whole problem. The answers are known, but they're classified.
This looks like to.
Speaker 3: Be a continued attempt to avoid disclosure. What are your
thoughts on that?
Speaker 2: Obviously, once again yea.
Speaker 1: Once again, the person who asked this question thinks that
we know the answer or believes that we know the answer.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: If we know the answer, show it so that everyone
will be convinced. Okay, show the evidence. I respond to evidence.
I don't respond to storytelling. And you can believe some
eyewitness testimonies.
Speaker 2: That's not enough.
Speaker 1: What you need is to show the evidence that convinces everyone.
Like the Vatican was convinced that the Earth moves around
the Sun after the evidence was sufficiently you know, robust,
so that everyone believed in it. That's the way science
makes progress. Eventually, there is so much evidence you can't
avoid the conclusion. Okay, So we are not at that
stage right now. If we were at that stage, there
would be no need for a council. There would be
no need for deliberations within the Pentagon about the nature
of these objects, because it would be clear that they
are not related to adversarial nations. Maybe it is clear,
you're saying, maybe a government already knows. Well, I need
to see the evidence to be convinced as well.
Speaker 2: It was not shared with us.
Speaker 1: All the documents, videos, files, images that were released in
the three batches, one on May eighth, another one on
May twenty second, a third one on June twelfth. All
of the data that was released does not include one
single case where you can say, beyond any doubt, this
is evidence for alien visitation or non human made technologist.
There is not a single case where it's beyond any
reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2: And so that's the issue.
Speaker 1: The issue is demonstrating it so that everyone will be convinced.
And you may argue with me and say that you
are already convinced, but that's not enough because if just
think about the courtroom case, the fact that someone in
the audience is fully convinced that the person on the
bench is guilty, that doesn't clinge the case. Okay, it
should be based on evidence, and that's what we are
waiting for, and I'm happy to contribute to the delivery
of evidence. You may be right in your conviction, you
may be you may believe you not the answer already.
We might actually have it somewhere hidden. We haven't seen it.
Steven Spielberg is sure that it's out there.
Speaker 2: He made the movie.
Speaker 1: I want to see it in reality, not in the
movie on the movie set, okay, and if someone shows
it to me, I would be very happy to accept that.
But without seeing it, it's just a story, and there
are many stories that were told over history that turned
out not to be right. So how do we figure
out what is true and what is not by attending
firsthand to the evidence.
Speaker 4: But do you expect let's just say that, well, let's
just say we know this is true, that the best
censor information, the best scientific evidence is classified, you know,
with with you know, with with the with the latest
releases from the Trump administration. I mean, yeah, I look
at it, and I'm like, that looks like instantaneous acceleration
or whatever. But you don't see any data. You don't
see any range information.
Speaker 2: So that's right.
Speaker 3: How how are we ever going to get past that point?
Speaker 4: That's exactly we're only seeing on just the you know,
the remedial stuff.
Speaker 1: Well, that's exactly the goal to convince the government that
this should be shared. Now, the one consideration that obviously
the Pentagon has and the intelligence agencies have is they
don't want to compromise national security.
Speaker 2: So we can.
Speaker 1: Review the data that they are willing to hand over,
we can suggest collecting more data, and if at the
end of this process of back and forth exchanges of
the Council that I'm leading with the government, if it
turns out that people within government clearly find these objects
to be non human made. You know, then I think
that information should be shared with all humans on earth,
because there is no point. You know, if you go
to your backyard and you find a tennis ball thrown
by a neighbor, and your family thinks they don't have
a neighbor at the dinner table, I think it's your
obligation to tell your family members that we do have
a neighbor, because one day the neighbor will knock on
the front door and will affect their life. So, if
beyond any doubt it's clear that we are being visited
by some non human made technologies, this should be information
shared by all with all humans. We are all in
the same boat. But we are not at that stage yet.
At least I'm not at that stage because I was
not privy to such information. Maybe the government has it,
so we will try to do our best to convince
them to share it.
Speaker 4: Last question for you, if the government were to come
to you and say, doctor Avi Lobe with this non
human intelligence has been here all along, perhaps even lived
here amongst us all along.
Speaker 3: It's here, would you be surprised?
