Speaker 1: I want to try a little experiment to kick things
off today. I want you to close your eyes. Okay, well,
if you're driving, obviously please keep them open and on
the road. But for everyone else, picture the heat. You
are standing in the middle of the Nevada desert. It's
high noon. The air is so dry it sucks the
moisture right out of your throat. And the silence is
so heavy it feels like pressure in your ears. It
is a.
Speaker 2: Silence you can actually hear. Yeah, that buzzing white noise,
silence of total isolation.
Speaker 1: Exactly. And right in front of you, cutting through the
sage brush in the dust, is a chain link fence.
It looks pedestrian. It looks like something you find around
a high school baseball field or a construction site. Special,
nothing special at all. But then you focus on the
sign zip tied to the mesh. It's white, sun bleached
with bold red letters. And it doesn't say keep out,
it doesn't say private property.
Speaker 2: It says use of lethal force authorized.
Speaker 1: That is the image we need to burn into our
brains for this discussion. Because we live in a world
of rules, right, we have due process, we have Miranda rights.
Speaker 2: We have cell phone cameras that live stream everything to
the cloud.
Speaker 1: Right, we like to think there are no dark corners
left where the government can just delete you.
Speaker 2: We operate under the assumption that the law of the
land applies everywhere on the map. We assume that civilization
extends to every inch of soil within our borders.
Speaker 1: But does it? That's the question. I mean, if you
cross that line in the sand, do you think they
would actually pull the trigger?
Speaker 2: If the billion dollar question, do you.
Speaker 1: Think, in this day and age, with the world watching,
they would shoot a civilian? Or is it just a
scary prop a bluff.
Speaker 2: Well, the source material we are unpacking today, and this
is a dense stack of documents, suggests that sign is
the only honest thing in that entire desert.
Speaker 1: Welcome to thrilling threads today. We aren't just talking about UFOs.
If you're here for laser beams and crop circles, you
might be a little disappointed.
Speaker 2: Or maybe intrigued by something deeper.
Speaker 1: Yes, hopefully that today we are pulling on a thread
that leads to something much darker. We're looking at the
testimony of a former Pentagon insider, and I want to
be crystal clear about who this guy, is this is important?
This isn't freedom fighter ninety nine on Reddit posting blurry photos.
Speaker 2: No, this is a man who ran a specific government program,
a man who held the highest security clearances the United
States offers, and crucially, a man who had to submit
his book to the Department of Defense for a security
review just to stay out of prison.
Speaker 1: Which is a detail I want to stick a pin
in right away. Yeah, because if this was all nonsense,
I mean, if he was just writing fiction, why would
the Department of Defense need to review it?
Speaker 2: Why would they care?
Speaker 1: Exactly? Why would they care?
Speaker 2: That's the catch twenty two of classification, isn't it By
reviewing it and by redacting parts of it, they are
implicitly admitting that the unredacted parts are factual matters of
national security. Right if it were fiction, they wouldn't waste
the ink blacking it out. They just let him publish
it and laugh.
Speaker 1: So today our mission is to look at the human
cost of being a secret for seventy years. We're going
to talk about exotic materials, stuff not made by human hands.
But more importantly, we're going to talk about the machinery
that keeps that material hidden and fair warning this gets ugly.
Speaker 2: It really does.
Speaker 1: We are talking about ruined lives, shadow budgets, and yes,
authorized lethal force.
Speaker 2: It is a sobering reminder that national security isn't just
a phrase politicians use on the Sunday talk shows. It
is a mechanism, and as our source points out, it
is a mechanism that has teeth, big teeth. We need
to unpack the threats, the specific mechanisms of silence, and
then we need to completely reshape how we define alien.
Speaker 1: Because spoiler alert, if you're thinking of little green men
from Mars, you're thinking way way too small. But let's
start with the immediate danger section. One of our discussion
today is what we're calling the cost.
Speaker 2: Of silence, right, and this begins with a very specific,
very careful admission from the source. He explicitly states that
he has signed documentation from the government.
Speaker 1: He has the receipts, so to speak, he has the receipts.
Speaker 2: He is allowed to say, yes, we have material. He
can say that because it was cleared in a review
process for his book, but he cannot go one inch further.
