Speaker 1: Oh red des Are, Hello, and welcome to the show.
Speaker 2: This is the Cult of Conspiracy, and my name is Jonathan.
Speaker 2: I'm Jacob Jacob let the good Cult members in on
Speaker 2: a little secret about what we're gonna be talking about today, sir.
Speaker 1: So before we started shooting, I was actually watching the
Speaker 1: live press conference that's going on right now. It's all
Speaker 1: about the UFO disclosure. And they've got these experts, some
Speaker 1: of the names you might recognize, some of the names
Speaker 1: I didn't recognize at first, and they are grilling them
Speaker 1: on do you believe that the United States government has
Speaker 1: a recovery program to recover crashed extraterrestrial ships and things
Speaker 1: like this. Every single one of them said yes, I
Speaker 1: might add, and then they said for what purpose? And
Speaker 1: every one of them said, I would have to have
Speaker 1: that conversation with you in a closed session, and all this,
Speaker 1: this and this, and one of the dudes, one of
Speaker 1: the congressmen or whatever that was up on the stage
Speaker 1: was like, see, people are getting real frustrated with these
Speaker 1: types of answers.
Speaker 3: So all of you know what we're up against right now.
Speaker 1: It's becoming more and more prevalent that people, regardless of
Speaker 1: your opinions on the shape of the Earth, regardless of
Speaker 1: your opinions on whatever religious.
Speaker 3: Deity you tend to lean towards.
Speaker 1: Whatever case, right, the UFO or UAP or USP whatever,
Speaker 1: the flying and submersible crafts that are doing things that
Speaker 1: humans cannot replicate, that are coming from somewhere else. This
Speaker 1: conversation is becoming more and more and more a surface
Speaker 1: level thing or coming from somewhen else, fine, fine, interdimensional
Speaker 1: in her timeline, in her planetary whatever the case. That's
Speaker 1: no longer a fringe theory. Twenty years ago, that was
Speaker 1: a fringe theory.
Speaker 3: Still.
Speaker 1: It was more acceptable than it was in the seventies
Speaker 1: by any means, but it was. It was getting more popular,
Speaker 1: but it was still considered a fringe theory. Right, brother,
Speaker 1: This is no longer a fringe theory, not even a
Speaker 1: little bit.
Speaker 2: You know what, as far as the interdimensional stuff, just
Speaker 2: as far as like my understanding of you know, hermeticism
Speaker 2: and pantheism and shit like that, and then you know
Speaker 2: all the different spiritual things that I love looking into
Speaker 2: you on meta, dude, Whenever they say that something could
Speaker 2: be coming from another dimension, I think that it's highly
Speaker 2: possible and probably most likely that that's just just happening
Speaker 2: right here, bro Like, it's happening right here, like and
Speaker 2: I don't what I mean by rate here is like
Speaker 2: you know, they say that we only have access to
Speaker 2: be we can only see what point three or point
Speaker 2: oh one percent of the color spectrum, and so we
Speaker 2: don't have access to be able to see this shit
Speaker 2: that is all around us all the time, whether you
Speaker 2: believe it's spirit.
Speaker 1: Guides or deities or whatever it is.
Speaker 2: We could be literally talking about other civilizations who are
Speaker 2: existing right in front of our face, but we just
Speaker 2: don't have, you know, the the faculties to be able
Speaker 2: to look at them and see them in that kind
Speaker 2: of stuff. Now, I know that that gets kind of weird,
Speaker 2: but we're also talking about dimensional overlay. So when you're
Speaker 2: talking about a different dimension, it's like you're not going
Speaker 2: to pick up on one oh two point five on
Speaker 2: the radio if you're on ninety eight point one.
Speaker 1: It's like that, you know what I'm saying. I think
Speaker 1: that it's probably something like that, that it's all just
Speaker 1: one big ass shared space and we just don't have
Speaker 1: the faculties to be able to understand what the hell
Speaker 1: is going on. Over there, and I agree with that
Speaker 1: statement for the record, however, for the conversation for this evening,
Speaker 1: and I am not detracting to say that interdimensional life
Speaker 1: is not tearing through the veil and coming to our
Speaker 1: existence and back and forth that both that could be
Speaker 1: both for sure completely can be happening also, But for
Speaker 1: this conversation, so we're going to talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about the first confirmed intergalactic for lack of better words,
Speaker 1: let's call it an object as of this moment that
Speaker 1: came into our forefront in twenty seventeen. So let's dive
Speaker 1: a little bit into a mua mua And yes, that
Speaker 1: sounds like a Polynesian or Hawaiian name. It is, and
Speaker 1: we're going to talk about why was named after a
Speaker 1: Hawaiian thing and why specifically a mua mua was chosen,
Speaker 1: because that's very very specific.
Speaker 3: To call this this object, for lack of.
Speaker 1: Better words, what does that translate to? Can you can
Speaker 1: you say that we're gonna.
Speaker 3: Get to we're gonna get to I don't.
Speaker 1: I want to give it away, no spoilers just yet,
Speaker 1: but let's just say it is extremely uh.
Speaker 3: I think it's a bit on the nose personally, but
Speaker 3: we'll get there.
Speaker 2: You know, with all that symbolism, it is weird how
Speaker 2: they are so symbolic. And we did a whole episode
Speaker 2: on the the symbolism of the days and you know,
Speaker 2: the rockets and all that kind of shit. But even
Speaker 2: like if you don't believe in that kind of stuff,
Speaker 2: like you know, just and we've talked about it before,
Speaker 2: but one of von Braun having the psalms you know,
Speaker 2: verse on his on his tombstone talking about the firmament,
Speaker 2: it just makes you wonder, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: And I'm not necessarily somebody that believes that we live
Speaker 2: in an enclosed dome. I don't believe that, but you know,
Speaker 2: it's it's interesting, like what was he alluding to with that?
Speaker 2: Of all things that you put? What do you mean
Speaker 2: by that? You know what I'm saying, that's that's kind
Speaker 2: of shit.
Speaker 3: That agree? I agree. Now.
Speaker 1: The reason why I'm saying that we're gonna kind of
Speaker 1: sidestep the interimensional conversation as far as this episode goes,
Speaker 1: is because the object a muamua, came from way out
Speaker 1: they believe from a different galaxy. If not, they know
Speaker 1: for sure a different solar system altogether. It came from
Speaker 1: another Uh you know, the son is a star, right,
Speaker 1: and that star is the center focal point for our
Speaker 1: solar system, for our planetary orbits.
Speaker 3: That we have going on.
Speaker 1: A Muamua absolutely came from a completely different solar system,
Speaker 1: and we honestly don't know how far away and how
Speaker 1: long it was traveling to get to us.
Speaker 2: Okay, another solar system, as in like a system that
Speaker 2: had its own son.
Speaker 1: You mean, yeah, yeah, okay.
Speaker 2: Sorry, that probably sounded really retarded by me saying that,
Speaker 2: but I'm just trying to make sure.
Speaker 1: It But it very well could have been from another galaxy.
Speaker 3: We're outside of the Milky Way. Now.
Speaker 1: We don't know that for sure, but we know absolutely
Speaker 1: beyond any shadow of a doubt, it didn't come from
Speaker 1: our system.
Speaker 3: It didn't come from our set that we have.
