Speaker 1: The following presentation is abol Marvis Studio's production.
Speaker 2: When you look on the Sky, do you feel the poll?
Speaker 1: The question why.
Speaker 2: The stories told and left behind in shadows where the
Speaker 2: truth we find. They built their tails on grafts and
Speaker 2: lives on theories they stake their designed put down here
Speaker 2: on this solid ground.
Speaker 3: Welcome back truth seekers from around the world to a
Speaker 3: very special edition of the Flat Earth Files podcast. As
Speaker 3: we record it is Friday, March twenty eighth, about eleven
Speaker 3: am Eastern Time. I hope this audio and video presentation
Speaker 3: finds you well. Today we have author Mark Gober and
Speaker 3: his new book An End to the Upside Down Cosmos,
Speaker 3: Rethinking the Big Bang, Heliocentrism, the Lights in the Sky,
Speaker 3: and Where We Live. This is his latest book, in
Speaker 3: his seventh in the series. Please help us welcome Mark
Speaker 3: Gober to the podcast. Hello Mark, how are you. I'm
Speaker 3: doing well? Thank you so much for having me on. Yeah,
Speaker 3: thank you so much for coming on it. And again
Speaker 3: thanks to I think Ryan who linked us up. Why
Speaker 3: don't you go ahead and take a moment and introduce
Speaker 3: yourself to the audience.
Speaker 1: Sure, as you mentioned, I've written a series of books,
Speaker 1: but my background really doesn't have much to do with
Speaker 1: the books I've written about. I graduated from Princeton University
Speaker 1: in two thousand and eight, and like many of my classmates,
Speaker 1: didn't know what I wanted to do. So I went
Speaker 1: into investment banking in New York and that was during
Speaker 1: the financial crisis, so that was an interesting period to
Speaker 1: be working in New York. I was at a large
Speaker 1: bank called UBS, so it was one of the banks
Speaker 1: that was having problems at the time, but it was
Speaker 1: also a bank that advised other financial institutions, and that
Speaker 1: was my role within the bank, was to help other
Speaker 1: financial institutions like insurance companies, asset managers, banks. So it
Speaker 1: was quite a stressful period and I left that firm
Speaker 1: in twenty ten to join a firm based in Boston
Speaker 1: and Silicon Valley. First I moved to Boston and then
Speaker 1: spent the majority of my time in Silicon Valley advising
Speaker 1: technology focused companies on their intellectual property and the way
Speaker 1: in which their patented technologies related to their business strategy.
Speaker 1: And was very interested in all that work while I
Speaker 1: was in it. But in twenty sixteen, at the firm
Speaker 1: in Silicon Valley, I started listening to podcasts and then
Speaker 1: reading books and scientific papers about the nature of consciousness,
Speaker 1: and what I was finding was that there was a
Speaker 1: lot of evidence suggesting that there is a part of
Speaker 1: our being that transcends the body. So I was getting
Speaker 1: into topics that were forcing me into topics or into
Speaker 1: concepts that I would have called spiritual, and at the
Speaker 1: time I was very resistant to that. I was more
Speaker 1: of an atheist diagnostic. I thought science had taught us
Speaker 1: that anything in the spiritual domain was part of a
Speaker 1: superstition from the past that we had. We've moved beyond
Speaker 1: that with our scientific findings. So this was a big
Speaker 1: shock for me to learn there were really there was
Speaker 1: an abundance of science coming from the University of Virginia,
Speaker 1: their Division of Perceptual Studies at the Medical School, the
Speaker 1: Institute of Noetic Sciences, Princeton University, and a whole host
Speaker 1: of others. The US government conducting remote viewing programs, which
Speaker 1: is basically psychic spying. And this has led me on
Speaker 1: a journey now almost ten years to explore not only
Speaker 1: the nature of reality and what a human being is,
Speaker 1: but most recently, to explore where is it that we live?
Speaker 1: Because initially my exploration was okay, if there's something in
Speaker 1: consciousness that's beyond the body, maybe our brains, like an
Speaker 1: antenna receiver or a filter mechanism. And so I was
Speaker 1: focused on who are we and why are we here?
Speaker 1: And I'm still very interested in that, But until more recently,
Speaker 1: I wasn't asking the question what does it mean to
Speaker 1: be here? What is here? I had this very mainstream
Speaker 1: model stuck in my mind, really branded in there, of
Speaker 1: a big Bang thirteen point eight billion years ago leading
Speaker 1: to a heliocentric solar system where Earth revolves around the Sun.
Speaker 1: Earth is a spitting globe and we are a pale
Speaker 1: blue dot in a massive universe. We are just one
Speaker 1: of many other places out there, and we live in
Speaker 1: this unimaginably large place. And the Big Bang, the start
Speaker 1: of the universe happened at really an unthinkably long time ago.
Speaker 1: In my book, and then too, the Upside Down Cosmos
Speaker 1: looks at those assumptions and shows hopefully shows the flaws.
Speaker 3: You know what's interesting to me if I do the
Speaker 3: math right. You were in your late twenties early thirties
Speaker 3: when you started to have this journey, and you're, you know,
Speaker 3: considering consciousness which you know, when I was in my
Speaker 3: late twenties early thirties, that didn't really cross my mind.
Speaker 1: It's interesting to me.
Speaker 3: I don't know if it's just because of the journey
Speaker 3: you took, and I can't imagine, you know, going to
Speaker 3: you said, Princeton and then coming out into the business
Speaker 3: world after preparing for that, and I assume it was
Speaker 3: around two thousand and eight, two thousand and nine when
Speaker 3: you start your financial journey into that mess, when the
Speaker 3: world's upside down. It's not quite but similar to you know,
Speaker 3: getting out of college in nineteen twenty nine, did seeing
Speaker 3: I guess did being attached to money twenty four to seven?
Speaker 3: At some point do you start to see the esthetics
Speaker 3: of money and the false kind of world that it creates?
Speaker 3: Was Did that have some impact on your journey and
Speaker 3: your changing of the way you used to think?
Speaker 1: It definitely had an impact on my journey because I
Speaker 1: saw others around me, especially the more senior members of
Speaker 1: the teams I was on, whether they were clients or
Speaker 1: within my own firm. I saw the way they were
Speaker 1: prioritizing life, and many of them, especially when I lived
Speaker 1: in New York, I found didn't seem to be super happy,
Speaker 1: like they were on this hamster wheel and they were
Speaker 1: working really hard, and with the lavish lifestyles, especially in
Speaker 1: New York, it's almost like there's never enough. And I
Speaker 1: was at the bottom of the totem pole, so I
Speaker 1: didn't really see that the larger politics, but I was
Speaker 1: in the jungle. I was in that environment, and definitely
Speaker 1: that shaped me. I think my work, especially in Silicon Valley,
Speaker 1: dealing with patented technologies and the ways in which companies
Speaker 1: will sometimes steal from each other and then litigate each other.
Speaker 1: I saw that angle, and I saw a corruption in
Speaker 1: the court systems, corruption in the media. So I was
Speaker 1: exposed to a lot that probably primed me, in hindsight,
Speaker 1: to question paradigms, especially working with patents, because when you
Speaker 1: get a patent, by definition, it's granted if it's novel
Speaker 1: and non obvious relative to other inventions that have been
Speaker 1: put out. So I was always working with people who
Speaker 1: had questioned paradigms, and often they were demeaned for doing so.
Speaker 1: So I probably had a good base for doing what
Speaker 1: I do now. But as you say, George, I was
Speaker 1: around thirty when this paradigm shift happened. I was on
Speaker 1: my way to being partner at my firm, which I
Speaker 1: eventually became a partner at the firm. So I was
Speaker 1: squarely on a mainstream path. But even at that time
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen, around when I was thirty, I was
Speaker 1: feeling like I was on a treadmill. But I was
Speaker 1: not looking for something new. I thought science had taught
Speaker 1: us everything we needed to know and we were just
Speaker 1: working out the details. There was no meaning to life,
Speaker 1: and when we die, that is the end of our consciousness.
Speaker 1: It's all random and meaningless. That's what I believed. It
Speaker 1: just happened to be that I stumbled across podcasts initially
Speaker 1: that led me to books and scientific papers, which kind
Speaker 1: of forced me to look at consciousness. It was not
Speaker 1: something I was interested in at all, but I realized
Speaker 1: the implications of what I was learning. Whether it was
Speaker 1: declassified documents from the US government validating psychic spying and
Speaker 1: the implications that our consciousness could transcend space and time,
Speaker 1: that was something I couldn't deny when I was looking
Speaker 1: at these documents and reading the books about it. That's
Speaker 1: just one example. And then peer reviewed paper after peer
Speaker 1: review paper on these sorts of phenomenon, near death experiences
Speaker 1: and others. I just realized I had to reconsider life completely,
Speaker 1: and I didn't know I would go into these other areas.
Speaker 1: So initially it was just about the nature of consciousness.
Speaker 1: My first book An End to upside Down Thinking, and
Speaker 1: then the follow on podcast series. It's an eight episode
Speaker 1: series called Where Is My Mind? And then I was
Speaker 1: led to look into politics when twenty twenty happened. I
Speaker 1: wasn't really interested in politics then, and I saw deception
Speaker 1: in the media and other places, and I said, wow,
Speaker 1: I've seen this in the world of business too. What's
Speaker 1: going on here? Is there is there something that I
Speaker 1: didn't quite look into when I was just looking into consciousness,
Speaker 1: the dark versus light. So I wrote an end to
Speaker 1: upside Down Liberty, and then I wrote an end to
Speaker 1: upside Down Contact, which talks about the forces and interdimensional intelligences,
Speaker 1: which I know might sound crazy, but I couldn't believe.
Speaker 1: The more I dug into this stuff there was evidence
Speaker 1: that I had not previously encountered. And that's been the
Speaker 1: patterns even as I've gone on to an end to
Speaker 1: upside Down Medicine and now an End to the upside
Speaker 1: Down cosmos. There's this abundance of information that seems to
Speaker 1: have been supper and I thought I was pretty well educated,
Speaker 1: but now I don't feel that way.
Speaker 3: I think we all go through that where we have
Speaker 3: to almost unbox ourselves and relearn is the word I
Speaker 3: like to use. We have to relearn everything because what
Speaker 3: we are taught is it's a combination of the way
Speaker 3: we are taught right that like to keep critical thinking
Speaker 3: away from us. Rockefeller said he wants a nation of workers,
Speaker 3: not a nation of thinkers. So I think they carefully
Speaker 3: crafted the education system the way they have not only
Speaker 3: K to twelve, but if you wanted to, you know,
Speaker 3: further your education, you went to Princeton. If you're lucky,
Speaker 3: you get a scholarship, whether it be educational or athletic.