Speaker 1: He used this phrase. It really stuck with me. He said,
I'll walk up to the line. I will not step
over it. It just paints this picture of a man
standing on a precipice. On one side is the truth,
he wants to share, the specifics, the locations, the physics.
And on the other side is well, what exactly ruin?
Speaker 2: Total ruin? He mentions jail certainly, he says, if he
violates that oath, if he speaks about the specific classified
details not approved for release, he goes to prison period.
Speaker 1: And that's bad enough.
Speaker 2: But then he says something much darker. He says, the
consequences range from jail to worse worse.
Speaker 1: Now, hold on, I don't know about you, but when
a former Pentagon official tells me the punishment is worse
than prison, my mind goes to some pretty dark places.
It has to in a democracy, what is worse than prison?
We don't have a gulug. We don't have a torture chamber,
do we.
Speaker 2: This brings us back to that area fifty one sign
we visualized earlier lethal force authorized Here it is again
the source makes the point that the government can and
will kill to protect national security. He argues that this
isn't malicious murder in the way we typically think of it.
It's not a crime of passion. No, it is a calculated,
authorized removal of a threat, a line item in a
budget somewhere.
Speaker 1: This is where the threat gets really gritty, because he
didn't just speak in hypotheticals. He drops some historical examples
that honestly made my jaw hit the floor.
Speaker 2: They're chill in.
Speaker 1: He talked about a drone strike.
Speaker 2: Yes, this is a very specific and deeply controversial claim.
The source asserts that the US government used a drone
to kill a US citizen and their child without due process.
Got a trial, without a trial, without a jury, without
an appeal. Now, the context here is that this individual
was a suspected terrorist, but the source emphasizes that as
American citizens, we are supposed to be afforded due process.
You get your day in.
Speaker 1: Court, right, that's the whole point. You don't just get
vaporized from the sky because someone in a windowless room
decided you were a threat. He called it the law of.
Speaker 2: Peace, the law of peace which is supposed to govern
civil society. But he's saying that in the realm of
national security, those rules get suspended.
Speaker 1: They just don't apply.
Speaker 2: He used the term liquidate. Someone made the decision to
liquidate them. It's such a terrifyingly bureaucratic way to describe
the assassination of a citizen.
Speaker 1: It's sanitizing it completely.
Speaker 2: And he connects this directly to the secrecy around UAPs.
The implication is, if they will do that for a
suspected terrorist to protect the state, what would they do
to someone threatening to expose the most advanced technology in
human history.
Speaker 1: Wait, let's pause there, because I want to make sure
I'm understand the gravity of this. He's saying that if
you know too much about these exotic materials, you aren't
treated like a whistleblower or a journalist. Yeah, you are
treated like an n combatant.
Speaker 2: That is the implication. You are removed from the lawft
piece bucket to the law of war bucket. And in war,
you don't read someone in their rights.
Speaker 1: You neutralize the threat.
Speaker 2: You neutralized the threat.
Speaker 1: He also brought up the Rosenbergs to back this up. Now,
for listeners who might need a quick history refresher, Julius
and Ethel Rosenberg were executed in nineteen fifty three for spying.
Speaker 2: For the Soviet Union. Yes, they were accused of giving
away atomic secrets, the biggest secrets of the time correct,
and it has been a point of contention for decades.
The source claims that, based on his understanding and the
information available in the intelligence community, the wife Ethel was
likely innocent, innocent or at least her involvement was minimal.
It didn't warrant execution. But they hanged her anyway.
Speaker 1: They hanged an innocent woman. Why that seems I mean,
that's just monstrous. It seems counterproductive if you're trying to
look like the good guys.
Speaker 2: To protect the capability. That's the chilling part.
Speaker 1: What does that mean?
Speaker 2: The source argues that the intelligence they had at the time,
the proof pof of the espionage, was so sensitive, so
advanced for its era, that revealing it in a way
that would nuancedly separate Julius's guilt from Ethel's innocence would
have tipped.
Speaker 1: Off the Soviets, get them off to what to.
Speaker 2: How we were listening to our methods. So to protect
the method, to protect the intelligence gathering capability, they decided
a clean narrative was better. They're both guilty, end of story.
Speaker 1: So they let her die to protect the how of
the intelligence gathering exactly.
Speaker 2: It raises a massive ethical dilemma, Is it worth killing
an innocent person to save the state or to protect
a secret that keeps the states safe?