Speaker 1: Right when it came, it passed relatively close to the Earth,
Speaker 1: and it was going about one hundred and thirty thousand
Speaker 1: miles per hour. Now, things traveling fast in space, that happens. Sure,
Speaker 1: Haley's comet goes fast as fuck, but it's also a
Speaker 1: part of our solar system. It makes its loop every
Speaker 1: seventy six years, give or take. I'm a little fuzzy
Speaker 1: on that personal detail, but we know for sure that
Speaker 1: it is making its revolution around our sun. Okay, for
Speaker 1: this to be going that fast already is an anomaly.
Speaker 1: Then the fact that it's sped up. It passed by
Speaker 1: our Earth, got closer to our Sun, curved, hooked around it,
Speaker 1: and then took off, going even faster than it did before.
Speaker 3: Now is it supposed to be like? Is it like?
Speaker 1: How is it going fast though?
Speaker 2: Is it repelling off of some stars gravity or is
Speaker 2: there some kind of propellant of sorts.
Speaker 1: We don't know. And that's the part that kills me,
Speaker 1: especially about a muamu. We're gonna get to Atlas here
Speaker 1: in a moment, the thing that's coming at us right now.
Speaker 3: But the thing that kills me about a muamua.
Speaker 1: So this thing was going that fast, and it was
Speaker 1: making a direct line towards our Sun. It passed by
Speaker 1: Earth on its way to the Sun. Okay, cool the
Speaker 1: Sun being the gravitational center of our solar system, you
Speaker 1: would think that it would have either a gone into
Speaker 1: the Sun or gotten trapped in our orbit in some way,
Speaker 1: shape or form. Bro It basically slingshot around the Sun
Speaker 1: and then didn't lose any speed by making that hard
Speaker 1: banking maneuver.
Speaker 3: If anything, it like doubled in speed.
Speaker 1: And what the fuck off, it's already past our sun.
Speaker 1: You're saying, Oh, yeah, no, this happened. It was only
Speaker 1: in view for like a week, and that was in
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen. Did it went past the sun? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Brother, So this bit's gotta be getting close. You would
Speaker 2: think one hundred and thirty thousand miles an hour.
Speaker 3: Oh no, it's it's gone gone. She she gone gone.
Speaker 2: She also so okay, So this wasn't something that was
Speaker 2: supposed to like crash into Earth.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, no.
Speaker 1: But my point is though we have had nothing throughout
Speaker 1: any recorded human history. I'm not gonna say ever because
Speaker 1: if the Earth is allegedly four point six billion years
Speaker 1: old and all the blah blah blah blah blah, right,
Speaker 1: we don't know beyond what we have for written history, right,
Speaker 1: But as far as our recollection of human history, this
Speaker 1: is the first time we've ever had an object come
Speaker 1: from that far out come by us that fast go
Speaker 1: to the Sun and then take off even faster away
Speaker 1: from the gravitational center of our.
Speaker 3: Solar system, which defies all logic.
Speaker 1: Now there's a couple of theories that have been proposed
Speaker 1: as to how it started taking off even faster, but
Speaker 1: we don't know what was making it go the way
Speaker 1: that it was going. I got a lot of articles
Speaker 1: pulled up and some videos are going to talk about
Speaker 1: a muahmua, and then we're gonna talk about the Atlas three,
Speaker 1: okay or three to one, depending on if that's the
Speaker 1: Roman numeral for one or whatever.
Speaker 3: I've seen it written both ways.
Speaker 1: The Atlas object is another very interesting one because it's
Speaker 1: coming even faster than a muamua did. It's supposed to
Speaker 1: pass between the Earth and Mars on its way towards
Speaker 1: the Sun, and we don't actually know what it's going
Speaker 1: to do once it gets here. As of this moment,
Speaker 1: they don't believe it's going to hit Earth. But the
Speaker 1: thing is, it wasn't coming towards us. It was going
Speaker 1: alongside our solar system. Because again going off of the
Speaker 1: narrative of science saying that all of the planets in
Speaker 1: the Sun are corkscrewing through space and all these things.
Speaker 1: Just for the sake of conversation, just bear with me, right,
Speaker 1: it was going parallel to our trajectory through space, then
Speaker 1: out of nowhere, made a hard ninety degree turn and
Speaker 1: has now started coming at us.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, that's what I got confused with. The second
Speaker 2: one is coming at us. I got you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so, but I didn't want to just talk about
Speaker 1: the atlas. I want to talk about at least that
Speaker 1: little bit of historical precedence that we have.
Speaker 3: But dude, the historical precedence is twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1: This is not like, oh, way back when when we
Speaker 1: didn't have the technology to see this or whatever.
Speaker 3: No, this was just a few years ago.
Speaker 1: This was three years before you and me started podcasting together,
Speaker 1: right right. I did want to say this too, just
Speaker 1: to throw it out there. I want to see what
Speaker 1: you think about this.
Speaker 2: So people always assume that aliens are like, you know,
Speaker 2: like animal type beings. Right, maybe they're fucking mantises, or
Speaker 2: maybe they're cats, or maybe they're you know, other blue
Speaker 2: humans or something like that, or maybe they're the perfect
Speaker 2: pleadians that are, you know, with the perfect blonde hair
Speaker 2: and the blue eyes and stuff like that. I often
Speaker 2: wonder like, is it not possible for I don't know,
Speaker 2: a fucking gigantic asteroid to have some sort of sentience.
Speaker 2: There'sen movies about that kind of shit, like if you Damn.
Speaker 2: I can't remember what her name was, But there was
Speaker 2: a movie where like this giant fucking I don't even
Speaker 2: know what it was, some giant rock looking thing came
Speaker 2: and landed on Earth. It was a movie came out
Speaker 2: like three or four years ago, but it landed on
Speaker 2: Earth and it was like communicating with the humans that
Speaker 2: stepped into it, which you know what I'm saying, Like
Speaker 2: as far as aliens go, like that would be alien alien,
Speaker 2: you know what I mean. That's how I would think
Speaker 2: about it.
Speaker 1: I'm with you, And that's the thing right to say
Speaker 1: that we have no concept of what for lack of
Speaker 1: better words, an alien would look like little green men,
Speaker 1: super tall human looking creatures, fucking u clandathu insectoids, like
Speaker 1: we have no conttle are they ethereal beings?
Speaker 3: Light beings?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 1: And we couldn't even see them in our sun because
Speaker 1: they would get bleached out by the sunlight. We could
Speaker 1: only see them at night, like we who who knows
Speaker 1: just the concept of even light beings in general? Like
Speaker 1: I said, with the color spectrum earlier, like everything that
Speaker 1: we can't see would essentially be a light being right,
Speaker 1: possibly like that, they're absolutely I'm with you, right unless
Speaker 1: it falls within the spectrum of roy GBIBV, we wouldn't
Speaker 1: even be able to perceive what we're trying to look at.
Speaker 3: But that's the thing. So to say that, possibly.
Speaker 1: Like an asteroid is a craft for this type of entity.
Speaker 1: It might look like an asteroid to us, and if
Speaker 1: you were to step on to it, they could like
Speaker 1: communicate with us inside. Like, I don't know, there's nothing
Speaker 1: but open ended hypotheticals on this one, and no theory
Speaker 1: is any greater or less credible than the other. I'm
Speaker 1: so happy I rocked the alien fucking Hawaiian today.
Speaker 4: Bro.
Speaker 3: Like it was just something in me that was like.