Speaker 3: But for the most part, people, and I say this
Speaker 3: all the time, they make it so difficult starting out
Speaker 3: in your life. If you go to college, there's a
Speaker 3: very good chance that you're in debt one hundred k
Speaker 3: before you even you know, walk through the office doors
Speaker 3: for the first day. I think they've carefully created the matrix,
Speaker 3: you know, for lack of better words, so that you
Speaker 3: are working sixty seventy hours a week trying to pay
Speaker 3: the bills. So you know, in many cases, both mom
Speaker 3: and dad have to work, so you send the child
Speaker 3: off to the school because they can create. They can
Speaker 3: create and mold the minds of your children while you're
Speaker 3: working and scrambling to pay your bills. I think all
Speaker 3: of this is intentional.
Speaker 1: It certainly feels that way to me, and it leaves
Speaker 1: people with no time to consider what's actually going on
Speaker 1: in our reality, who and what we are, why we're here.
Speaker 1: We're so focused on the next thing we need to
Speaker 1: do in order to survive that the bigger cosmic questions
Speaker 1: are often just not tackled, and then we become so
Speaker 1: entrained in the mainstream view whatever we're told and basically
Speaker 1: hypnotize with certain paradigms. So I was there for a
Speaker 1: long time. I'm still working my way out of it.
Speaker 1: I call it unlearning. It's like I'm unlearning the things
Speaker 1: I was taught. And in many ways I feel like
Speaker 1: I learned things that were incorrect in my education. But
Speaker 1: I also did learn how to learn, which has been
Speaker 1: very valuable in this journey and especially in my business career.
Speaker 1: A lot of what I had to do in Silicon
Speaker 1: Valley was translate complex technological and legal concepts to business
Speaker 1: leaders and to be able to provide a board of
Speaker 1: directors with the five minute snapshot and have all the
Speaker 1: resources and references available, but to be able to summarize
Speaker 1: and synthesize. So what I've done is taken that skill
Speaker 1: set and apply it to areas that I'm finding to
Speaker 1: be much more meaningful because they get to the big
Speaker 1: questions of who are we, why are we here, what
Speaker 1: is this place? And therefore, what should we be doing,
Speaker 1: and how should we prioritize our lives?
Speaker 3: Well said, you had mentioned earlier the twenty twenty election
Speaker 3: and that you knew what we saw with our own
Speaker 3: eyes and what we were told were two different things.
Speaker 3: But then you mentioned you dealt with the same things
Speaker 3: in business, what type of things. You don't have to
Speaker 3: get too specific, but did you see that just didn't
Speaker 3: add up.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The tricky thing with this is some of it
Speaker 1: is confidential. So I'm just going to give you high
Speaker 1: level yeah, which many people will probably resonate with. But
Speaker 1: when you have companies that invent ideas that threaten an industry,
Speaker 1: there's an incentive for the industry to go after those
Speaker 1: companies and to suppress what they do and to mean them,
Speaker 1: and to work with the media and whatever other means
Speaker 1: are necessary in order to suppress a competitive technology. So
Speaker 1: you can imagine what a landscape that creates. And so
Speaker 1: I saw it from the inside because I worked with
Speaker 1: so many different companies, sometimes large companies and sometimes small companies.
Speaker 1: I saw from both sides of the angle of the spectrum.
Speaker 1: And when twenty twenty happened, especially with the medical issues,
Speaker 1: we were told a narrative that this was something very severe,
Speaker 1: we should all be very afraid. And I remember there
Speaker 1: were some doctors that came out who worked in the
Speaker 1: er and said, look, this is not as severe as
Speaker 1: what the media is telling us, and then immediately suppressed
Speaker 1: and taken off YouTube. And that was the pattern we've
Speaker 1: all seen now for a long time. That was my
Speaker 1: first exposure to this sort of corruption that I had
Speaker 1: seen in the business world. I actually did see it
Speaker 1: a bit in my research on consciousness, because many of
Speaker 1: those scientists are challenging the mainstream paradigm of not only
Speaker 1: science and philosophy, but also neuroscience, and they're often called pseudoscientists.
Speaker 1: I think very much inappropriately and their Wikipedia pages get
Speaker 1: taken over. But what happened in twenty twenty was a
Speaker 1: bigger society wide scale of corruption that I said, okay,
Speaker 1: I've actually seen this before. And then George, what really
Speaker 1: surprised me was that many of the people who supported
Speaker 1: my earlier work were going with the name's mainstream narratives,
Speaker 1: and I became very confused. I said, wait a second.
Speaker 1: I thought these people were so enlightened in many ways,
Speaker 1: and I still have a lot of respect for them,
Speaker 1: But how are they not seeing the manipulation and they're
Speaker 1: actually supporting the mainstream narrative. So I started to realize
Speaker 1: what Ken Wilber, a spiritual philosopher, he calls it lines
Speaker 1: of development, meaning that we can be evolved in different
Speaker 1: basically pillars, but they're somewhat independent of each other. So
Speaker 1: you could have someone who's really good at one thing
Speaker 1: but then misses it on another thing. And I said, okay,
Speaker 1: there's a lot more than because initially, when I wrote
Speaker 1: my first book, I thought, Okay, here's my first book.
Speaker 1: I'm done. I'll just continue in my career, And when
Speaker 1: twenty twenty hit, I realized there was way more for me.
Speaker 3: To explore, and that was that's what I was going
Speaker 3: to bring up next were the events of twenty twenty.
Speaker 3: The reason that you wrote an end to upside down
Speaker 3: liberty and the subtitle is important. It's turning traditional political
Speaker 3: thinking on its head to break free from enslavement.
Speaker 1: And you're not understating that at all exactly. I previously,
Speaker 1: previous to twenty twenty was not a political person at all.
Speaker 1: I didn't know much about the parties. It was not
Speaker 1: something that interested me, only to the degree that had
Speaker 1: affected business. So if there was new legislation or new
Speaker 1: case law, I would pay attention to that. But I
Speaker 1: couldn't have really told you the differences between how the
Speaker 1: Democrats and the Republicans felt back in twenty twenty. If
Speaker 1: you can believe that, I was very naive in that
Speaker 1: area because I just didn't care. Twenty twenty hit and
Speaker 1: all of a sudden it mattered because some people were saying,
Speaker 1: you need to put a man ask over your face,
Speaker 1: and other people were saying, no, you should be free.
Speaker 1: I was very quickly resonating with the people talking about
Speaker 1: freedom and talking about freedom of speech and being able
Speaker 1: to question medical paradigms and political paradigms. So I would
Speaker 1: say at first I was very much drawn toward the
Speaker 1: conservatives because I felt like they were hitting on the
Speaker 1: truth better than the left was in twenty twenty with
Speaker 1: regard to the medical stuff happening. But then I realized
Speaker 1: that basically anywhere on the political spectrum is one group
Speaker 1: of people imposing their will on others, and I felt
Speaker 1: that had a moral problem as it pertained to what
Speaker 1: I learned in consciousness, and that led me down the
Speaker 1: road of what's known as voluntarism, which is basically allowing
Speaker 1: people to be fully free a society without rulers, but
Speaker 1: a society that would have rules within private property. So
Speaker 1: that led me to look at the Austrian school of
Speaker 1: economics Ledig von Misis, Murray Rothbard and very libertarian ideals,
Speaker 1: and to me, that was the only philosophy I could
Speaker 1: find that aligned with the research I had done on
Speaker 1: consciousness and natural law. And that's what this book and
Speaker 1: End to Upside Down Liberty talks about is combining what
Speaker 1: I call it metaphysical political philosophy, not just a political philosophy,
Speaker 1: So it's one in which people are inherently free and
Speaker 1: acting that way outside of the state, but also have
Speaker 1: a mindset that is in alignment with the nature of
Speaker 1: reality and the nature of consciousness, So because I think
Speaker 1: both are important. If you have people that are not
Speaker 1: of that more spiritual mindset living in a free society,
Speaker 1: you can have lots of problems. You'd also have those
Speaker 1: problems within the state, which is what we have now.
Speaker 1: So I'm pointing toward this north star of the future because,
Speaker 1: as you say, George, I think the system we have
Speaker 1: now is a system of enslavement. That might sound harsh,
Speaker 1: but it really is when you get down to natural
Speaker 1: law and the Golden rule, which I view as something
Speaker 1: that's built into the fabric of reality based on a
Speaker 1: lot of research like near death experiences. So if we
Speaker 1: view the Golden rule to be built into the fabric
Speaker 1: of reality that we should not initiate aggression against another
Speaker 1: person or their property, then the way we run society
Speaker 1: right now, with government as a political monopoly, is inherently
Speaker 1: violating natural law and spiritual principles. So there are varying
Speaker 1: degrees of oppression within governments, of course, and I think
Speaker 1: in America we have done much better than other countries
Speaker 1: and governments throughout history. However, it is still a form
Speaker 1: of enslavement in that the government can impose things that
Speaker 1: we didn't agree to. That's right, and we only have
Speaker 1: implied consent. We only have a quote unquote social contract,
Speaker 1: which I'd love to see what that says, because I
Speaker 1: don't remember sitting down with the government and agreeing to
Speaker 1: all these things. So that's what I get into in
Speaker 1: this book and end to upside down liberty.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and you know what was so the government will
Speaker 3: tell you subconsciously, subliminally whatever, what do you want to
Speaker 3: say if the government wasn't there, that everybody would just
Speaker 3: commit crimes and kill each other. That's really what they
Speaker 3: want you to believe. But really, in a morally based environment,
Speaker 3: for example, states like Idaho. Right, you're eighteen, you're a citizen,
Speaker 3: a citizen of the United States, you can carry a gun. Well,
Speaker 3: according to the government, will that just their crime rates
Speaker 3: must be through the roof if everybody's walking around carrying
Speaker 3: a gun. But the truth is their crime rate is
Speaker 3: forty percent less than the median in the United States
Speaker 3: of America. So the whole concept of this government and
Speaker 3: not just here in the United States. But you know,
Speaker 3: we're already very much a global government. But you're going
Speaker 3: to give up a little bit of your security, or
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, you're going to give up your freedom for security.