Speaker 1: I would not use the term surprised. As my response,
I would be how should they say at all? Because
we're dealing with perhaps a super human entity, someone who
is more capable than humans. You know, if we are
dealing with biological creatures, then it could be they could
have been designed by since biology. You know, we think
about robots with AI as the most advanced astronauts that
we can send. But in the future, we might send
synthetic biology astronauts that can survive the harsh conditions of space,
and we might be visited by such things. But first,
I would be at all because they managed to bridge
the huge distances across the Milky Way galaxy and they
get here. And the second immediate feeling that I'll have
is what are they? What's the intent? What can we
learn from their existence? What would the implications be to
the future of humanity? And you know, it's just like
finding a visitor in your backyard from the street. What
would be your response to that. You don't know whether
the visitor has friendly or hostile intentions. You have to
monitor that visitor. You don't know how capable the visitor is.
It may be from a completely different reality that we
don't understand. So first thing is to watch it and
learn from looking at it. Be quiet and just just
listen to the other side. You know, that's what you
do on a blind date. If you're smart, you don't
speak too much. You just listen to the other side
to figure.
Speaker 2: Them out that.
Speaker 3: Time talking yet.
Speaker 1: But you know, fundamentally, it would be just like one
of those revelations that I talked about in religious texts,
because it's something very profound, fundamental that would have a
huge impact on our future. And it's not I mean,
what I would feel is not a sense of surprise,
because it's very reasonable that we could be visited, you know,
based on the fact that there are billions of Earth
Sun analogs, probably in the Milky Way galaxy, and most
of them formed billions of years before the Sun, So
why should we be surprised to find anyone near us.
It would be more you know, this revelation, the impact
on our future is so huge, and it's also a
huge reward for my life journey if I were to
witness that.
Speaker 2: And you know, we.
Speaker 1: Keep being frustrated by reading the news every day. Just
think about the fact that there is something beyond what
happens on this Earth and other source of intelligence out there.
Right now, we think about the universe as called and lonely,
being made of matter and radiation. I wrote textbooks with that,
you know, content in mind. And if we end up
finding that we have partners out there that are intelligent,
it will give us an emotional connection to the universe.
Speaker 2: It will change everything. And then.
Speaker 1: You know, it would be really interesting because religious texts,
you know, imagined a superhuman entity. But if we find
the superhuman entity visiting us, that's you know, that's that's
more specific. And and the question is what would their
impact be on our life in the future. And you know,
it will bring so many thoughts in my mind. But
just like finding a visitor to our backyard, it really
depends on the details of what the visitor is, what
the intent is. So my response will reflect the traits
of this visitor. And I'm not willing to imagine something
based on what Steven Spielberg put in his film. That
is not a good prescription. You know, we should just
watch Who Is Visiting Us without imagining what Spielberg imagined,
because it will likely be very different.
Speaker 4: Absolutely, and I hope the next Steven Spielberg movie, at
least the good trouble show makes it into a storyline
as that I don't know.
Speaker 1: Somebody was, well, you know, I met him when he
got an honorary degree at Harvard and that was a
decade ago, and he said, AVI, if you find anything,
let me be the first to know about it. And
of course it shows modesty. He is fully aware that
his imagination is not sufficient to figure out what the
encounter would look like.
Speaker 4: Awesome, Well, doctor Lord, thank you so much. Finally, how
will folks be able to follow along with what this
committee is doing? Or does it have to go through
D and I or whatever or sue Go or whatever
the hell her name is.
Speaker 3: Hout what you're doing.
Speaker 1: Just subscribe to my essays on medium dot com Avilob
At medium dot com I have one hundred and fifty
five thousand followers there.
Speaker 2: You can subscribe for free.
Speaker 1: I'm not making any money out of that, and I
give the regular updates there. You might enjoy some of
the essays that I put over the past week. They
will give you more details about the subjects we were discussing.
Speaker 4: I love that absolutely well, and I have to say
I think you are officially the number one most saying
my grammar isn't great our number one guest in terms
of the number of appearances you've been on the show,
so I think this is number six now. So thank
you very much, Honored with your presence, and really just
excited about your work and what you'll be up to.
Speaker 1: Well, what I would like to wish your show is
that my next appearance on your show will be the
most exciting one.
Speaker 3: I love that.
Speaker 4: Well, you know what, all your appearances on my show
I think are pretty darn exciting. But hey, if you're
ready to level up, I'm certainly up for that.
Speaker 3: Well, doctor havev you Lobe.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much for joining us, and look forward
to having you back with an even more surprising, insightful interview.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Thank you for having me.