Speaker 1: Put this baby on it. It's gonna be for a reason,
Speaker 1: you know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that was a good choice. That that was a
Speaker 3: clutch move right there.
Speaker 1: All right, So first video I got is gonna be
Speaker 1: a little three minute long from History Channel as a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, and I'm just gonna talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about mumamuha.
Speaker 3: It's a three minute video.
Speaker 1: Nothing crazy here, but this is going to kickstart our
Speaker 1: conversation and on them. For anybody who would like to
Speaker 1: see what we are talking about rather than just hear
Speaker 1: about it, where can they.
Speaker 2: Go Patreon dot com slash Cult of Conspiracy Podcast. That
Speaker 2: is the best way on earth and in all of
Speaker 2: reality and all the all the different paradigms and and
Speaker 2: all the things that it's good. It's Patreon dot com
Speaker 2: slash Cult of Conspiracy Podcast. Come check us out over there.
Speaker 2: We're posting multiple obviously, y'all know, multiple multiple, multiple, multiple
Speaker 2: episodes per week. And if you want to be able
Speaker 2: to see the video, that's the only place that you'll
Speaker 2: be able to you want to be able to slide
Speaker 2: into our dms, I'm sorry, but our TikTok, our Twitter,
Speaker 2: and our Instagram, there is not enough time, even if
Speaker 2: time stopped, to be able to go and answer those
Speaker 2: on a daily basis, even if it was on a
Speaker 2: monthly basis. It is just too much. And I get it,
Speaker 2: you know, everybody wants to be involved and send us
Speaker 2: things and and and from time to time we do
Speaker 2: get the time to be able to look into some
Speaker 2: of those, but it's just too much.
Speaker 1: It's a flood.
Speaker 2: And so if you want to be able to get
Speaker 2: directly noticed and directly answered. Patreon would be the best
Speaker 2: place to be able to go and uh and be
Speaker 2: able to have that conversation with us. That being said,
Speaker 2: we also have we have another tier that that's the
Speaker 2: five dollars tier. You want everything that I just named,
Speaker 2: that's the five dollars tier. If you want to have
Speaker 2: a little bit more access and join us every Tuesday
Speaker 2: night at nine pm Central for the Cult Member Live show,
Speaker 2: then you join the third Eye all the Way Open
Speaker 2: tier and come hang out with your favorites. It doesn't
Speaker 2: matter like you listen to them every Wednesday, it is.
Speaker 2: It is always the live show that's coming out. You
Speaker 2: want to be able to come and listen to everybody,
Speaker 2: join in on the conversation, put your two cents in,
Speaker 2: or you just want to be able to soak in
Speaker 2: the Cult of Conspiracy fucking ambiance, then come hang out
Speaker 2: with us every Tuesday night at nine pm Central. But
Speaker 2: let's just be real, the main reason why you go
Speaker 2: to Patreon is because it is the only place where
Speaker 2: our shows are completely Thah yeah, buddy, So I know
Speaker 2: ads are a pain of the fucking ass. I get it,
Speaker 2: but that's how we make a living. Unfortunately, if there
Speaker 2: was another way for us to make a living doing
Speaker 2: this show, we would do it. But that's why we
Speaker 2: ask for your support of our Patreon and we appreciate
Speaker 2: all the good cult members who have done so.
Speaker 1: Indeed, all right, without any further ado, let's learn about
Speaker 1: the wild events that took place in twenty seventeen with
Speaker 1: this inexplicable object.
Speaker 3: Let's go.
Speaker 5: October nineteenth, twenty seventeen, the Hawaiian island of Maui. Here,
Speaker 5: perched atapa ten thousand foot summit, stands the Holly Akalau Observatory.
Speaker 6: Astronomers using the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System
Speaker 6: or pan stars detect a mysterious object traveling at high
Speaker 6: speed through our solar system. The trajectory of this object
Speaker 6: is unlike any that has ever been seen before.
Speaker 7: That was in charge of coordinating the observing to characterize
Speaker 7: the object, the object was discovered and at that point
Speaker 7: there were images taken that showed an object moving rapidly
Speaker 7: with respect to the stars. The stars are individual dots
Speaker 7: of light and this object was a street, so they
Speaker 7: knew it was moving fast. But that point they started
Speaker 7: to compute an orbit to try and understand what this
Speaker 7: object was. This was a really dramatic difference from what
Speaker 7: had been seen previously.
Speaker 5: The object was found or of a highly unusual hyperbolic orbit,
Speaker 5: suggesting that it was traveling at such a high rate
Speaker 5: of speed that it was not being pulled into a
Speaker 5: more circular orbit by the force of gravity.
Speaker 7: Everything in the Solar systems either on a circular or
Speaker 7: an elliptical or it. Yeah, this was a particularly exciting
Speaker 7: observation because we had never seen anything like this come
Speaker 7: through the Solar System.
Speaker 5: The object, which was classified as an asteroid and named
Speaker 5: Omua moua, a Hawaiian word meaning scout or messenger, is
Speaker 5: the first object of its kind to be officially recognized
Speaker 5: as interstellar.
Speaker 1: They're real quick, we're gonna get back to the video,
Speaker 1: but I do want to make mention this scout or
Speaker 1: messager from Afar. There's another translation that says messenger from
Speaker 1: the past. Thought you might get a kick out of that.
Speaker 2: Well, you can also take it the extra mile and
Speaker 2: just call that bad boy ello fucking' heme.
Speaker 1: I mean possibly right and star shaped. I mean yeah,
Speaker 1: but that's the thing. It didn't communicate with us, right
Speaker 1: and we're gonna talk more about that too. There were
Speaker 1: some attempts to try to make contact with it, but
Speaker 1: again it was moving so fast that we only had
Speaker 1: about a one week window to really get any kind
Speaker 1: of observing done on the object. Right, it's the only
Speaker 1: object to ever have the EYE classification by its name,
Speaker 1: meaning interstellar. At first they were going to name it
Speaker 1: A was it A twenty seven for asteroid? Then they thought, well,
Speaker 1: though it doesn't have the characteristics of an asteroid, it
Speaker 1: doesn't have this tail going behind hery, this must be
Speaker 1: a comet, because those are the only two things that
Speaker 1: we have, right, So then they gave it the C
Speaker 1: twenty seven classification or whatever. Then they realize that, no,
Speaker 1: this is not an asteroid. It is certainly not a
Speaker 1: comet or a meteorriter any of these things. It is
Speaker 1: from something outside of our solar system. It is, as
Speaker 1: of now to date, the only thing that has the
Speaker 1: classification of I for interstellar. Interesting.
Speaker 2: You know what makes me wonder like this can't be
Speaker 2: the only anomaly that is happening out in space within
Speaker 2: our reach on a daily.
Speaker 1: Basis, You know what I'm saying. Do you think that.
Speaker 2: Like maybe this got out or why would they tell
Speaker 2: us about this? Is this just the only anomaly that
Speaker 2: ever happens out in space that we were able to observe.
Speaker 3: This was the first that we were able to observe.
Speaker 1: And that's the thing I'm not saying that we didn't
Speaker 1: have stuff like this happened in the fifteen hundreds.
Speaker 3: I don't know, we didn't have.