Speaker 3: And again, it's this contract that they have, right because
Speaker 3: if our freedom is threatened, and listen, the threat may
Speaker 3: be in Vietnam, it may be in Iraq, but you know,
Speaker 3: we have to protect that and you have to be
Speaker 3: willing to be drafted. And we're going to take twenty
Speaker 3: percent of your income for this, and on and on
Speaker 3: and on, and that is the social contract that that
Speaker 3: is really our enslavement. And I've been working very hard
Speaker 3: over the last several years to try to break people
Speaker 3: of the left right narrative.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: I made a comment about Trump the other day, and
Speaker 3: I'm all transparency. I voted Republican my entire life until
Speaker 3: twenty sixteen. That was the last election when literally a
Speaker 3: month after he was elected, he hired a Rothchild agent,
Speaker 3: Wilbur Ross as the Secretary of Commerce, a guy who
Speaker 3: was a Democrat his entire life, and then after fifty
Speaker 3: eight years of being a Democrat, he woke up and said,
Speaker 3: I'm going to be a Republican and be the Secretary
Speaker 3: of Commerce. And that's when you really understand that there's
Speaker 3: not really a difference between professional wrestling and politics. It's
Speaker 3: all scripted. And if you think that the President and
Speaker 3: Congress and Scotis are the most powerful people on earth,
Speaker 3: they work for the military industrial complex, they work for
Speaker 3: Silicon Valley, they work for other government entities. They answer
Speaker 3: to people. If you think that the president doesn't answer
Speaker 3: to other people at Bankers just another example, you're missing
Speaker 3: the boat.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's this inherent paradise, and I think what you're
Speaker 1: getting to is questioning the institution of government itself, regardless
Speaker 1: of who's in there and what people say in rebuttal
Speaker 1: to this is, well, people are not trustworthy, and therefore
Speaker 1: we need a governing body to take care of everyone.
Speaker 1: The problem is that this undermines the entire belief in government,
Speaker 1: because if the belief is the assumption is we do
Speaker 1: not trust people, therefore we're going to take a subset
Speaker 1: of people that we already said we didn't trust and
Speaker 1: put them in power in a political monopoly with unilateral
Speaker 1: decision making authority. Then you've basically said we shouldn't trust government,
Speaker 1: and we shouldn't trust the people who we said we
Speaker 1: couldn't trust. To elect the right people into power, and
Speaker 1: we shouldn't trust the people who you said you didn't
Speaker 1: trust to run fair elections.
Speaker 3: But to even get people to question or think about
Speaker 3: this concept like that is the biggest hurdle that we
Speaker 3: have presenting evidence on alternate governments proving the lives of
Speaker 3: helio centrism like the I feel one of the hurdles,
Speaker 3: and I'm guilty as charged as well, is trying to
Speaker 3: get people and I think you use the term relearn
Speaker 3: to get people to completely rethink the way we go
Speaker 3: about life.
Speaker 1: It's a big challenge. And what I've come to understand
Speaker 1: almost ten years in this looking at these topics, people
Speaker 1: are working on their own time frames and they cannot
Speaker 1: be forced and sometimes trying to force things down their
Speaker 1: throat actually makes it worse. So what I prefer to
Speaker 1: do now, and this is why I like writing books
Speaker 1: and doing podcasts and giving talks, is that the information
Speaker 1: is now out there for people to absorb it if
Speaker 1: they want, so it's not being forced, and it's a
Speaker 1: way of being both proactive but also passive in that
Speaker 1: it's not forcing people because the cognitive dissonance is so
Speaker 1: strong sometimes where a person actually feels threatened by their
Speaker 1: worldview being challenged and can get angry. Some people might
Speaker 1: never break out of this lumber. That's what I've realized,
Speaker 1: and some other people might do it on their own time.
Speaker 1: What I wrote about in my second book and then
Speaker 1: to Upside Down Living, it's more about theosophy of having
Speaker 1: this more spiritual worldview, and I studied many spiritual awakening journeys.
Speaker 1: Often what happens to people is that they're given nudges
Speaker 1: by life to make changes, and often they will ignore
Speaker 1: those nudges, and then the nudges become stronger and stronger
Speaker 1: and more painful until there's a complete life crisis. It
Speaker 1: could be some kind of illness, it could be death tragedy,
Speaker 1: and it's through that tragedy that they're forced to wake
Speaker 1: up to something and their whole life changes. Sometimes they
Speaker 1: don't wake up, and maybe they live a miserable life,
Speaker 1: but sometimes they do through these tragedies. And that's really
Speaker 1: beyond our individual control, where everyone's on their own path.
Speaker 1: But I do think there is a responsibility for those
Speaker 1: of us who can see through the deceptions to try
Speaker 1: to do our best to share it in some way,
Speaker 1: and it might not have to be in a public
Speaker 1: manner like this. It could be in small ways within
Speaker 1: our communities. I think waking up to the truth and
Speaker 1: transcending the veil that's been imposed on us is really
Speaker 1: critical in life.
Speaker 3: Well said, and by the way, guys, again we're with
Speaker 3: author Mark Gober, and I should have mentioned at the
Speaker 3: top his website is Markgober dot com and all the
Speaker 3: links to his Facebook, Instagram, Twitter email address. The website
Speaker 3: with all the links to his books where you can
Speaker 3: purchase them on Amazon is all in the show notes.
Speaker 3: So please take a few moments stop by his website,
Speaker 3: say hello to them on social media, and please do
Speaker 3: support all of the great people in the alternative alternate
Speaker 3: media who rely on our support, So please do support
Speaker 3: Mark and his work. The other book I want to
Speaker 3: talk about before we get to your latest is The
Speaker 3: End to the Upside Down Reset, and you talk about
Speaker 3: the leftist, progressive Marxist I'm using my words here, not
Speaker 3: your title, but the vision for society under the Great Reset.
Speaker 3: And again, the bigger part how it can fool people
Speaker 3: into carrying into supporting these harmful cause is and I
Speaker 3: try to tell people, and we talked about this on
Speaker 3: the radio show yesterday. I don't think people understand when
Speaker 3: you hear build back better and a reset, that that
Speaker 3: means to completely destroy the current ways of living. Right,
Speaker 3: They're not going to just change things. They're going to
Speaker 3: completely when they say reset, when you completely reboot your
Speaker 3: computer back to you know, the original factory settings, everything
Speaker 3: is gone. And for all the people who champion a
Speaker 3: lot of the things that are going on. And that's
Speaker 3: how evil exists. It doesn't come out and say I'm
Speaker 3: Satan and I'm going to cause you all pain and misery. No,
Speaker 3: these things come under the guise of goodness and they
Speaker 3: get you to believe in it. And that's why you
Speaker 3: know it's certainly post twenty twenty. You have to question
Speaker 3: everything and you break down in your book, you deconstruct
Speaker 3: the Great Reset stated vision. What were your thoughts on that?
Speaker 1: Yeah, So the Great Reset was formally announced in twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: initially in June of twenty twenty by Klaus Schwab who's
Speaker 1: the head of the World Economic Forum, alongside then Prince
Speaker 1: Charles and others like John Kerry, so very prominent people.
Speaker 1: And this was followed up by a book called COVID nineteen.
Speaker 1: The Great Reset, written by Klaus Schwab and one of
Speaker 1: his colleagues. And I say all that to start, because
Speaker 1: this is not a conspiracy theory. This is a stated vision.
Speaker 1: Anyone can read the book COVID nineteen, The Great Reset.
Speaker 1: It's on Amazon, and it explains this new vision for society.
Speaker 1: It views COVID as an opportunity to reshape society and
Speaker 1: make a better world. And the language used in that
Speaker 1: book is very It sounds compassionate. It's not saying we're
Speaker 1: trying to centralize power in order to control people and
Speaker 1: take away freedoms. It's we are here to try to
Speaker 1: make this a better world and to keep you safe,
Speaker 1: and we know what's best for you. It's very much
Speaker 1: an elitist mentality, and it's an anti human mentality as
Speaker 1: I see it, in that it views human beings almost
Speaker 1: like parasites who need to be controlled otherwise we'll destroy
Speaker 1: the plant it, rather than inherently free beings. So when
Speaker 1: I talk about, and you mentioned this in the subtitle,
Speaker 1: the way in which carrying people can be fooled into
Speaker 1: supporting harmful causes, I think that's really critical because these
Speaker 1: agendas are not positioned as being nefarious. They're positioned as
Speaker 1: we care so much about you, we want to keep
Speaker 1: you safe, and it's really a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Speaker 1: And in the title of I talk about this leftist
Speaker 1: vision for society because as I looked at the Great Reset,
Speaker 1: it had many parallels to a philosophy that I refer
Speaker 1: to as leftism in the book. But I see leftism
Speaker 1: as something beyond just a political philosophy. I see it
Speaker 1: as a socio political slash metaphysical philosophy. It's sort of
Speaker 1: this nihilistic worldview that life is inherently random and meaningless,
Speaker 1: which I totally subscribe to. Before there's no spirit or soul,
Speaker 1: as you've all know, Harari says, and he's an advisor
Speaker 1: to the World Economic Forum, it's much more of a
Speaker 1: it's an anti free market mentality. It's in the worst case,
Speaker 1: as you say, George Marxist, but it's not about allowing
Speaker 1: people to freely engage in a marketplace, and it's about
Speaker 1: having big government rather than allowing people to be free
Speaker 1: and not having rulers. So I view that as inherently problematic,
Speaker 1: and one of the reasons I'm so sensitive to it
Speaker 1: is probably because of my background. So many people in
Speaker 1: my network are in that camp, and I don't think
Speaker 1: all of them are nefarious. They just believe they're being
Speaker 1: caring and compassionate and have not looked at another way
Speaker 1: of life. So the first part of this book, and
Speaker 1: Enter the Upside Down Reset, is devoted to analyzing the
Speaker 1: psychology underlying this leftist ideology and showing the way in
Speaker 1: which compassion is weaponized, looking at political psychology and hope,
Speaker 1: hopefully helping people break through and say, oh, I never
Speaker 1: actually thought about it this way. I think I'm being caring,
Speaker 1: but I'm actually not. And that's one of the main
Speaker 1: intentions of this book.
Speaker 3: And again another thing that we didn't I didn't pay
Speaker 3: enough attention to was kind of the medical system. And
Speaker 3: you wrote a book I assume shortly there after the
Speaker 3: last one. We just discussed the end to an upside
Speaker 3: down medicine and I always questioned, but like say, heliocentrism
Speaker 3: like a spinning ball and water sticking to a ball
Speaker 3: never really made sense to me. But I didn't take
Speaker 3: that next step right. And that's what we were just
Speaker 3: talking about. How do we get people to think that way,
Speaker 3: how to continue to ask questions and vaccines were that way.
Speaker 3: When I was in the military, I got the anthrac shots.