Speaker 1: I mean, my gut says no, absolutely.
Speaker 2: Not, of course, But the source seems to suggest that
the government answers yes to that question more often than
we'd like to admit.
Speaker 1: That is heavy. It really reframes the whole whistleblower conversation.
It's not just about losing your pension or getting sued
by your former employer. It's about being erased. It suggests
that the secret is always the most important person in
the more important than the citizens it's supposedly protecting.
Speaker 2: And that paranoia, that reality dictates how you live your life,
which brings us to our second section, the lifestyle of
a whistleblower, Because this guy isn't just sitting in a
condo in DC sipping lattes and doing podcast interviews.
Speaker 1: Far from it, I mean so far from it. He
describes a life that sounds more like a scene from
a spy thriller or a western a siege mentality. Almost right.
He lives in Wyoming, in a remote location.
Speaker 2: He's off the grid, essentially as far off the grid
as you can.
Speaker 1: Get, and He's not just there for the views, you know,
the big sky, he said, he is heavily armed. And
get this, he has six German shepherds. Six six. I mean,
I love dogs, But you don't get six German shepherds
because you love playing fect you.
Speaker 2: No, that's not a pack, that's a security force.
Speaker 1: You get six German shepherds because you want a perimeter,
you want an early warning system.
Speaker 2: It speaks to a profound state of vigilance. He admits
his life has been threatened many times. The ice, the weaponry,
the dogs, these are countermeasures.
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: It paints a picture of someone who is living with
a constant, low level hum of paranoia or perhaps more accurately,
necessary caution.
Speaker 1: I think that's the right word. It's not paranoia if
they're really out to get you, it's just caution. It
makes you wonder what kind of toll that takes on
a person sleeping with one eye open, wondering if the
mailman is actually the mailman. But here's the twist. He's
still alive. He is, he's still doing interviews, he's still talking.
So clearly he's found a way to navigate this minefield.
Speaker 2: And that is the strategy of disclosure he talks about.
He emphasizes the difference between doing things right and doing
things right now.
Speaker 1: I like that distinction is a very clever way of
putting it. Doing it right versus doing it right now.
Unpack that for us.
Speaker 2: Doing it right now is the Edward Snowden approach. You
dump the data, you run, and you live in exile
or prison.
Speaker 1: You like the match.
Speaker 2: You burn the house down to show everyone what inside.
It's explosive, it's immediate, but the consequences are severe.
Speaker 1: And usually you end up in Russia or in federal self.
Speaker 2: Exactly doing it right, according to our source, means using
the system against itself. It's a slower, more deliberate game.
Speaker 1: How does that work?
Speaker 2: You submit your book for review, You let them redact
what they need to redact. You go through the official channels,
You get the government stamp that says cleared for release.
Once you have that, you have a shield. They come
after you. Then it looks suspicious because you followed their rules.
You played their game.
Speaker 1: Such a legal suit of armor. He's saying, look, I
didn't break the law. Yeah, you guys approve this. It's brilliant,
really is, but it requires incredible patience, and it must
frustrate the public because we want the data dump, we
want the four K video of the saucer landing on
the White House lawn.
Speaker 2: Precisely, he acknowledges that frustration. He knows people want disclosure
with a capital D, like right now. But he argues
that if you rush it, you compromise national security, you
break your oath, and you probably get liquidated.
Speaker 1: Right you become a martyr. But the secret stays.
Speaker 2: A secret exactly by doing it slowly, by walking up
to the line but not crossing it, he keeps the
conversation moving without becoming another casualty.
Speaker 1: It's a survival game, a high stakes chess match. But
if he has to go through all these hoops, it
begs the question who is he actually afraid of? Who
is actually in charge here? Which leads us to section three.
Who runs the show? Because I think most of us assume,
you know, the president is the commander in chief, that
their aliens A president knows.
Speaker 2: Right, you would think. So that's the Civics class version
of reality, the version we all grew up with.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Schoolhouse Rock.
Speaker 2: But the source paints a terrifying bureaucratic picture where the
president is viewed by the intelligence community as a temporary.
Speaker 1: Hire, a temporary higher I mean, just let that sink in.
Imagine telling the leader of the free world, sorry, you're
just a tempt We can't trust you with the good stuff.