Speaker 1: The capability to get a good look at it, see
Speaker 1: it coming in and start breaking down what this means
Speaker 1: based off of what kind of light reflection we're getting
Speaker 1: off of it? How fast is that really going in
Speaker 1: the night sky? How do we even quantify that kind
Speaker 1: of speed? They didn't they didn't have the metrics for
Speaker 1: that back.
Speaker 2: Then, right right, Well, yeah, it's I don't know. I'm
Speaker 2: just I'm talking about even within the last seventy five years,
Speaker 2: you know what I'm saying, just as far as technology goes, Like,
Speaker 2: I don't know, I mean, I have such a mistrust
Speaker 2: with all of our government and everything that's attached to it,
Speaker 2: including NASA obviously, But I don't know. I just and
Speaker 2: I'm not I'm you know, me like I'm totally on
Speaker 2: the fence about what planets are and what space is
Speaker 2: in this kind of stuff, and so my mind is
Speaker 2: going in all different kind of directions. But for the
Speaker 2: purpose of this episode, I'm going to be thinking as
Speaker 2: if space is real, planets are solid you know, circles
Speaker 2: or spheres rather and yeah, so in that frame of reference,
Speaker 2: I guess this would be a weird thing anomaly.
Speaker 1: It is a one in a humankind type of anomaly,
Speaker 1: like I said, as far as we know for written
Speaker 1: human history. And yes, I agree that NASA lies to
Speaker 1: us about a lot. I'm fully on board with that,
Speaker 1: But I also think they're a lot more forthright with
Speaker 1: us than we want to give them credit for. But
Speaker 1: I also think that they're taking stabs in the dark
Speaker 1: figuratively and literally to try to give answers to the
Speaker 1: unanswerable a lot of the time. And this is why
Speaker 1: the realm of like physics and theoretical physics it gets
Speaker 1: so murky, because they are literally taking stabs in the
Speaker 1: dark with what they can mathematically quantify for things we
Speaker 1: haven't even built up the concept of yet. So like
Speaker 1: this object coming through you saw its flight path, right,
Speaker 1: it was going so fast that it wasn't being affected
Speaker 1: by even the gravity of the Sun. It was around it,
Speaker 1: and as soon as it got by the Sun, it
Speaker 1: was going like one hundred and thirty thousand miles per
Speaker 1: hour kilometers per hour. I forget the one. We'll read
Speaker 1: more about it here in a bit. When it went
Speaker 1: around the Sun, it took off going damn near two hundred. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's picking up some speed.
Speaker 2: Do we know the average speed of an asteroid or
Speaker 2: a comet or something like that?
Speaker 1: Is it that much more than what this would be?
Speaker 1: I don't have it pulled up, But you know what,
Speaker 1: matter of fact, while I'm playing this video, google what
Speaker 1: they think the.
Speaker 3: Speed of Haley's comet is?
Speaker 7: Right?
Speaker 1: That is, in our solar system, it's making its elliptrical path.
Speaker 1: It comes around Earth every seventy six years. They have
Speaker 1: to have a quantifiable number to how fast that's going.
Speaker 3: But you know, I don't know off top.
Speaker 2: That would be Haley's comment travels at varying speeds depending
Speaker 2: on its position and its orbit, reaching about thirty three
Speaker 2: point seven to seven miles per second, so and it
Speaker 2: slows down to about a half a mile per second.
Speaker 2: Now you're talking about per second, that's not per hour.
Speaker 2: So that's still hauling some ass. Ye, But yeah, this
Speaker 2: thing is way faster than even Haley's comment at that point.
Speaker 1: So thirty three miles per second is what it said
Speaker 1: as fastest, right, okay, that time sixty.
Speaker 3: That's sixty okay. So I'm trying to think what that
Speaker 3: would be in the miles per hour.
Speaker 2: You know what, I can't even let me see, yeah,
Speaker 2: because I'm really curious about what that speed actually would be.
Speaker 2: So that would be thirty three thirty three point seven
Speaker 2: seven times sixty times sixty.
Speaker 1: So you said that this object was flying at one
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty thousand miles and then and then it
Speaker 1: got up to two hundred thousand miles an hour.
Speaker 3: We're gonna read more in the article, but yeah.
Speaker 2: So Haley's comment at its fastest, as it said right here,
Speaker 2: reaching about thirty three point seven seven miles per second,
Speaker 2: would be one hundred and twenty one thousand miles per hour. Okay,
Speaker 2: So this thing is faster than even Haley's comment.
Speaker 3: Damn.
Speaker 1: Okay, about nine thousand miles more per hour, which I
Speaker 1: know that like on the spectrum of what we just said,
Speaker 1: that doesn't sound like a lot. That's nine thousand miles
Speaker 1: per hour faster. That's substantial, ye know, that's pretty fucking quick.
Speaker 3: Yeah, right, And that's the thing Haley's comment.
Speaker 1: It's making its loop based off of the gravity and
Speaker 1: based off of its the gravity off of the Sun,
Speaker 1: right the same way that the Earth is going around
Speaker 1: at a certain speed, the same way that Mars is
Speaker 1: going around at a certain speed.
Speaker 3: That's what's giving Haley's commet is propulsion.
Speaker 1: This object had no signs of what was giving its propulsion.
Speaker 1: And when we hear more about it later, it wasn't
Speaker 1: going in a straight line.
Speaker 3: It was tumbling.
Speaker 1: It was spinning like it was a football going through
Speaker 1: a spiral, and it was tumbling through the air as well,
Speaker 1: and it was teeter tottering at the same time. How
Speaker 1: could that possibly give you leverage for speed? I bro
Speaker 1: I'm telling you they could tell the speed based off
Speaker 1: of how fast it was moving from point A to
Speaker 1: point B in the sky. Sure, But but as far
Speaker 1: as like, they don't know how it was being pushed.
Speaker 2: What I'm saying is is that you know, the if
Speaker 2: you're trying to throw the football as fast and as
Speaker 2: hard and as far as you possibly can, you want
Speaker 2: to try and have the best spiral you can imagine
Speaker 2: on it, Right, Like it's that's the most aerodynamic that
Speaker 2: a football can be is whenever it's thrown in a spiral. Now,
Speaker 2: obviously this thing is not football shaped to shape like
Speaker 2: a giant Johnson, and we're.
Speaker 1: Gonna talk about that too. Because they thought it was
Speaker 1: cigar shaped. Then more research and more clearer images showed
Speaker 1: that it was what some might call disc shaped.
Speaker 2: Oh, let's go, all right, yeah, before we even you know, uh,
Speaker 2: dive in anymore, I want to learn more about this.
Speaker 3: All right, all right, let's go.
Speaker 4: An asteroid was discovered coming into our solar system. Let
Speaker 4: that sink in. An asteroid was discovered coming into our
Speaker 4: solar system from where, we don't know. It just came
Speaker 4: from outside our solar system, meaning it's from a different
Speaker 4: star system somewhere else. That's historic that we've actually seen it.
Speaker 4: We now know objects can travel from one star system
Speaker 4: to another.
Speaker 5: Researchers engaged in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence or setting
Speaker 5: were intrigued not only by Omua MUI's origins, but also
Speaker 5: by its unusual shape.
Speaker 8: It had a very funny shape, shaped like a cigar.
Speaker 8: You know, it's maybe five or ten times as long
Speaker 8: as it is across. No asteroid that we know of
Speaker 8: looks like a cigar. Inevitably that where people say, well,
Speaker 8: are you sure it's a rock? Maybe there's somebody inside
Speaker 8: this thing, maybe they've come to visit.