Speaker 3: We got a shot ninety one that made me sick
Speaker 3: for a couple of years. But we continue to get them. Right, Well,
Speaker 3: it's October, we got to get the flu vacs and
Speaker 3: we just roll up our sleeve. And how many times
Speaker 3: in your life did you ask your doctor what's in
Speaker 3: that shot you're about to give me? And he pulls
Speaker 3: out you know, well, it's got this that just never happens.
Speaker 3: You're just trained like everything else in our society, it's
Speaker 3: the fall. So you get the flu shot. But again,
Speaker 3: COVID twenty twenty a double edged sword. I do believe
Speaker 3: that event wo a lot of people up. Maybe it
Speaker 3: wasn't their intention, maybe it was, I don't know, but
Speaker 3: that was a significant event. While as horrible as it was,
Speaker 3: it did it was kind of a great awakening, and
Speaker 3: it caused a lot of people to actually do research
Speaker 3: into vaccines and you start to see, well, why does
Speaker 3: that thing you're about to put in my body have
Speaker 3: formaldehyde or mercury or cells from a dog's kidney, all
Speaker 3: of these things, and you know, it really has you know,
Speaker 3: caused people to consider everything that's going into their body
Speaker 3: and obviously can lead to other things, like you know,
Speaker 3: geoengineering and bioengineered food products. But go ahead and give
Speaker 3: us a hypnopsis on your book and what really inspired
Speaker 3: you to write that one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let me give a preface to all of this,
Speaker 1: which is that each time I've come across a new paradigm,
Speaker 1: there has been some year that I've had to deal
Speaker 1: with because I'm talking about something that I know will
Speaker 1: upset many people who probably like me currently, and it's
Speaker 1: gotten harder and harder with each book. So the first
Speaker 1: book and end to upside Down thinking, I was working
Speaker 1: in Silicon Valley and then wrote a book about the
Speaker 1: science of psychic phenomena, the science of near death experience,
Speaker 1: the Science of an afterlife. I mean, it took a
Speaker 1: lot of internal work to say, Okay, I'm going to
Speaker 1: do this, and I'm going to try to do it
Speaker 1: in the most responsible way twenty twenty hits to write
Speaker 1: on politics at that time, that was a new thing
Speaker 1: for me, and I knew how many people I would upset,
Speaker 1: and so each time I've had to do the internal work.
Speaker 1: The Medicine book was a great example of that, and
Speaker 1: end to upside down medicine, because not only was I
Speaker 1: talking about vaccines, and there's a whole chapter on that.
Speaker 1: And my hope is that especially for parents, that would
Speaker 1: be a very good synthesis for them to read that
Speaker 1: one chapter and to say, Okay, I need to at
Speaker 1: least ask questions about what's in these injections. But I
Speaker 1: talk a lot about germ theory in that book, the
Speaker 1: germ theory of disease, which is the belief which I
Speaker 1: never even thought to question, that there are microbes that
Speaker 1: make you sick. Yep. And that makes sense because if
Speaker 1: you have an infection, we can see a lot of
Speaker 1: bacteria and we say, okay, the bacteria cause disease. The
Speaker 1: problem there is there's another potential perspective, which is that yeah,
Speaker 1: bacteria exists and they are associated with disease. But the
Speaker 1: bacteria are there because there's an underlying toxicity, and the
Speaker 1: bacteria are there to clean up dead and dying tissue.
Speaker 1: So they are like firefighters putting out the fire and
Speaker 1: they get falsely accused of being the one that started
Speaker 1: the fire. That's a whole paradigm shift in of itself.
Speaker 1: And we could look at parasites and fungi it the
Speaker 1: same way that maybe they are uniquely qualified to help
Speaker 1: us clean something up. Virus is our whole, separate issue,
Speaker 1: which I had heard about in twenty twenty. If you remember,
Speaker 1: early in the pandemic, there were some people who were
Speaker 1: questioning the vaccine narrative, which I listened to, and I said,
Speaker 1: this is really interesting because I was new to that topic.
Speaker 1: And there were a small number of doctors like doctor
Speaker 1: Andrew Kaufman, doctor Tom Cowen, doctors Mark and Sam Bailey,
Speaker 1: New Zealand, classically trained doctors who were saying, yeah, that's
Speaker 1: all good and well with the vaccines. The vaccine stuff
Speaker 1: is really dangerous, but actually there's no SARS cove to
Speaker 1: virus and actually we've never found any viruses ever. So
Speaker 1: I heard that and was like, I don't really know
Speaker 1: what to make of that claim. These people sound like
Speaker 1: they're serious and they're speaking very technically about the methodologies
Speaker 1: used in virology labs, and I didn't really know much
Speaker 1: about that, so I put it off to the side.
Speaker 1: And then twenty twenty three hit and people were still
Speaker 1: talking about it, and I met alex Zek of the
Speaker 1: Way Forward podcast and he was saying, Mark you've got
Speaker 1: to look into this. He did a series that I
Speaker 1: highly recommend to your audience. It's called The End of Covid,
Speaker 1: available at the end of covid dot com. It's like
Speaker 1: one hundred plus hours of content on these sorts of topics.
Speaker 1: And Alec invited me to be a guest on that
Speaker 1: and I participated in three of the panels, talking more
Speaker 1: about my books on politics and ND to Upside Down
Speaker 1: Liberty and the Great Reset, and then to the Upside
Speaker 1: Down Reset. But because I was a participant, I listened
Speaker 1: to some of the other interviews with the doctors and
Speaker 1: they were talking about the methods used in virology and
Speaker 1: how virology labs actually lack an independent variable and proper controls.
Speaker 1: These are basic things that you would need to have
Speaker 1: in a scientific study, and this goes back to the
Speaker 1: history of virology. The initial study in nineteen fifty four
Speaker 1: by Enders and Peoples, which alleged to have come up
Speaker 1: with an isolation method for viruses. The problem is they
Speaker 1: actually didn't create a sample of a virus by itself.
Speaker 1: And that might sound simple, but it's really pivotal because
Speaker 1: in order to run any studies on viruses or to
Speaker 1: know that a virus actually exists. You need to have
Speaker 1: a sample of just the virus and then introduce it
Speaker 1: into a system to show that it causes disease. Very simple,
Speaker 1: need an independent variable. The problem is the way these
Speaker 1: studies are conducted is they don't have a sample of
Speaker 1: just a virus. They assume a virus is in there,
Speaker 1: but it's really unpurified. That on its own really messes
Speaker 1: everything up because yes, people get sick, and yes we
Speaker 1: can show effects in laboratories, but we can never tie
Speaker 1: it back to an alleged virus. There could be many
Speaker 1: other causes that make people sick. And that's really the
Speaker 1: crux of this argument. I go through all that history
Speaker 1: and the science and it's pretty mind blowing, especially when
Speaker 1: we consider the work that Christine Massey and her colleagues
Speaker 1: have been doing. She and her colleagues have been sending
Speaker 1: freedom of information requests to health organizations around the world,
Speaker 1: including the CDC, saying, Hi, can you please send me
Speaker 1: a purified sample of SARS, cove two or HIV. You
Speaker 1: name the virus where it's just the virus by itself,
Speaker 1: not mixed with other stuff, just the virus. Please send
Speaker 1: us examples and they say, we have no records, and
Speaker 1: in fact, what you're asking for violates the gold standard
Speaker 1: because the gold standard mixes things together and we never
Speaker 1: have an unpurified sample. I'm paraphrasing. So I was just
Speaker 1: mind blown when I came across this and realized there
Speaker 1: are many reasons people get sick that have nothing to
Speaker 1: do with an alleged virus, such as toxicity in the
Speaker 1: environment EMFs, so many other things, or even metaphysical concepts
Speaker 1: like energies that science doesn't understand, and I go into
Speaker 1: all that. So that's a very quick synopsis of something
Speaker 1: that when I first wrote the book, George, I actually
Speaker 1: wasn't sure it was going to be a book that
Speaker 1: I would ever send to someone or send to my publisher.
Speaker 1: I wanted to write it to see can I make
Speaker 1: this argument well enough. And the reason I'm giving a
Speaker 1: large preface here that leads into the book on cosmology
Speaker 1: that practice of there's something here. It seems too hard
Speaker 1: to believe, but I'm going to try to put it
Speaker 1: all together and let me see if I can make
Speaker 1: an argument that I actually can't robot myself or something
Speaker 1: that's worth sharing. And that's what this book is an
Speaker 1: end to upside down medicine.
Speaker 3: I'm so glad you brought up the end of covid
Speaker 3: dot com because I wasn't familiar with that whatsoever. And
Speaker 3: I look down at the panel. There must be fifty
Speaker 3: people well respected, including yourself. But down there it has
Speaker 3: modules the narrative, the spinoff, the prequel, the germ theory.
Speaker 3: And I'll put this in the show notes as well.
Speaker 3: Please take the time, either pause the podcast or at
Speaker 3: the end go check out this website if you're not
Speaker 3: familiar with it. It looks like it's a plethora of
Speaker 3: information and I'll be spending some time there this weekend.
Speaker 3: Another thing is mark. A lot of people claim that
Speaker 3: this whole alternative medicine thing is just within the last
Speaker 3: ten years. It's a YouTube phenomenon. But when you look
Speaker 3: back at the original vaccines of the eighteen hundreds, there
Speaker 3: were like the entire city of Montreal rose up against
Speaker 3: the vaccines. Many towns in our country said, nope, this
Speaker 3: is nothing new. It was the same in nineteen eighteen,
Speaker 3: and it was the same in twenty twenty. You can
Speaker 3: use Google, you can use yandex. You can do research
Speaker 3: and find all of the old pictures of people protesting
Speaker 3: against vaccine.
Speaker 1: Another thing that we weren't familiar with. Right.
Speaker 3: We were taught in school briefly about the hero Louis Pasture, right,
Speaker 3: and how you know the milk it's pasteurized named after
Speaker 3: him and everything, but you never never heard the name
Speaker 3: but Champ in your life. And then I found a
Speaker 3: book that was written one hundred years ago. And again
Speaker 3: this movement just started ten years ago with YouTube a
Speaker 3: woman by the name of ethel Hume Bechamp or Pasture
Speaker 3: a lost chapter in the history of biology. And then
Speaker 3: you start coming across books like you said, Smulllins, murder
Speaker 3: by injection and all these other things, and you've realized.
Speaker 1: And this is like when you're in as a truth seeker.
Speaker 3: You get excited when you connect some of these dots, right,
Speaker 3: but then when you kind of sit back and you
Speaker 3: process this entire thing, you realize how evil this agenda
Speaker 3: truly is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it feels as though there is an intentional misdirection.
Speaker 1: There was also the Flexner Report of nineteen ten, which
Speaker 1: changed the entire medical system. This was supported by the
Speaker 1: Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations. Anyone can read it. It was
Speaker 1: steering people away from natural healing and homeopathy and things
Speaker 1: like that, and it's led us to our current allopathic paradigm.