Speaker 2: Well, look at it from the perspective of a seventy
year secret program. Presidents are there for four years, maybe
eight if they're lucky. They have political agendas, they leak
things to the press, they have rallies.
Speaker 1: They're transient.
Speaker 2: They are if you are the gatekeeper of a secret
that has been kept since the nineteen forties, do you
really want to brief a guy who might tweet about
it at three zero am?
Speaker 1: That is yeah. I mean it makes a ruthless sort
of sense when you put it that way. If the
secret is bigger than the nation, you can't trust the
politician running the nation.
Speaker 2: It's a completely different framework.
Speaker 1: So he actually breaks down which president's knew and which
ones didn't. This is fascinating to me, He claims. Jimmy
Carter was briefed.
Speaker 2: Yes, he says, there are records of it. And Carter
is interesting because he famously reported a UFO citing himself
before he was president.
Speaker 1: That's right, I forgot about that.
Speaker 2: He saw something in the sky in nineteen sixty nine.
So he had a personal interest, and he had a
background as a nuclear engineer from the Navy. He wasn't
just some random person. The source claims he knows the
person who briefed Carter.
Speaker 1: So Carter is in the But then you have Bill Clinton,
and the source says Clinton wanted to know. He asked
to be briefed, and he was denied. Denied. The president
of the United States asked for information and was told no,
just no.
Speaker 2: That implies a level of power above the oval office
that is deeply unsettling for a democracy. It suggests there
are silos of information that the commander in chief cannot access.
Speaker 1: That feels like a slow motion coup. I mean, that's
not how the system is supposed to work. If the
president isn't in charge, who is.
Speaker 2: I'll get to that. But first look at George H. W.
Speaker 1: Bush.
Speaker 2: The source says he knew, but not because he was president, right,
He knew.
Speaker 1: Because he was the director of the CIA before he
was president.
Speaker 2: Exactly. He was already inside the circle. He had the
need to know from his previous life. He was one
of them before he was the leader of the free world.
He was part of the permanent structure.
Speaker 1: And then more recently we had Donald Trump. Now, Trump
actually went on record, and the source quotes this saying
he would release the files, but he faced fierce resistance.
Speaker 2: That phrase fierce resistance is key. Trump is not a
man who likes to be told what to do. He
sees himself as a disruptor.
Speaker 1: He prides himself on it.
Speaker 2: So if he faced resistance that actually stopped him, it
must have been significant and implies threats or leverage, or
simply a bureaucratic stone wall that even he couldn't break down.
Speaker 1: So the question is who is resisting? Who has the
power to tell Donald Trump at Bill Clinton to back off?
Speaker 2: This source doesn't mince words here, He doesn't hint. He
points the finger directly at the military industrial complex.
Speaker 1: He calls it the world's largest business. And this is
where the motivation shifts from protecting the public from panic
to something much more mundane.
Speaker 2: And much more cynical. Rem It's always money, isn't it
at the end of the day.
Speaker 1: Talk to me about that. How do you make money
off a secret UFO? It seems almost absurd.
Speaker 2: Think about it. If a defense contractor let's say a
Lockheed or a raytheon hypothetically is in possession of exotic technology,
covered materials, recovered materials that defy our known physics. That
is the ultimate competitive advantage. It's like having the answer
key to the universe's final exam Right.
Speaker 1: If you have an anti gravity drive, you don't need
jet fuel, you don't need run wise Exactly.
Speaker 2: If they can reverse engineer even a fraction of that technology,
they win every defense contract for the next century. They
don't want to admit they have it, because then they
might have to share it or admit they haven't figured
it out yet.
Speaker 1: Oh that's a good point too. Maybe they don't know
how it works, or worse.
Speaker 2: The government might claim eminent domain and take it back.
It's a corporate.
Speaker 1: Asset, it's proprietary technology. If I have a piece of
a UFO that runs on zero point energy, I'm not
telling my competitors. I'm certainly not telling the public. I'm
keeping it in a vault, and I'm having my smartest
people try to build a better missile with it.
Speaker 2: Precisely, the source argues that the resistance to disclosure isn't
just about little green men. It's about corporate dominance and
quarterly earnings. It's about the fact that this legacy program
has been privatized in pockets, making it even harder for
a president to oversee.
Speaker 1: You can't just order a private company to open its
doors the way you can in an.