Speaker 4: Now, if I were gonna build a spaceship, there's gonna
Speaker 4: take hundreds of years or maybe thousands or millions of
Speaker 4: years ago from one start to another. I would start
Speaker 4: by finding a big asteroid that I like, that had
Speaker 4: all the minerals on it, and I would use that
Speaker 4: and just turn it into the ship I.
Speaker 3: Wanted, which is also not a crazy conclusion.
Speaker 1: You use what they got at that point. Yeah, If
Speaker 1: asteroids are made out of all these different types of metals,
Speaker 1: which they are, right, there's nickel, there's iron, there's all
Speaker 1: these things on there, it would stand to reason that
Speaker 1: you would find kind of think have you ever seen
Speaker 1: flint napping?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 1: Yeah, like how you would take a rock and you
Speaker 1: would chip that away to turn it into a bleed.
Speaker 1: My dad was an eagle scout, of course, I've seen that.
Speaker 1: There you go, Okay, So it would stand to reason
Speaker 1: that somebody, rather than building a craft from the ground up,
Speaker 1: would find something already out in space that they could
Speaker 1: use for this purpose. Now I'm not saying that that's
Speaker 1: exactly what this was or not. I'm saying that that
Speaker 1: is not a crazy hypothetical to throw on to the table.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, man, I'm trying to think, like and it
Speaker 2: makes you almost wonder, you know, like here we are
Speaker 2: using our propulsion system to try and get from A
Speaker 2: to B as fast as we can, and meanwhile, this
Speaker 2: thing has no propulsion system and it's going faster than
Speaker 2: anything we could ever even imagine to create.
Speaker 1: Right, and just so we're all clear, here Atlas is
Speaker 1: coming at us faster. But all right, so the how
Speaker 1: would you even say that?
Speaker 5: One I?
Speaker 1: What's the word? So this is the one I designation
Speaker 1: would be the first interstellar designation. Right, Whenever we have
Speaker 1: a comet or a meteor or an asteroid, they get
Speaker 1: an A or a C designation and there's a number
Speaker 1: associated with it because it's like the fifty fifth discovery
Speaker 1: of a comet and that's fifty five C, and then
Speaker 1: they name it or something like that, like Haley's comment
Speaker 1: has a designation like this, it's a number and a C.
Speaker 1: One I is because it is the first ever interstellar
Speaker 1: it's the only one before Atlas ever was a thing.
Speaker 1: Umuama was the only interstellar designation that we have on
Speaker 1: record on Earth period.
Speaker 2: Okay, so Omuamua was the one that passed back in
Speaker 2: twenty seventeen. And what just to clarify, what is the
Speaker 2: one that's coming at us now called Atlas Atlas? Okay,
Speaker 2: I just didn't want to confuse those all right, so
Speaker 2: one eyed slash. Amuama is the first confirmed interstellar object
Speaker 2: detected passing through the Solar System, formally designated one I
Speaker 2: twenty seventeen U one. It was discovered by the Canadian
Speaker 2: Robert work Sure using the Pan Star's telescope at Oh God,
Speaker 2: I need to take the glasses off for this, because
Speaker 2: that it's.
Speaker 1: A Hawaiian word that there's so many syllables Hala Kalikaka
Speaker 1: Observatory in Hawaii on October nineteen, twenty seventeen, approximately forty
Speaker 1: days after it passed its closest point to the Sun
Speaker 1: on September ninth. When it was first observed, it was
Speaker 1: about thirty three million kilometers or twenty one million miles
Speaker 1: for America units from the Earth, about eighty five times
Speaker 1: as far away as the Moon, and already heading away
Speaker 1: from the Sun. Amuamua is a small object estimated to
Speaker 1: be between one hundred and one thousand meters or three
Speaker 1: hundred and three thousand American feet long, with its width
Speaker 1: and thickness both estimated between thirty five I'm not even
Speaker 1: reading meters and all that bullshit, one hundred and fifteen
Speaker 1: to five hundred and forty eight feet real quick, real quick.
Speaker 1: Just so we're all clear here. It was discovered after
Speaker 1: it had already passed the sun. They didn't even see
Speaker 1: it coming towards the Sun. They only realized what it
Speaker 1: was after it had jettisoned from the Sun. Then they
Speaker 1: went back and started looking at the recordings from the
Speaker 1: sky in the days prior to find out where the
Speaker 1: fuck it came from.
Speaker 3: So just so we're all clear here.
Speaker 1: It was going so fast that no one actually picked
Speaker 1: up on it until it already gone and done most
Speaker 1: of the work.
Speaker 3: It's mind blowing, dude.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're not gonna prepare for something like this, you
Speaker 2: know what I'm saying. Like, First of all, if something
Speaker 2: like this was to smash into us, I mean, it's
Speaker 2: a pretty sizable object. I feel like it would do
Speaker 2: some damage. And there's not really gonna be any way
Speaker 2: of getting out of harm's way, because I goes, how
Speaker 2: would you know exactly? I mean, I guess by the speed,
Speaker 2: you'd be able to determine what time of day it
Speaker 2: would be, and therefore, what you know, surface of the
Speaker 2: earth is pointing towards the sun, in which it's the
Speaker 2: direction that it's coming from. Maybe you'd be able to
Speaker 2: do a little math like that. Damn, that might have
Speaker 2: been one of the smartest things I've ever said. Very
Speaker 2: accurate though, very good. But but yeah, I mean, I
Speaker 2: guess that's how you would maybe observe that. But even still,
Speaker 2: you're you're done. You you just got to hope that
Speaker 2: whenever that thing comes around, it's nighttime on where you're living.
Speaker 1: Essentially, And that's the thing that's the arguably the conversation
Speaker 1: is to what killed the dinosaurs? Right, And I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that it was a meteor impact. However, a metter
Speaker 1: impact of something very large, like for instance, the atlas
Speaker 1: that's coming our way is supposed to be twice the
Speaker 1: size of Everest, Right, it's basically the side of Manhattan
Speaker 1: Islands smacking into us. If it was to hit us,
Speaker 1: that would realistically put us in a nuclear winter.
Speaker 3: You know what, I don't.
Speaker 2: I mean, maybe this has been talked about before. And
Speaker 2: I'm not a believer in dinosaurs personally, that's just my
Speaker 2: own thing. But let's just say that there were dinosaurs
Speaker 2: and there was a meteor impact that caused their extinction.
Speaker 2: Would it be that crazy that the crater that it
Speaker 2: left would be the Grand Canyon? I mean, isn't that
Speaker 2: the fucking biggest like, I mean, yeah, it's not. I
Speaker 2: don't know if they think that it's some kind of
Speaker 2: asteroid impact zone or whatever. I know that they say
Speaker 2: that it's from water and shit like that, but how
Speaker 2: do you know, you.
Speaker 3: Know, right?
Speaker 1: I mean, there are crater impacts on Earth that we
Speaker 1: can log, you know what I mean, and we can
Speaker 1: backtrack and show that this is what happened.
Speaker 3: Here's about when it hit these things? Cool?
Speaker 1: Cool the Grand can and being positively like the skid
Speaker 1: mark if you will, like the the You know, when
Speaker 1: you see like a plane crash into somewhere, it doesn't
Speaker 1: just like hard stop, it fucking skirts the ground for
Speaker 1: a bit, right? Could that have been what the Grand
Speaker 1: Canyon is for a giant asteroid.