Speaker 1: So I'm glad you mentioned this because that what was
Speaker 1: compelling for me and researching this topic was the history
Speaker 1: is that it's not new. It didn't just pop up
Speaker 1: ten years ago. Even this question about viruses and germ theory.
Speaker 1: If we look back at the HIIV era, there was
Speaker 1: an organization called the Perth Group perth available at the
Speaker 1: perthgroup dot com that was writing technical papers on whether
Speaker 1: this virus alleged virus HIV has been established using the
Speaker 1: scientific method, or whether there are other reasons people are
Speaker 1: getting sick that are not being explored. So it didn't
Speaker 1: just pop up in twenty twenty with COVID. And when
Speaker 1: we look back with Louis Pastor, for example, he was
Speaker 1: looking at Rabi's and he said, well, there must be
Speaker 1: something that's transmitted, but I can't see it, so it's
Speaker 1: probably there, but I just haven't found it. So we
Speaker 1: often see this. We see this in cosmology too, which
Speaker 1: we'll talk about inferences and logical fallacies. So that's what
Speaker 1: I This exploration into medicine was really critical for me
Speaker 1: because it exposed the need for clean logic and following
Speaker 1: the scientific method before we come to conclusions, whereas I'm
Speaker 1: seeing this throughout science and even in politics and economics,
Speaker 1: people are jumping to conclusions based on a bunch of
Speaker 1: observations and then making inferences but not telling you their inferences.
Speaker 1: They're calling it fact or close to fact.
Speaker 3: And Mark, I'm so glad you brought up the Perth
Speaker 3: group because this is another hurdle that we didn't really mention.
Speaker 3: Is that, uh, if somebody is just listening to this
Speaker 3: podcast for the first time and somebody said, hey, you
Speaker 3: got to listen to to this podcast, and they listen
Speaker 3: to it and they get to the Perth group and
Speaker 3: they say, well, what's the Perth group? And they go
Speaker 3: to Google and they put in Perth Group. Well, the
Speaker 3: very first result is the Perth Group is a group
Speaker 3: of HIV AIDS denialists based in Perth, Western Australia who
Speaker 3: claim in opposition to the scientific concess.
Speaker 1: So you get the idea.
Speaker 3: This is a major hurdle that that you know that
Speaker 3: Google and things like this are controlled, so whether you're
Speaker 3: questioning ilio centrism, because if you go to YouTube and
Speaker 3: you put in flat Earth.
Speaker 1: What are the first few videos you're going to get Mark,
Speaker 1: You're going to get why flat Earth has been debunked.
Speaker 3: You're going to get Professor Dave and you know, uh
Speaker 3: Neil deGrasse Tyson and all these people. That's that's another
Speaker 3: huge hurdle that that is difficult to overcome, and you
Speaker 3: use you have to stress to people. That's why a
Speaker 3: lot of our listeners in their emails, they have links
Speaker 3: when they send them to them to get people to
Speaker 3: search this on their own. Because if you just say, hey,
Speaker 3: go check out flat Earth, you're really setting them, setting
Speaker 3: them up. Why can't I talk setting them up for
Speaker 3: failure to a certain degree, because if they just go
Speaker 3: to Google and plug it in, they're going to get
Speaker 3: led down the same path they've always been led down.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it really requires energy on the part of the researcher.
Speaker 1: So for example, rather than going to Google, go to
Speaker 1: theperthgroup dot com their actual website and read their paper
Speaker 1: which is on there. It's called HIV a virus like
Speaker 1: no other, and then tell me that this is all
Speaker 1: just misinformation. This is a detailed scientific paper. Now, whether
Speaker 1: or not you agree with the conclusions, that's a separate topic.
Speaker 1: But the point here is that there's real scientific debate
Speaker 1: about these topics. It's not just someone saying I don't
Speaker 1: believe anything the mainstream says, I'm just denying it to
Speaker 1: be contrarian. These are real scientific arguments.
Speaker 3: And to everybody who's listening, when you go to the
Speaker 3: Perth group, it's going to try to say it's dangerous website.
Speaker 1: I just did it and I had to view certificate.
Speaker 3: Are you sure you want to go to this website
Speaker 3: because you're going to be led down a road? But
Speaker 3: that's again what we're dealing with now.
Speaker 1: Mark.
Speaker 3: It's one thing to question politics, it's another thing to
Speaker 3: question medicine. But my goodness, man, what led you to
Speaker 3: question something as concrete proofed as a living on a
Speaker 3: spinning ball.
Speaker 1: It certainly wasn't something I initially thought to question. If
Speaker 1: you read my first book or listen to my podcast
Speaker 1: series Where Is My Mind? I often compare the revolution
Speaker 1: and consciousness, meaning the understanding that consciousness doesn't come from
Speaker 1: the brain, but rather the brain some like an interface
Speaker 1: or a receiver. That the revolution in thinking was sort
Speaker 1: of like how people used to think the earth was
Speaker 1: flat and now we know it's a spinning globe. And
Speaker 1: the Copernican Revolution taught us otherwise, or the revolution that
Speaker 1: we didn't understand that germs caused disease until we got
Speaker 1: a microscope and then we could see these little germs.
Speaker 1: I made those comparisons a long time ago, not trying
Speaker 1: to make a point, but just because I assumed those
Speaker 1: were foregone conclusions. And my second book, An End to
Speaker 1: Upside Down Living, has a globe on the cover, not
Speaker 1: because I'm talking about cosmology, but it just happened to
Speaker 1: be the logo that we used on the cover of
Speaker 1: An End to Upside Down Living. It Probably it was
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one or twenty twenty two. I was listening
Speaker 1: to a podcast with Dave Weiss flat Earth Dave. It
Speaker 1: might have been on Expanding Reality hosted by Brandon Thomas,
Speaker 1: and he's done a great job. I've been on his
Speaker 1: podcast multiple times exploring many topics, and I remember just
Speaker 1: listening to what he said and thinking this is interesting.
Speaker 1: Like I didn't. I was resistant to it because so
Speaker 1: many of the people that I know talked about flat
Speaker 1: earth as a syop meaning an intentional deception geared toward
Speaker 1: misdirecting genuinely curious people, and by the way, the germ
Speaker 1: theory virus thing I heard the same argument. So before
Speaker 1: I wrote the Medicine Book, I really had to overcome
Speaker 1: this and think, I don't want to be succumbing to
Speaker 1: a stye op, so I'm going to make this as
Speaker 1: scientific as possible and let people make their own decisions.
Speaker 1: So I was a little bit concerned with this flat
Speaker 1: earth stuff when I first came across it, But then again,
Speaker 1: I also didn't feel like I could overcome the arguments
Speaker 1: because I didn't know enough about it, just like with viruses.
Speaker 1: And then I remember getting on an airplane that year
Speaker 1: and looking out the window and saying, hmm, do I
Speaker 1: see the down and away curvature? I actually don't see
Speaker 1: it moving down and away from here. I see circularity.
Speaker 1: But that's not the same as spherical curvature. Circularity could
Speaker 1: be on a flat plane. So anyway, I was looking
Speaker 1: at all that pretty naively and was not thinking about
Speaker 1: writing a book on this topic. But after I wrote
Speaker 1: the Medicine Book, I noticed that many of the people
Speaker 1: I respected who were questioning germ theory and virology were
Speaker 1: saying and even telling me personally. Mark the same logical
Speaker 1: fallacies that you've identified in medicine, they exist in cosmology.
Speaker 1: You have to look into this. And I went to
Speaker 1: a conference in Texas called Confluence, hosted by Alex Zech
Speaker 1: and many of his colleagues, and people were talking about
Speaker 1: not just viruses, but some of them saying like, have
Speaker 1: you looked into this flatter thing? And some people I
Speaker 1: was talking to Eurasimos of Here for the Truth podcast
Speaker 1: and Melly Nubeck. They in some ways inspired this book
Speaker 1: because they were saying, look, everyone here's talking about flat Earth.
Speaker 1: I don't really think it matters. What do you think? Mark?
Speaker 1: And I would say I don't have much of an
Speaker 1: opinion on this. But also around that time, April twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four, doctor Stephen A. Young, a theoretical physics PhD,
Speaker 1: came out with a book called A Fool's Wisdom, which
Speaker 1: I recommend to your audience if you haven't heard of it.
Speaker 1: A Fool's Wisdom by Stephen A. Young, Theoretical Physics, PhD.
Speaker 1: And in this book he says something this is almost
Speaker 1: a direct quote. I can't say with one hundred percent
Speaker 1: Excuse me, I can't say with one hundred percent certainty
Speaker 1: what this place is. But I can tell you with
Speaker 1: one hundred percent certainty what this place is not, and
Speaker 1: it's not a spinning globe. And he went through some
Speaker 1: of the arguments and I said, okay, what's going on here.
Speaker 1: This is a highly credentialed physicist who has worked with
Speaker 1: the most mainstream physicists you can imagine, and tried to
Speaker 1: debunk flat earth himself and basically was unable to do so,
Speaker 1: or more precisely, he was trying to prove the spinning
Speaker 1: globe and was not able to do so. So he
Speaker 1: summarized some of the arguments and I said, this is interesting.
Speaker 1: So I had this kind of convergence of things happening
Speaker 1: where people were telling me, you've got to look into this.
Speaker 1: I said to myself, if this is real, I need
Speaker 1: to look into it because I need to basically correct
Speaker 1: some of my old statements and expose what might be
Speaker 1: the truth, or more precisely, expose the falsehoods. So that
Speaker 1: led me to look into more research. And Kelly Brogan,
Speaker 1: a medical doctor who's been very brave to challenge many paradigms,
Speaker 1: and I was on her podcast talking about this reclamation radio.
Speaker 1: She had some resources that She sent me just to
Speaker 1: look into things, not to try to prove anything, but
Speaker 1: to just summarize the landscape of what's out there, what
Speaker 1: people were arguing. So I looked into that, and then
Speaker 1: I went down the rabbit hole, which you and your
Speaker 1: audience are very familiar with, where basically I was unable
Speaker 1: to verify the claims that have been put forth. And
Speaker 1: I know the term flat Earth comes up a lot.