Speaker 2: Army base, not without a huge fight, and they have
armies of lawyers to make sure that fight lasts for decades.
Speaker 1: That is a terrifying thought. The biggest discovery in human
history is sitting in a corporate warehouse somewhere collecting dust
because they can't figure out how to monetize it.
Speaker 2: Yet, or maybe they already have monetized it in ways
we don't even see.
Speaker 1: Wow. Okay, And speaking of that legacy program, that brings
us to section four because the source makes a really
important distinction. He was the head of a TIP.
Speaker 2: Right, the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification.
Speaker 1: Program, that's the one that made the news in twenty
seventeen with the tic TAC video, the one we all
know about. But he says a TIP was just a
tiny piece of the puzzle.
Speaker 2: A slipper.
Speaker 1: He calls a TIP a small effort compared to the
legacy program. He describes the Legacy Program as a collaborative,
multi decade effort that is much more robust and well funded.
Speaker 2: This is the real program, the one that connects back
to Project Blue Book and Roswell and beyond.
Speaker 1: So a tip was like the tip of the iceberg,
or maybe just a little research ding floating next to
the iceberg.
Speaker 2: I think that's a perfect analogy. The Legacy Program is
the giant mass of ice underneath that sinks the Titanic.
It's the deep state institutional memory of this phenomenon.
Speaker 1: But he also mentions a lost era period in the
early two thousands where resources were lifted and shifted away
from UAP research.
Speaker 2: He was very specific about that timing the early two thousands,
and while he didn't say it explicitly, the timeline matches
up perfectly with nine to eleven and the start of
the War on.
Speaker 1: Terror, right, I mean, think about the mindset in two
thousand and two, two thousand and.
Speaker 2: Three, Precisely after the attacks on September eleventh, the entire
US intelligence apparatus pivoted. Everything changed overnight. The priority became counter.
Speaker 1: Terrorism, hunting Al Qaeda.
Speaker 2: Finding IEDs, tracking cells in the desert, The budget for
looking at strange lights in the sky. I was likely
gutted and reallocated to drone warfare and signals intelligence.
Speaker 1: It makes sense. It's triash. If you're afraid of a
dirty bomb in a suitcase, you stop worrying about the
tic tac ufo off the coast of California. You have
an immediate existential threat right in front of you, of course.
Speaker 2: But the source implies that this distraction allowed the mystery
to deepen, or perhaps allowed the private contractors to operate
with even less oversight.
Speaker 1: Uh. While the cat's away, while.
Speaker 2: The government was looking at the Middle East, the gatekeepers
of the Legacy program were left alone in the dark
to do whatever they wanted.
Speaker 1: And that leads us to the biggest pivot of the
entire conversation. We've talked about the government, the threats, the money,
but then the source shifts skiers completely.
Speaker 2: He goes from the geopolitical to the philosophical.
Speaker 1: He wants to deconstruct what we actually mean when we
say alien.
Speaker 2: This was my favorite part of the discussion, because again,
we all have that Hollywood image ingrained in us.
Speaker 1: Big head, black almond eyes, skinny gray body.
Speaker 2: Maybe they come down a ramp and say take me
to your leader, or maybe they're like the ones in
Independence Day, here to steal our resources.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: The Source calls this ampropomorphic arrogance.
Speaker 1: Ooh, fancy words. Break that down for us, What does
that mean?
Speaker 2: It means we assume the universe looks like us. We
are arrogant enough to think that intelligent life will have
a head, two arms, two legs, and vocal cords. We
assume they will have human like motivations, conquest, curiosity, diplomacy.
Speaker 1: We project ourselves onto the cosmos exactly.
Speaker 2: And the Source argues that this is a fatal flaw
in our thinking. It's a failure of imagination.
Speaker 1: He used this incredible analogy involving microbiology. He's a biologist
by training.
Speaker 2: Right, Yes, his background is in microbiology and immunology, which
is key to understanding his perspective. He asks us to
imagine Earth's history as a twenty.
Speaker 1: Four hour clock, okay, twenty four hour clock, midnight to midnight,
the whole history of the planet.
Speaker 2: Humans Homo sapiens have only been here for the last
few minutes of that day. We are the new kids
on the block.
Speaker 1: Werely just arrived, right, We haven't even unpacked our bags.