Speaker 3: It's very possible. I suppose.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I always found it weird that for like asteroid zones,
Speaker 2: like and I don't know, I might be stupid whenever
Speaker 2: I say this, but like typically whenever you see like
Speaker 2: asteroid impact zones and you see the crater that they leave,
Speaker 2: is that is the asteroid just so burrowed into the
Speaker 2: ground that you're not even able to observe it anymore.
Speaker 2: And that's why most of the time you don't ever
Speaker 2: see them.
Speaker 3: It usually burns up on impact. Right.
Speaker 1: So whenever something's in space, there is no oxygen right there,
Speaker 1: there is no heat in space.
Speaker 3: And we've talked about this a good bit too.
Speaker 1: People believe that, like the Sun's rays are, there's nothing
Speaker 1: stopping them in space, so you be like torched alive.
Speaker 1: But somehow all the movies show that you'll freeze to
Speaker 1: death in space. Here's the problem with the way he
Speaker 1: heat transfers. Okay, water boils at two hundred and twelve
Speaker 1: degrees fahrenheit on Earth. Okay, if you were to go
Speaker 1: to your oven right now and set it to two
Speaker 1: hundred and twelve degrees right and let it be there
Speaker 1: for a couple hours, let it get good, and two
Speaker 1: hundred and twelve up in that bitch and stick your
Speaker 1: hand in there. It'll be uncomfortable, but you'll be fine, right,
Speaker 1: because heat transfers through air in a certain way. Now,
Speaker 1: take a pot of water and boil it. It will
Speaker 1: be two hundred and twelve degrees. Stick your hand in that.
Speaker 1: It's going to fucking fry you because water transfers heat
Speaker 1: a lot better than air. Okay, So in space there
Speaker 1: is no air, there's no heat transfer, and that's just
Speaker 1: not how it goes. So when an object from space
Speaker 1: enters our atmosphere, heat transfer does happen. And if something
Speaker 1: is going that fast, friction alone will start the heat,
Speaker 1: like the heat up the outside. And that's how most
Speaker 1: of the asteroids and meteors and whatever else they burn
Speaker 1: up before before they ever actually touched down on Earth.
Speaker 1: So once we do have an impact of some type,
Speaker 1: a lot of it is already in the process of burning,
Speaker 1: so by the time you go there to recover it,
Speaker 1: it's not much of anything left. But there's also times
Speaker 1: when there is something that you can get from it,
Speaker 1: right There's there's even swords made from the ancient times
Speaker 1: made from the iron extracted from a meteor. So like
Speaker 1: not all of it burns up and you can't extract
Speaker 1: iron off of it and forge that into a blade.
Speaker 3: Some of them are in museums, and shit.
Speaker 1: Are our meteors?
Speaker 2: I'm asking all this kind of shit because I really
Speaker 2: don't look into space, like this is not my arena,
Speaker 2: So I really don't know a whole lot about this
Speaker 2: kind of stuff.
Speaker 3: But our media, I'm not a master of it, but
Speaker 3: I can answer a few things.
Speaker 1: You know, our meteor is said to be fragments of
Speaker 1: exploded stars.
Speaker 3: Where then do they come from?
Speaker 1: To be honest with you, there's an argument to say
Speaker 1: that we are the remnants of an exploded star. Huh?
Speaker 1: That is that such that you see what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: It's like, to what level of depth are you trying
Speaker 1: to go with that conversation? But typically meteors come from
Speaker 1: there is like, for instance, there's an asteroid belt around Saturn, right,
Speaker 1: and that those had to have come from somewhere. There
Speaker 1: is a co what's it called beyond Neptune. It's called
Speaker 1: the uh shit, not the interstellar cloud. They call it
Speaker 1: some something cloud. I'm drawing a blank on it, but
Speaker 1: essentially that is there, and it's sending trash and asteroids
Speaker 1: and things like that towards us from time to time. Now,
Speaker 1: typically these get caught up in other planets' gravitational polls right,
Speaker 1: or and they bounce off of some other planets moons
Speaker 1: or something like that. By the time it gets to us,
Speaker 1: the odds of one hitting Earth are relatively low, even
Speaker 1: though we get hit with thousands of them a day.
Speaker 1: Real shit, most of them are no bigger than your hand.
Speaker 1: Are you talking about the Kyper Belt's thank you?
Speaker 3: Thank you? The Kuyper cloud or Kuiper belt, right.
Speaker 1: So, most of them are the size of your actual
Speaker 1: if you were to make a fist, that is about
Speaker 1: the size of your typical medior or asteroid that hits
Speaker 1: the Earth, and about you know, somewhere between five hundred
Speaker 1: and thousand of those hit the Earth every single day.
Speaker 1: That's burning up well before it ever comes down to us.
Speaker 1: And it's not even like we're getting sprinkled with the
Speaker 1: soot at that point. It's literally just dust in the air.
Speaker 1: By the time it gets anywhere near us, some of
Speaker 1: them are a little larger, and they might be the
Speaker 1: size of a fucking mini van, And then by the
Speaker 1: time it gets to us, it might be the size
Speaker 1: of a foot locker or something like that. I you
Speaker 1: know it all, there's a lot of things that play
Speaker 1: into it. But yeah, so they come from just in
Speaker 1: our Solar system, in our galaxy. But the fact that
Speaker 1: a muamuha came from outside of our Solar system and
Speaker 1: they were able to track it to show they're like, nah, dude,
Speaker 1: this didn't come from anything that we know of. It
Speaker 1: came from outside of our realm of understanding. For lack
Speaker 1: of better words, it is it's the first one that
Speaker 1: we know of that did this, all right, well, Amua mooha.
Speaker 2: It says that it has a red color like objects
Speaker 2: like objects in the outer Solar System. Despite its close
Speaker 2: approach to the Sun, it showed no signs of having
Speaker 2: a coma, the usual nebula around comets formed when they
Speaker 2: passed near the Sun. Further, it exhibited non gravitational acceleration,
Speaker 2: potentially due to outgassing or push from solar radiation pressure.
Speaker 2: It has a rotation rate similar to the Solar System's asteroids,
Speaker 2: but many valid models permit it to be unusually more
Speaker 2: elongated than all but a few other natural bodies observed
Speaker 2: in the Solar System. This feature rayed speculation about its origin.
Speaker 2: Its light curve, assuming little systematic error, presents its motion
Speaker 2: as tumbling rather than spinning, and moving sufficiently fast relative
Speaker 2: to the Sun that is likely of extrasolar origin. Extrapolated
Speaker 2: and without further deceleration, its path cannot be captured into
Speaker 2: solar orbit, so it will eventually leave the Solar System
Speaker 2: and continue into interstellar space. Its planetary system of origin
Speaker 2: and age are unknown.
Speaker 1: Okay, now that's just the first couple of paragraphs in
Speaker 1: the wiki. We're not going to read all the things.
Speaker 1: Although I did want to show this, this is the
Speaker 1: path that it took. We didn't even realize it was
Speaker 1: there until it was about here on the other side
Speaker 1: of the Sun, and then it took the fuck off
Speaker 1: even faster than when it came.
Speaker 3: But neither here nor there I did. Actually right here
Speaker 3: it says the name whereas it at.