Speaker 1: I use this term cosmology more often because I think
Speaker 1: it's more than just the shape of Earth. It's what
Speaker 1: is the cosmos. Was there a big bang thirteen point
Speaker 1: eight billion years ago that led us into a heally
Speaker 1: eocentric universe where Earth is a spinning globe with a
Speaker 1: radius value of roughly four thousand miles at the equator
Speaker 1: and so forth. All of those are very specific claims
Speaker 1: that have been put forth, and my book explores all
Speaker 1: of those. And what I realized is that I couldn't
Speaker 1: prove the spinning globe. We certainly can't prove the Big Bang,
Speaker 1: which happened in some very far away place a long
Speaker 1: time ago. We have a few observations which scientists have
Speaker 1: just superimposed over a Big Bang model, but the spinning globe.
Speaker 1: It really blows my mind. We should have if there
Speaker 1: is a spinning globe, video footage of Earth as a
Speaker 1: spinning globe globe meaning sphere doing a full rotation where
Speaker 1: you can zoom in and see buildings standing upright on
Speaker 1: the top and upside down on the bottom, and sideways
Speaker 1: on the side and so forth. But what do we
Speaker 1: get every time I look for it, to just say, mark,
Speaker 1: you miss something. We get partial pictures from just a
Speaker 1: high altitude of ambiguous curvature, which doesn't show us a
Speaker 1: full globe. And often there's a fish eye lens used,
Speaker 1: or CGI or composite or who knows what else. But
Speaker 1: we don't get a full sphere. And we don't have
Speaker 1: anything actually showing of Earth, or showing Earth revolving around
Speaker 1: the Sun, or dare I say, showing Earth's position in
Speaker 1: the alleged Solar system with all the other planets there
Speaker 1: and the Sun at the center. We don't have direct
Speaker 1: evidence of any of the stuff. It's always indirect. And
Speaker 1: that's been something when I speak to people about this
Speaker 1: who are very skeptical of the cosmology questioners, they always
Speaker 1: do pause at that and they say hmm, And then
Speaker 1: I point out. You know, NASA's budget is around twenty
Speaker 1: five billion dollars a year. Think about how much money
Speaker 1: that is over many decades. And they've allegedly sent people
Speaker 1: to the Moon, they say, and they've sent probes out
Speaker 1: into deep space, and yet they can't give us video
Speaker 1: footage of a sphere. They just have some pictures that
Speaker 1: look like a disc, not a full sphere that we
Speaker 1: don't know if they're CGI or not. And so and
Speaker 1: then they they do question that because it is curious.
Speaker 3: You know, it's interesting you mentioned that I just did
Speaker 3: an interview and I had mentioned to them. If you
Speaker 3: think about it, if you google, if you research, and
Speaker 3: you can use Google in this case, if you research
Speaker 3: who has the largest content with the Department of Defense
Speaker 3: in the military industrial complex, you will find that when
Speaker 3: you research who has the largest contracts with NASA, that
Speaker 3: they are two birds in the same nest.
Speaker 1: They're all the same companies.
Speaker 3: And if you think about it, from nineteen seventy five,
Speaker 3: post Vietnam until nine to eleven, how do you think
Speaker 3: those companies stayed afloat? I do believe that NASA is
Speaker 3: kind of a way to supplement these companies during how
Speaker 3: you know, God forbid, we have peace right, we don't
Speaker 3: want peace to break out. I do think it is
Speaker 3: a supplement to these companies during peace time to continue
Speaker 3: to get them right, to get them cash, to keep
Speaker 3: their head above water. And I think that's why the
Speaker 3: Apollo thirteen mission happened the way it did, because after
Speaker 3: the first time, like I saw the numbers between Apollo
Speaker 3: eleven and Apollo twelve, once you do something for the
Speaker 3: first time, people just don't really care as much. And
Speaker 3: they were shocked, and so they're like, well, we have
Speaker 3: to career. We ate this drama with Apollo thirteen, and
Speaker 3: they're going to slingshot with the Moon's gravity and create
Speaker 3: this great story and heroes. And every now and then
Speaker 3: NASA will do things to get your attention, whether it's
Speaker 3: the challenger and not sure if you went down that
Speaker 3: rabbit hole yet, And just as recently within the last week,
Speaker 3: you know, oh those two people were stranded.
Speaker 1: For nine months, and you know.
Speaker 3: When you're in the matrix, it's I think they reinforce
Speaker 3: all of this, whether it's medical, like if you take COVID,
Speaker 3: what movie came out eight hours eight years prior to
Speaker 3: that contagion? There are scenes in Contagion, where they show
Speaker 3: a glass and it's handed from the cocktail waitress to
Speaker 3: the person who's drinking it, and then somebody else comes by,
Speaker 3: grabs it, take it to the dishwasher, and you know,
Speaker 3: the next day, all the people who touch that glass
Speaker 3: end up sick. And while many people perceive that as
Speaker 3: Hollywood entertainment, I fully believe whether it's Outbreak or Contagion,
Speaker 3: whether it's Star Wars or Battle Star Galactica, these things
Speaker 3: are used as psychological warfare to get your mind to
Speaker 3: accept these things when they are played out on the
Speaker 3: world stage.
Speaker 1: I think that's well said, and I'm thinking back to
Speaker 1: where I was, let's say, before I started researching this book,
Speaker 1: I probably would still have been resistant to what you
Speaker 1: just said because it sounds too big to be possibly true,
Speaker 1: too conspiratorial, and in my book and ends to the
Speaker 1: upside down cosmos, I talk about space agencies in a
Speaker 1: full chapter, but it's later in the book because at
Speaker 1: least in my process, where I started was with the
Speaker 1: science and how the science makes NASA's narrative not fully
Speaker 1: possible because their whole narrative is based on a set
Speaker 1: of cosmological and assumptions in physics that we can show
Speaker 1: not to be true. So the way I start my book,
Speaker 1: and I hope more and more people talk about this
Speaker 1: is with dark matter and dark energy. So dark matter
Speaker 1: and dark energy, according to mainstream scientists, they comprise ninety
Speaker 1: six percent of the whole universe, so only four percent
Speaker 1: of stuff that we know. Ninety six percent isn't something
Speaker 1: we even understand. So on its face, physics has some problems.
Speaker 1: But more recently, dark matter has been falsified by an
Speaker 1: astrophysicist named Pavel Krupa and his colleagues in Germany. For
Speaker 1: over twenty years, they've been looking at dark matter, and
Speaker 1: they're saying the predictions that you would expect to see
Speaker 1: with dark matter have been falsified with more than five
Speaker 1: sigma confidence, meaning more than ninety nine point nine to
Speaker 1: nine percent confidence. This is significant because dark matter was
Speaker 1: allegedly discovered in nineteen thirty three by an astronomer named
Speaker 1: Fritz Swickey. He was looking at the Coma cluster of
Speaker 1: galaxies and found that things were moving around in ways
Speaker 1: that would not have been predicted by Einstein's gravity his
Speaker 1: general relativity theory. In other words, there was missing mass
Speaker 1: there needed to be much more mass than there was
Speaker 1: there in order to observe the things he observed. It
Speaker 1: was off by something like ninety nine percent, so big mismatch.
Speaker 1: And there were two options, as I see it. He
Speaker 1: could have said, well, we need to reconsider the foundations
Speaker 1: of physics because maybe Einstein's relativity and Newton's gravity are
Speaker 1: wrong and things move for other reasons. Or we discover
Speaker 1: dark matter and there must be matter there to preserve
Speaker 1: Einstein's relativity and gravity, and we can just plug in
Speaker 1: that dark matter. It must be there because we couldn't
Speaker 1: be wrong about the other things, and then we'll call
Speaker 1: it a discovery. We discovered dark matter. What do we
Speaker 1: think happened? Well, I would think now that maybe dark
Speaker 1: matter was just a plug in a post hoc rationalization
Speaker 1: which has now been falsified. And what Pablo Krupa says,
Speaker 1: this astrophysicist in Germany, because he was asked in an interview, well,
Speaker 1: if dark matter has been falsified, why are so many
Speaker 1: people trying to study it? Why hasn't this been talked
Speaker 1: about more? And what he says is it's due to
Speaker 1: sociological pressures. If you study dark matter, that's where the
Speaker 1: prizes are awarded, that's where the funding is. So basically,
Speaker 1: our collective consciousness is being steered toward this dark matter idea,
Speaker 1: and it's a house of cards, and dark energy is
Speaker 1: its own problem too, So on its face, we don't
Speaker 1: need to talk about anything else. We don't even need
Speaker 1: to talk about a conspiracy, because if dark matter has
Speaker 1: been falsified, it is a problem for gravity, and gravity
Speaker 1: is foundational to modern physics and modern cosmology, and it
Speaker 1: might help us understand why there is no unified theory
Speaker 1: in physics. This is one of the main problems that
Speaker 1: physicists talk about. We cannot reconcile the two leading theories,
Speaker 1: which is Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics. Metaphorically speaking, the
Speaker 1: equations blow up when you combine them, so on its face,
Speaker 1: modern cosmology modern physics is completely broken, and therefore we're
Speaker 1: in a good position to ask questions about everything. You know.
Speaker 3: Tesla said that today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments,
Speaker 3: and they wander off through equation after equation and eventually
Speaker 3: build a structure which has no relation to reality. And
Speaker 3: I think that the true science he practiced and you know,
Speaker 3: things like that he said is one of the reasons
Speaker 3: he was discredited and kind of basically, you know, died
Speaker 3: poor in a hotel room because once again you go
Speaker 3: back to what you said about people who go against
Speaker 3: the agenda get discredited. People like Stanley Meyer, who invented
Speaker 3: the hydro engine back in the seventies. He was killed
Speaker 3: by big oil, you know, by two Belgian businessman after
Speaker 3: he sipped to some cranberry juice, and all these people
Speaker 3: that there are people who have stood up against big
Speaker 3: pharmaceuticals who have had you know, unfortunately just untinly demises,
Speaker 3: and that's really what we are up against. And whether
Speaker 3: it's and I guess that's my next question to you
Speaker 3: that when you finally did understand you know, I call
Speaker 3: it biblical cosmology. Some people call it geocentrism flat earth,
Speaker 3: compared to when you found the truth about whether it's
Speaker 3: politics or medicine. Because for me it was a big
Speaker 3: deal because I understood if they could lie about this,
Speaker 3: then everything is a lie. And it took me two
Speaker 3: weeks of just pacing around and rethinking and understanding how
Speaker 3: big the lie was. Obviously it was a big enough
Speaker 3: deal for you to write a book, but it is
Speaker 3: very life changingoute life changing.
Speaker 1: I think for me, I had an easier time with
Speaker 1: it because I had already gone through so many paradigm
Speaker 1: shifts where I'm kind of used to it now now
Speaker 1: at the point where what do I believe currently that's
Speaker 1: just not true, Like I just know it's gonna happen.