Yet in the grand scheme.
Speaker 2: Of things, not even close now. For most of human history,
we divided life into two categories, plants and animals.
Speaker 1: That was it.
Speaker 2: If it wasn't a plant, it was an animal.
Speaker 1: Simple times easy to remember.
Speaker 2: But then about three hundred years ago, which is like
ten minutes ago on this clock, we discovered fungi, a
whole new kingdom of life. We realized, oh, there's a
third thing.
Speaker 1: Mushrooms and yeasts and all that.
Speaker 2: But then, only about one hundred and twenty years ago,
literally seconds ago, on the evolutionary clock, we invented curved glass.
We made microscopes, and suddenly we looked through the tube
and shouted, little beasties.
Speaker 1: You found a hidden world.
Speaker 2: We discovered microbes, bacteria, viruses, a world teeming with life
that was always there. We just couldn't see it.
Speaker 1: And here's the kicker he dropped. If you take all
the plants, all the animals, and all the fungi and
weigh them, put them on a giant scale.
Speaker 2: The microbes still outweigh us by a lot. They are
the dominant life form on Earth. Wow, they have been
here the whole time. They're inside us, on us, around us,
they run the planet's ecosystem. But for ninety nine point
nine percent of human history, we didn't know they existed
because we didn't have the technology to see them.
Speaker 1: That is the Aha moment that right there, he's saying
that aliens might be like microbes, not that they're small
necessarily no non size, but that they're here right now,
all around us. Yeah, and we just lack the curve
glass to see them exactly.
Speaker 2: He challenges the mankind as blind argument. We perceive reality
through five very limited senses. We see a tiny sliver
of the electromagnetic spectrum, what we call visible light.
Speaker 1: He called a Wi Fi vision right, which I loved. Like,
imagine if you could see Wi.
Speaker 2: Fi signals, well, the room would look completely different.
Speaker 1: It would be filled with beams and pulses and data
streaming everywhere. It would be a light show.
Speaker 2: If you could see radio waves or X rays or
dark matter, reality would look unrecognizable. His theory is that
these other these UAPs might not be traveling from Mars
or ELpH for centaury.
Speaker 1: They might not be traveling at all.
Speaker 2: They might be from right here, inner.
Speaker 1: Space, he called it, or the space in between. That
one gave me chills.
Speaker 2: Or the oceans. He points out that we have mapped
less than ten percent of our own ocean floor. We
know more about the surface of the Moon than we
do about the bottom of the Pacific.
Speaker 1: That's insane.
Speaker 2: Is it possible that a superior intelligence has been sharing
the planet with us for millennia, hiding in the deep
oceans or in a spectrum of light we can't perceive.
Speaker 1: It's terrifying and humbling at the same time. It suggests
we aren't the landlords of Earth. We're just the tenants
living in the attic who think we.
Speaker 2: Own the whole house, and we don't even know there's
a whole family living in the basement. And that leads
into the sheer scale of reality he discusses in section six.
Because even if they are from out there, out there
is unimaginable.
Speaker 1: He started throwing numbers around that just made my brain
hurt in a good way. The visible universe is thirteen
point nine billion light years across.
Speaker 2: In every direction, so it's a sphere with us at
the center.
Speaker 1: And light travels at one hundred and eighty six thousand
miles per second. That's seven point five times around the
Earth in a single snap of your fingers.
Speaker 2: It's basically instantaneous on a human.
Speaker 1: Scale, and it takes thirteen point nine billion years for
light from the edge to reach us. The scale is
just it breaks your mind.
Speaker 2: And that's just the visible horizon. The actual universe is
likely infinitely larger. He used the grains of sand analogy,
which is.
Speaker 1: Always powerful to classic, but it works.
Speaker 2: There are more stars in the visible universe than there
are grains of sand on every bitch on Earth.
Speaker 1: Combined, every beach. Think about grabbing a handful of sand
at the beach. That's thousands of grains right there. Now.
Think of every beach, every desert in the world, and
every grain is the sun.
Speaker 2: And most of those suns have planets.
Speaker 1: And we think we're the only ones. It seems well
arrogant is the right word mathematically improbable.
Speaker 2: But he also zoomed in, which I thought was fascinating.
He talked about the atom. He compared the size of
a human to the size of the universe, and then
the size of a human to the size of a
single atom. In mathemat we are roughly in the middle.