Speaker 1: The Hawaiian term of a mua mua, because it was
Speaker 1: discovered on the Hawaiian islands right at that observatory or
Speaker 1: the pan, I should say, but it stands for scout
Speaker 1: or it's like to reach out for and mua replicated
Speaker 1: for emphasis is first in advance of so like a
Speaker 1: scouting party in some way, shape or form or what
Speaker 1: we might even call if for our human eyes or
Speaker 1: our human understandings, like a intel diligence plane. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: he's just flying over to take pictures and things like that.
Speaker 1: He doesn't have armaments on him, he doesn't have a
Speaker 1: whole crew of dudes waiting to parachute out the back.
Speaker 1: He's just there taking some surveillance things for some pictures
Speaker 1: and stuff.
Speaker 2: Well, and it's a shame that we didn't really have
Speaker 2: access to be able to view it from before it
Speaker 2: would before it went around the sun like that, because
Speaker 2: you know, if you think about it, it would make
Speaker 2: sense that, yes, you would want to propel an almost
Speaker 2: slingshot around the Sun due to its gravitational force, right,
Speaker 2: Like that makes the most amount of sense if you're
Speaker 2: doing it intentionally. But the reason why I say that
Speaker 2: is because if it was an intentional thing, then maybe
Speaker 2: there were some corrective errors that a natural object with
Speaker 2: you know, no intention, Maybe it just it was a
Speaker 2: happenstance that it just so happened to get caught in
Speaker 2: that that stream, so to say.
Speaker 3: And that would make sense to me if it was larger,
Speaker 3: bro this thing was only like a thousand meters long.
Speaker 1: Like, that's that's not huge. That's a couple of football
Speaker 1: fields in length. Real shit, this is this wasn't like
Speaker 1: the size of.
Speaker 3: A mountain by any means.
Speaker 1: It's a large object as far as like, like I said,
Speaker 1: most of the things that hit the Earth of the
Speaker 1: size of your hand. Our space shuttles. Yeah, bigger than
Speaker 1: our space shuttles. But it's not like the size of
Speaker 1: the moon or anything like that. This thing, this tiny thing,
Speaker 1: and in the spectrum of space, this is not even
Speaker 1: like a twenty two bullet, okay. And it was going
Speaker 1: so fucking fast that the gravity of all the planets
Speaker 1: that it passed and the Sun played no effect on it.
Speaker 3: That is mind blowing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's pretty interesting, all right. So the next video
Speaker 1: we have here is from a TED talk as a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, from doctor Karen J.
Speaker 3: Meach. She and her team actually won the contract.
Speaker 1: To get the exclusive rights to do all the observing
Speaker 1: of this craft object. Excuse me, because when this took place,
Speaker 1: they realized they only had a very small window of
Speaker 1: opportunity to see this thing, observe it, take samples, take notes, whatever,
Speaker 1: do the scientific method. And the problem is you have
Speaker 1: thousands of research teams all across the world and only
Speaker 1: a few places where they have the facilities to actually
Speaker 1: observe this. So it became a mad dash to see
Speaker 1: which team would win the opportunity to do the research
Speaker 1: on this object, right, And it was a very ugly,
Speaker 1: cutthroat world of who gets it and who's fighting for
Speaker 1: it and all these things. Her team actually got it,
Speaker 1: So she was giving a ted talk talking a little
Speaker 1: bit more about it, and I thought it was interesting.
Speaker 1: So let's learn from the woman who led the team, herself,
Speaker 1: Karen Meach.
Speaker 7: Now, from a perfectly selfish point of view, the first
Speaker 7: thing we might like to know is how massive on
Speaker 7: More and More is, Because, after all, a pasted very
Speaker 7: close to the Earth and we didn't know about it
Speaker 7: until afterwards.
Speaker 9: How bad would this have been had it not missed
Speaker 9: the Earth?
Speaker 7: Well, the impact energy depends on the square the velocity
Speaker 7: times its mass, and the mass depends on how big
Speaker 7: it is and what it's made of.
Speaker 9: So how big is.
Speaker 7: Omuama and what's its shape? Well we can get this
Speaker 7: from its brightness. Now, if you don't believe me, think
Speaker 7: of comparing the brightness of a firefly in your backyard
Speaker 7: to the airplane lights navigation lights on a distant airplane.
Speaker 7: You know, the airplane is much brighter, It just appears
Speaker 7: faint because it's so far away. We're also going to
Speaker 7: need to know how reflective the surface of Omuamwa is,
Speaker 7: and we don't have any clue, but it's reasonable to
Speaker 7: assume it's very similar to small asteroids and comets in
Speaker 7: our solar system, or in technical terms, something between the
Speaker 7: reflectivity of charcoal and wet sand. Nowadays, most of the
Speaker 7: big telescopes are used in what's called a service mode,
Speaker 7: meaning we have to carefully develop all the instructions and
Speaker 7: send them to the telescope operator and then anxiously wait
Speaker 7: for the data to come back, praying to the weather gods. Now,
Speaker 7: I bet most of you don't have careers that critically
Speaker 7: depend on whether or not it's cloudy. Last night, Well,
Speaker 7: we weren't going to get any second chances here because
Speaker 7: the weather was great and Muamoa decided not to be.
Speaker 7: Its brightness wasn't constant. Now Here we see Omuamua racing
Speaker 7: between the stars. It's centered in the middle. The stars
Speaker 7: are trailed out because the telescope is Following its motion,
Speaker 7: it started faint, and then it got brighter, fainter, brighter,
Speaker 7: and fainter again. As sunlight is reflected off of four
Speaker 7: sides of an oblong object, the extreme brightness change led
Speaker 7: us to an unbelievable conclusion about its shape. As shown
Speaker 7: in this artist's impression, Omuamoa is apparently very long and narrow,
Speaker 7: with an access ratio of about ten to one. Assuming
Speaker 7: it's dark, this means it's about half a mile long.
Speaker 7: Nothing else in our solar system looks like this. We
Speaker 7: only have a handful of objects that even have an
Speaker 7: access ratio bigger than five to one. So we don't
Speaker 7: know how this forms, but it may be part of
Speaker 7: its birth process in its home solar system. Well, Omama
Speaker 7: was varying in brightness every seven point three four hours,
Speaker 7: or so, we thought. As more data started to come
Speaker 7: in from other teams, they were reporting different numbers. Why
Speaker 7: is it the more we learn about something, the harder
Speaker 7: it gets to interpret. Well, it turns out that a
Speaker 7: muhama is not rotating in a simple way. It's wobbling
Speaker 7: like a top. So while it is rotating around its
Speaker 7: short axis, it's also rolling around the long axis.
Speaker 9: And nodding up and down.
Speaker 7: This very energetic, excited motion is almost certainly the result
Speaker 7: of it being violently tossed out of its home solar system. Now,
Speaker 7: how we interpret the shape from its brightness depends very
Speaker 7: critically on how it's spinning. So now we have to
Speaker 7: rethink what it may look like and a shown in
Speaker 7: this beautiful painting by space artist Bill Hartman. We think
Speaker 7: that Omama may be more of a flattened oval.
Speaker 3: Or what some might say is very disc like.
Speaker 1: I mean, it do look like a I mean a
Speaker 1: U a phone. But you understand why they thought it
Speaker 1: was like like a rock formative, not necessarily like a
Speaker 1: highly technical with buttons and whistles and all that other shit,
Speaker 1: but like shaped exactly like, not exactly like, very like
Speaker 1: it very like a UFO.