Speaker 1: So but this was hard because there there's no way
Speaker 1: around intentional deception in this topic. There's no way around
Speaker 1: a conspiracy at some level. Doesn't mean that every person
Speaker 1: at NASA, where every scientist is in on it. I
Speaker 1: think most people are innocently propagating a narrative because they
Speaker 1: haven't explored assumptions and it's just too big a deal
Speaker 1: to question. So I think there's probably a small group.
Speaker 1: I don't know who or how it works. I view
Speaker 1: this as part of a spiritual war, which I've talked
Speaker 1: about in my books. I think there are dark forces
Speaker 1: that are not necessarily physical, feeding into these deceptions. So
Speaker 1: it has been a challenge, and then it's another challenge
Speaker 1: to then speak about it publicly. But the way I
Speaker 1: describe it in my book, I call it globe skepticism,
Speaker 1: meaning finding the holes in the mainstream narrative without saying
Speaker 1: I know exactly what is true, because for various reasons,
Speaker 1: there are certain observations we don't have in order to
Speaker 1: directly show this. Ideally we'd have video footage of super
Speaker 1: high altitudes that we can independently verify without a space agency.
Speaker 1: We don't have that. For example, we haven't been able
Speaker 1: to dig down very far. I mean, if first radius
Speaker 1: is roughly four thousand miles, we would love to be
Speaker 1: able to see what this molten core is like, and
Speaker 1: what's the farthest digging expedition ever under eight miles? So
Speaker 1: all the stuff with the core is a guess. But
Speaker 1: if we wanted to have a full model of what
Speaker 1: Earth is, we'd want to have a better picture of
Speaker 1: what's beneath us. And we want to be able to
Speaker 1: explore Earth more fully, including Antarctica. And I know people
Speaker 1: do go there, and there are certain bases people have gone.
Speaker 1: There was the quote unquote Final Experiment, which was just
Speaker 1: a single observation at one base, But we would want
Speaker 1: to have lots of observations at all over Antarctica, not
Speaker 1: just one location. So there are restrictions in terms of
Speaker 1: what we can actually observe, which prevent a comprehensive model
Speaker 1: with direct observation. And that's why I like the term
Speaker 1: globe skepticism, and I do think it does disarm people,
Speaker 1: and that's what I like to do with this stuff.
Speaker 1: Same thing with germ theory. I'm not going to tell
Speaker 1: you with certainty what is true, but I can show
Speaker 1: you the model we've been told to believe it is
Speaker 1: false for these reasons. And then they say hmm. But
Speaker 1: then they want to say, well, but Mark, you can't
Speaker 1: tell me with direct evidence what is true. That's okay.
Speaker 1: Then we're left in a position of saying I don't
Speaker 1: know with certainty, and that could be uncomfortable for people,
Speaker 1: but it is an appropriate answer to say, I know
Speaker 1: this is not true, but i'm not quite sure what
Speaker 1: is true. I think I'm leaning in this direction for
Speaker 1: these reasons, but I'm not sure with certainty. And I
Speaker 1: do notice people do exhale a bit when they're put there,
Speaker 1: rather than this is what's true, this is what I
Speaker 1: know for sure. And here's why. That's a good point.
Speaker 3: And I think the key to all these things that
Speaker 3: we've talked about today is just to get people to
Speaker 3: at least question and do their research and whatever. You know,
Speaker 3: everybody's journey to the truth is their own journey. But
Speaker 3: when you hear people blindly defend vaccines when they can't
Speaker 3: tell you anything about them, when you hear them defend
Speaker 3: heliocentrism and they can't tell you that the sun is
Speaker 3: ninety three million miles away or the sun is two
Speaker 3: hundred or according to their science, right, they don't know
Speaker 3: anything about it, but they will blindly defend it. That
Speaker 3: is the problem. And it goes back to the Flexner Report,
Speaker 3: the Rockefeller's hijacking of both medicine and the education system
Speaker 3: and the way that we are taught, and that all
Speaker 3: changed very early twentieth century.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely, it seems as though this upside down thinking
Speaker 1: in various areas began around that time. So that is
Speaker 1: curious to me. The history here, that's something I've been
Speaker 1: looking into as well, like what's our real history? I've
Speaker 1: been asking that question for a while. I don't know
Speaker 1: for sure, but having the cosmological framework is critical because
Speaker 1: if we believe in a spinning globe with this unimaginably
Speaker 1: long evolutionary timeframe, that leads way to things like Darwinism
Speaker 1: and Stephen A. Young talks about this in his book
Speaker 1: A Fool's Wisdom. I call it Young's framework of social engineering,
Speaker 1: but he calls it basically looking at Elements of scientism.
Speaker 1: I think he's brilliant in the way he just talks
Speaker 1: about this. He questions, first, atomism, the way that we
Speaker 1: believe there are physical things at the core of reality.
Speaker 1: But if you look at an atom it's ninety nine
Speaker 1: point nine nine nine nine nine percent empty space. And
Speaker 1: the stuff that's believed to be physical, we've just assumed
Speaker 1: that it's physical, like these electron clouds or quarks and subquarks.
Speaker 1: What he argues is that a lot of this stuff
Speaker 1: could be just explained more energetically or through the elements.
Speaker 1: We don't need to impose a physical framework on this stuff.
Speaker 1: But the belief that it is physical leads us to
Speaker 1: things like gravity, because gravity is all about mass, which
Speaker 1: leads us to heliocentrism. And when you have heliocentrism, you
Speaker 1: have a thirteen point eight billion year universe, which leads
Speaker 1: us to Darwinism. And because if Darwinism, we're led to
Speaker 1: believe in the germ theory of disease, where these microbes
Speaker 1: are all competing against each other, which leads us to
Speaker 1: then want to have vaccines. So you can see how
Speaker 1: the deception really builds on itself, and it almost feels endless.
Speaker 1: Like every paradigm we've been taught, there's some fundamental flaw
Speaker 1: in it. Absolutely.
Speaker 3: I ask every one of my guests, what are your
Speaker 3: You don't have to do all six but your six
Speaker 3: silver bullets. If you're in an elevator with someone and
Speaker 3: you have thirty seconds to you know, share the proofs
Speaker 3: of flat Earth?
Speaker 1: What are your proofs?
Speaker 3: What do you consider the top five or six proofs
Speaker 3: of You could say putting a hole in heliocentrism.
Speaker 1: You get what I'm what I'm trying to say. Yeah, Well,
Speaker 1: first I would say we've never seen never. We have
Speaker 1: no direct evidence of spinning globe, no video footage of
Speaker 1: a sphere that doesn't exist. We have composite CGI images,
Speaker 1: fish eye lenses, and artists renditions. That's point number one.
Speaker 1: And then I would go to the falsification of dark matter.
Speaker 1: I'd say, are all of our physics and cosmology depends
Speaker 1: on dark matter? You've probably heard of it, but it's
Speaker 1: been falsified. You probably haven't heard about that. Then I
Speaker 1: would move a little further and say, did you know
Speaker 1: that Einstein and Stephen Hawking admitted that when you look
Speaker 1: at the lights in the sky, you cannot tell whether
Speaker 1: we Earth revolves around the Sun or the Sun revolves
Speaker 1: around Earth. That geocentrism Earth at the center versus heliocentrism
Speaker 1: are what's known as kinematically equivalent. And there's something known
Speaker 1: as the Copernican principle which has led scientists to prefer
Speaker 1: the idea that Earth revolves around the Sun because they
Speaker 1: don't want to believe we're special. Roberts and Genis is
Speaker 1: a great documentary called The Principle on this. So did
Speaker 1: you know that's true that there's been a philosophical preference
Speaker 1: to put Earth not at the center. Most people don't
Speaker 1: know about that, And then I would say, do you
Speaker 1: know one of the reasons there are so many people
Speaker 1: who believe Earth is flat is because they've gone out
Speaker 1: and done measurements and they can see things that should
Speaker 1: be blocked by the physical curvature of Earth. Because if
Speaker 1: you assume a radius value of four thousand miles at
Speaker 1: the equator of Earth, there are certain things that you
Speaker 1: should not be able to see. It would be like
Speaker 1: trying to see around a bend, and people are consistently
Speaker 1: able to see things, and the only way to try
Speaker 1: to explain that is to say that life light bends
Speaker 1: and it's all refraction and you're seeing a mirage. And
Speaker 1: then I'd move on to talk about the Selenelian lunar eclipse,
Speaker 1: which many people have not heard about, but then they
Speaker 1: google it and say, oh, actually that's a real thing.
Speaker 1: That is where you can during a lunar eclipse, you
Speaker 1: can see the eclipsed Moon and the Sun above the
Speaker 1: horizon at the same time, which should not be possible
Speaker 1: on the low model, because the Earth is supposed to
Speaker 1: be in between the Sun and Moon causing the eclipse,
Speaker 1: and yet you can see them both. What does science say?
Speaker 1: They say, well, that is just a mirage you're looking
Speaker 1: at in the sky. That's a pretty tough one. Then
Speaker 1: I would reference magnetic declination Earth's magnetic field. No one's
Speaker 1: ever been to the core of Earth, and the only
Speaker 1: reason we believe Earth has a magnetic field is because
Speaker 1: of the geodynamo effect in the outer core, which no
Speaker 1: one ever has found. And the geodynamo effect has never
Speaker 1: been replicated anywhere, and because of that, people who navigate
Speaker 1: have to manually adjust their compasses called magnetic declination. That's
Speaker 1: pretty wild. Go to magneticdash declination dot com and you
Speaker 1: can see the amount of adjustment you need to make
Speaker 1: on your compass, especially when you go to Antarctica. It's
Speaker 1: pretty crazy. Sometimes the compass reading is it's like off
Speaker 1: by negative one hundred and seventy degrees, which means whatever
Speaker 1: your compass says, just turn around. That's pretty strange. And
Speaker 1: then I would also lastly, I talk about horizontal wave propagation,
Speaker 1: which is trying to send let's just say whales. Whales
Speaker 1: use z are to communicate. These are just waves being
Speaker 1: propagated horizontally, and yet they're supposed to bend around a
Speaker 1: curve over long distances if you want to reach someone,
Speaker 1: and so whales communicating over thousands of thousands of miles
Speaker 1: using sonar. If we lived on a globe, those waves
Speaker 1: should just fly out into space through the water because
Speaker 1: they're going straight and the globe curves down and somehow
Speaker 1: the waves community are able to reach from one whale
Speaker 1: to the other. It's much more difficult to invoke infraction
Speaker 1: in the water. So what scientists say, is that there
Speaker 1: is some basically banned through which the waves travel, so
Speaker 1: that the waves travel along the curve. Is that believable
Speaker 1: or are the whales just communicating on a flat stationary
Speaker 1: topographical plane. All great points.