Speaker 1: We are the halfway point between the infinitely big and
the infinitely small.
Speaker 2: And his point is that our brains are designed to
understand the middle our world. We understand things that are
a few magnitudes bigger than us, like a mountain, or
a few magnitudes smaller, like an ant.
Speaker 1: We can handle that.
Speaker 2: But once you get to the scale of the universe
or the scale of quantum mechanics, our intuition fails. Our
brains just weren't built for it. We simply cannot comprehend it.
Speaker 1: So when we try to understand youaps, we are trying
to use a brain evolved for hunting and gathering on
the African savannah.
Speaker 2: A brain evolved to spot lions in the tall grass
and find ripe fruit.
Speaker 1: To understand technologies that might be manipulating the fabric of
space time itself.
Speaker 2: Precisely, we are trying to download the Internet onto a toaster.
The hardware just isn't built for it, Which.
Speaker 1: Brings us to the final section of our breakdown today,
human laziness. Because the source didn't just critique our biology,
he critiqued our culture.
Speaker 2: He was quite scared about this. He was not pulling
any punches. He pointed out that we have become intellectually lazy.
We retreat into echo chamber.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he used that sports metaphor that was just perfect.
He said, parents can rattle off the stats of their
favorite football quarterback, passing yards, completion rates, everything, They know
it by heart, but they have no idea who their
own kid sits next to in math class.
Speaker 2: It highlights where we place our attention, our priorities. We
crave entertainment, we crave validation. He mentions that liberals watch
liberal news, conservatives watch conservative news. We don't want to
be challenged.
Speaker 1: We want to be force fed opinions that we already
agree with, rather than doing the hard work of critical thinking.
Speaker 2: Yes, we want the comfort of confirmation.
Speaker 1: Bias and this UAP topic. It requires hard work. It
requires you to sit with discomfort. It requires you to
say I don't know, and we hate that.
Speaker 2: That is his core message. I think he says, we
need to keep all options on the table until they
are no longer on the table. That requires a level
of open mindedness that is rare in today's polarized society.
It really is we want immediate answers. Is it China?
Is it Aliens? Is it a weather balloon? We don't
have the patience for the ambiguity of it. Might be
something interdimensional that we don't have the vocabulary for yet.
Speaker 1: So let's bring this all the way back to the beginning.
We've covered a lot of ground here, a huge amount.
We've covered the threats, the jail time, the lethal force
at Area fifty one, the tragic history of the Rosenbergs.
We've covered the bureaucracy, the temporary presidents, the military industrial
complex hoarding secrets for profit.
Speaker 2: We've looked at the Legacy program and the distraction of
the War on Terror, and we've completely reframed the definition
of alien from a space traveler to a potential neighbor
we just can't see using that incredible MicroB analogy.
Speaker 1: This has been a heavy episode of thrilling threads. The
universe feels a lot bigger, a lot stranger, and honestly
a lot more dangerous than it did an hour ago.
Speaker 2: It is a reminder that reality is not obligated to
make sense to us. It is not obligated to fit
into our twenty four hour news cycle or our political beliefs.
Speaker 1: It simply is, and we just have to deal with it.
Speaker 2: And right now there are credible people telling us that
what is includes things we cannot explain with our current models.
Speaker 1: So I want to leave you with a question. The
source asked us to consider if we are ready for
the truth. So listener, I'm asking you directly, if the
government released the files tomorrow, I mean a full data dump, everything,
more secrets. And the truth wasn't we found a micro
on Mars. The truth was we are not the top
of the food chain. There is something here on earth.
It has been here longer than us, It is smarter
than us, and it is watching us right now, and.
Speaker 2: There's nothing we can do about it.
Speaker 1: We are ants in their farm exactly. If that was
the truth, would you actually want to know? Or is
ignorance truly bliss? Would you rather go back to worrying
about football stats and who your kid sits next to
in math class?
Speaker 2: It is the ultimate choice between the blue pill and
the red pill, isn't it?
Speaker 1: It really is. Let us know what you think, Drop
a comment, send us a message. We really want to
know where you stand on the precipice of that rabbit hole.
I'm your host, and I'm the expert. And this has
been thrilling threads. Thanks for listening. We'll see you in
the next one. Keep pulling the threads,