Speaker 3: And you know, we have talked about sonar before, and
Speaker 3: I was in the military, and many of the guys
Speaker 3: who've been in the military, especially in comms with retrans
Speaker 3: is and being able to communicate because much of the
Speaker 3: commps that we had the military were line of sight
Speaker 3: and if you do the math right, it just doesn't
Speaker 3: add up.
Speaker 1: We can talk too far.
Speaker 3: We always say we can see too far with the curvature,
Speaker 3: but there are also observable instances where we can talk
Speaker 3: too far, where communication with the line of sight we
Speaker 3: can go too far. And sonar is a big one
Speaker 3: as well. But they, like Tesla said, they always have
Speaker 3: a mathematical explanation for these type of things. All great examples.
Speaker 3: By the way, have you ever gone down that Stephen
Speaker 3: Hawking rabbit hole yet?
Speaker 1: Well, actually, Stephen A. Youung has a whole book on
Speaker 1: Stephen Hawking in his book talking about some of the
Speaker 1: ties and you know, ties to Epstein, and there's some
Speaker 1: dark stuff there.
Speaker 3: Yep, absolutely absolutely Any idea on your next book.
Speaker 1: I always tell people I'm not sure if I'm going
Speaker 1: to write another book. I'm always curious. Right now, I
Speaker 1: don't have another idea. It seems like there is increased
Speaker 1: appetite for these topics. Yeah, I mean, it's amazing cosmology.
Speaker 1: Like I was on Kim Iverson's show a few months ago.
Speaker 1: She's a very pot popular political commentator and she wanted
Speaker 1: to talk about this. So there are people that are
Speaker 1: opening up. And I'm also finding on the side of
Speaker 1: spirituality and the science of consciousness and near death experiences,
Speaker 1: there is growing momentum to talk about that topic relative
Speaker 1: to when I first published the book, even among business communities.
Speaker 1: So I feel drawn to speak about the stuff that
Speaker 1: I just love sharing. But at the same time, I
Speaker 1: am curious about just all of it. What we talked
Speaker 1: about today is really opening up a can of worms
Speaker 1: to so many other things. Yeah that you know, who
Speaker 1: really are we? Why are we here? What is this place?
Speaker 1: How was it generated and created? What is all the
Speaker 1: life that we see? What should we be doing? I
Speaker 1: still have those questions.
Speaker 3: Last question for you, and we really appreciate your time
Speaker 3: and wish you all the success with your books, and
Speaker 3: again it's Markgobert dot com. When you try to have
Speaker 3: these conversations with people, like with my history, I've been
Speaker 3: trying to talk to people for many years. I'll go
Speaker 3: down to the local shopping center, whether it's you know,
Speaker 3: I'm a Christian. I believe in Jesus and I'm not
Speaker 3: afraid to talk about that, just like I'm not afraid
Speaker 3: to talk about biblical cosmology, flatter Earth nine to eleven,
Speaker 3: all these different subjects. But what has it been in
Speaker 3: your journey that has been the most successful way of
Speaker 3: getting people curious? Right, because we can't force feed him.
Speaker 3: That really doesn't work. But what has been your success
Speaker 3: way of success in getting people to research the truth?
Speaker 1: I like to start with things that everyone can agree on.
Speaker 1: So with regard to consciousness, there's something known as the
Speaker 1: hard problem of consciousness. Scientists and philosophers acknowledge we don't
Speaker 1: know how something that's not physical, like consciousness could magically
Speaker 1: pop out of a physical brain and body. So everyone
Speaker 1: knows there's a question there. I like to start there.
Speaker 1: Or with regard to cosmology, we know that ninety six
Speaker 1: percent of the universe is allegedly dark matter and dark energy.
Speaker 1: We've got a big problem. Neilda grass Tyson says dark
Speaker 1: matter is one of the biggest mysteries we have in
Speaker 1: the universe. I quote him. I'm paraphrasing there in my book.
Speaker 1: I quote him. So I try to find the sources
Speaker 1: that can get us to that place of agreement. I
Speaker 1: think Austin witz It does a great job with this.
Speaker 1: He has a YouTube channel, wits It gets It. I
Speaker 1: learned a ton from him. I recommend him to your
Speaker 1: audience if you're not familiar, because he gets really technical
Speaker 1: with the stuff. And I like that because then I
Speaker 1: can talk to people and say, look, do you know
Speaker 1: Einstein said this? And Stephen Hawking talked about basically the
Speaker 1: interchangeability of geocentrism and heliocentrism. So that's disarming. And then
Speaker 1: to say, this conversation is not about proving the truth.
Speaker 1: Let's just poke holes in what we've been told. Let's
Speaker 1: just do that. We don't have to go to what
Speaker 1: the truth is. And you kind of work them step
Speaker 1: by step, example after example, and then it becomes like
Speaker 1: a bundle of twigs where you can't maybe you can
Speaker 1: break an individual twig, but the bundle on its own
Speaker 1: is strong. That's an analogy I've really resonated with. So
Speaker 1: when you have a conversions of evidence in multiple areas,
Speaker 1: that's ultimately powerful, but that usually comes after you've established
Speaker 1: the foundations absolutely all great points.
Speaker 3: I can't thank you enough for your time, and again,
Speaker 3: I'll give you the last word where people can find
Speaker 3: your work and anything else you'd like to add before
Speaker 3: we say goodbye.
Speaker 1: Yeah, last thing I'll say before I tell your audience
Speaker 1: where you can I mean, is the logical fallacy known
Speaker 1: as affirming the consequence. I'm finding this everywhere. It's basically
Speaker 1: jumping to conclusions about why something happened and leaving out
Speaker 1: other possibilities. So the classic example is it's true that
Speaker 1: when it rains there will be wet grass, But then
Speaker 1: the false conclusion is I observe wet grass and therefore
Speaker 1: it rained. That leaves out many possibilities like sprinklers and
Speaker 1: do or many other We could come up with a
Speaker 1: million examples of why grass is wet. This happens all
Speaker 1: over science, cosmology, politics. Where we observe things, we correctly
Speaker 1: observe them when we jump to a causal explanation, So
Speaker 1: we need to be super careful with that. My website,
Speaker 1: as you said, is Mark Gober dot com m A
Speaker 1: r K g O b e er dot com. I
Speaker 1: have seven books currently. They're all available in hard copy,
Speaker 1: kindle and audible formats. I narrate the audibles myself if
Speaker 1: you're interested in that. And my podcast series, which I mentioned,
Speaker 1: Where is My Mind. It's an eight episode bingeable series
Speaker 1: on near death experiences, telepathy, the scientific scientific evidence for
Speaker 1: that stuff. My apologies and on that one for talking
Speaker 1: about Galileo and I was in an old paradigm at
Speaker 1: the time, but I think the broader themes of consciousness
Speaker 1: that you'll hear in that podcast still stand. So I've
Speaker 1: heard a lot of people who are still listening to
Speaker 1: it even though it came out in twenty nineteen. Where
Speaker 1: is My Mind on Apple Podcasts, Spotify all the major players.
Speaker 3: And to the listeners, I'll have the link to the
Speaker 3: podcast as well, and there's a place where you can
Speaker 3: subscribe to the podcast, and it's available, like Mark said,
Speaker 3: on all major podcasts contributors, so check them out. And again, Mark,
Speaker 3: I can't thank you so much for your time and
Speaker 3: it's always refreshing to speak people who go past to
Speaker 3: this doesn't make sense to me, but then they keep
Speaker 3: going and keep researching. And I think you made such
Speaker 3: a great point. If you can poke holes in people's
Speaker 3: beliefs in scientism, in germ theory, that is going to
Speaker 3: lead most people to well, if this is a lie,
Speaker 3: then what is true? And I think that's what gets
Speaker 3: the fire burning and people to researching. So Mark, thank
Speaker 3: you so much for your time. Have a great weekend,
Speaker 3: and again much success with all your books, and we'd
Speaker 3: love to have you again down the road if you
Speaker 3: write another book.
Speaker 1: I'd be happy to you. And thank you so much
Speaker 1: George for having me in for all of your work.
Speaker 3: All right, thank you so much. God bless everyone. Have
Speaker 3: a great weekend and keep your head on a swivel.
Speaker 3: And until we meet again, my friends, we will see you.
Speaker 4: I knowing it's been struggle.
Speaker 5: I don't know you've had some pain.
Speaker 6: You feeling tied.
Speaker 7: Hell down all the way?
Speaker 8: Yeah, I know you feeling.
Speaker 6: You smile ain't the same.
Speaker 4: As we go from you.
Speaker 1: I feel like.
Speaker 9: You've lost your way. Don't give up, No, don't give
Speaker 9: it and never is home. Don't let call the primise.
Speaker 1: It ain't done yet he's gone up?
Speaker 6: Lad? Why it's away time?
Speaker 8: Got up?
Speaker 6: May we come?
Speaker 9: Why a fright god MC.
Speaker 5: I can see the street beside you. Child's are putting
Speaker 5: up five. Oh, you're stronger than any thing you. Yeah,
Speaker 5: you're gonna be all right. You're accepting a dead found.
Speaker 1: Beautiful.
Speaker 5: You're shoving ride.
Speaker 6: Yeah, you're living, breathing, move.
Speaker 5: You can hold your head a hide.
Speaker 7: Don't give up. No, don't give in, never loss home.
Speaker 7: Don't let go on the primies. It ain't done.
Speaker 1: Yet's God up?
Speaker 6: Lad?
Speaker 7: Why some waintel the god of maby come, don't give up? No,
Speaker 7: don't give in you never love home. Don't let go
Speaker 7: on the primies. It ain't God life, it's worth living.
Speaker 7: W's a way town, the god of baby court?
Speaker 8: Why sur pray down? Got up baby colt? Oh yes,
Speaker 8: what's a place down?
Speaker 9: The god up? Baby call?
Speaker 8: Oh yeah you got even.
Speaker 4: God, don't give up, No, don't give in, never lose home,
Speaker 4: don't let go.
Speaker 6: Of the primise.
Speaker 9: I mean and done.
Speaker 4: Yea's got a planning watch and do.
Speaker 1: The kid of even costs.
Speaker 4: And don't give up. No dog giving whatever the hold dog.
Speaker 2: They go of the crimes.
Speaker 1: It ain't done lover's.
Speaker 4: Worv in wats and die.
Speaker 6: The God of every cos, oh, the god of need gos.
Speaker 4: Wat's done, the God of it cos.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Fact Hunter Radio network.
Speaker 6: Just the facts, ma'mmy mm hm