Speaker 3: We really don't know if it was this or not.
Speaker 3: That's the thing they thought.
Speaker 1: All the images you'll look up about Ama MOUI will
Speaker 1: still to this day showed the cigar shape. This is
Speaker 1: something that came out seven years ago, and they still
Speaker 1: dispute whether it is cigar shaped or oval shaped, or
Speaker 1: like this is like a flatten oval or a disc
Speaker 1: shape or anything like that. They want to believe that
Speaker 1: it looks like it's made of rock. They don't know that.
Speaker 1: For you fact, they're going off of its light reflection.
Speaker 1: We're gonna learn more about it.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna continue the video, but I just want to
Speaker 3: make this distinction.
Speaker 1: You could understand how this from our perspective would at
Speaker 1: first appear to be a cigar shape, right. It's it's
Speaker 1: like this, and this is all you're seeing from it.
Speaker 1: You don't realize there's a whole other side to that mug.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you don't know the depth of it exactly, but
Speaker 2: if it is hypothetically disk shaped, that would lend a
Speaker 2: little more credence to why it's spinning this way, right,
Speaker 2: and why it's toppling like this in some way to
Speaker 2: kind of maintain it's a flight for lack of better words, Yeah,
Speaker 2: that would make sense as to why they wouldn't be
Speaker 2: able to really get the numbers on it as far
Speaker 2: as it's like rotational orbit or whatever you would call it,
Speaker 2: because it's so it's going like that, and it's tumbling
Speaker 2: around like that, and there's a lot of shit going on,
Speaker 2: So it's not like a perfect thing that's flying through space.
Speaker 1: You know, staying the same.
Speaker 2: It's like a teeter totter kind of motion that's also
Speaker 2: tumbling in circles.
Speaker 1: That's weird, exactly. It's it's mind blowing that this even happened.
Speaker 1: And there are some people that know about Amuamua. Most
Speaker 1: of your regular you know, average Joe person, if you
Speaker 1: ask them about it, wouldn't know that this took place.
Speaker 1: And this took place in twenty seventeen, and they talked
Speaker 1: about it. They brought it up to everyone that they could.
Speaker 1: Most people didn't care. It's mind blowing.
Speaker 3: But now that we didn't have.
Speaker 1: Any effect on Earth, that's probably why.
Speaker 3: Right exactly.
Speaker 1: But now that we have Atlas coming all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: everybody's wanting to pay attention to it alongside the UFO
Speaker 1: disclosure that's happening right now.
Speaker 3: Look, I don't know interesting time connected and yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean coincidentally timing to say the least.
Speaker 3: But we also don't believe in coincidences, do we.
Speaker 1: I certainly the fuck don't that. You know, there's a
Speaker 1: crazy correlation between Donald Trump creating the space Force, now
Speaker 1: we have UFO disclosure, and oh, by the way, this
Speaker 1: thing's coming really close to us in about two months. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it makes you wonder.
Speaker 2: And that's the thing as far as like what I
Speaker 2: was talking about at the top of the show is that,
Speaker 2: you know, as far as sentience, like is this is
Speaker 2: Could it be that this is its own sentient object?
Speaker 2: Could there be beings inside of it that that the
Speaker 2: ship itself is not sentient, but there could there be
Speaker 2: sentient life inside of it that it that they're steering
Speaker 2: or something like that. Could also just be a weird anomaly,
Speaker 2: the fucking weird rock that just decided to get kicked
Speaker 2: out of its hometown and wanted to come fuck up ours.
Speaker 1: So let me ask you. We have a satellite that's
Speaker 1: out there. We send it out there, and it's drifting
Speaker 1: off into space. It's never going to return home, and
Speaker 1: it's taking a lot of pictures for us out there. Right,
Speaker 1: I've seen some of the most clearest images we have
Speaker 1: of Jupiter is from this craft.
Speaker 3: Right. Would you say that that object has sentience.
Speaker 2: It's being controlled by well, I don't know if it's
Speaker 2: being controlled, but it was created by sentient life.
Speaker 1: Yes, But would you think that that object has its
Speaker 1: own sentience? No, I wouldn't go that far.
Speaker 3: Agreed, agreed.
Speaker 1: I don't believe that a camera being set up is
Speaker 1: a sentience in and of itself.
Speaker 2: But that's actually just to stick on that for one
Speaker 2: second though. That's actually the reason why if you ever
Speaker 2: get caught by one of those cameras that you're driving
Speaker 2: past and they give you a fucking ticket via camera,
Speaker 2: that it's not allowed to count, like you can actually
Speaker 2: dispute that because it has to be somebody that caught you,
Speaker 2: and a camera is not a somebody, it's a something.
Speaker 1: And so that's how you would dispute.
Speaker 2: That if you're ever to get like a you know,
Speaker 2: one of those camera tickets or whatever.
Speaker 3: Exactly one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: And so yes, while the camera might have been set
Speaker 1: there and set in place by some sort of a
Speaker 1: sentient life form, the object itself is not sentience, right,
Speaker 1: And so like, we have that craft that's out there,
Speaker 1: and let's say for some reason it starts to tumble,
Speaker 1: it starts to go kind of crazy. It's still going
Speaker 1: down a trajectory, it's still flying through space, but now
Speaker 1: it's not flying in this smooth little.
Speaker 3: Pattern by any means.
Speaker 1: The cameras are still operating, all the things are still working.
Speaker 1: And if some being on another planet was to see that.
Speaker 1: What would they make of that? Would they think that
Speaker 1: it's being piloted by something or someone or would they
Speaker 1: think that that's just random space trash.
Speaker 3: Who knows?
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying that this is inherently what I
Speaker 1: think Amuamua is, but it would stand to reason for
Speaker 1: me personally that I don't think that this object was
Speaker 1: being piloted by anybody. Well, if it was being piloted,
Speaker 1: let's think of it more like a drone pilot.
Speaker 3: A drone is not sentience.
Speaker 1: Would you say that, yes, I would agree, But the
Speaker 1: pilot of the drone might be a centim being that's
Speaker 1: way way way away.
Speaker 2: And well, and you just get a little weirder here
Speaker 2: too if you think about it. What we're sending up
Speaker 2: in the space, as far as you know, supposed allegedly,
Speaker 2: we're sending up rockets and satellites, unless those are also
Speaker 2: ficking gay as well, I don't fucking know.
Speaker 1: I'm not up there. I can't take a look at them.
Speaker 2: But let's just, you know, play around here and say
Speaker 2: that the satellites and rockets are absolutely going into this
Speaker 2: thing called space that we've you know, been told exists
Speaker 2: since we were children, right, I would imagine that every
Speaker 2: time we send a satellite or a rocket or literally
Speaker 2: anything man made out into space, that it's sending a
Speaker 2: red flag out to anybody that would be observing us,
Speaker 2: because it is so dissimilar from anything natural that, you
Speaker 2: know what I mean, It would be like, look at us.
Speaker 2: It's almost like sending a fucking sos at that point,
Speaker 2: whereas this object right here you don't know, you know
Speaker 2: what I mean, Like.
Speaker 1: It could be a natural thing, could be an unnatural thing.
Speaker 1: It looks natural, but the way that it's trajectory, it
Speaker 1: seems unnatural, and so it causes.
Speaker 2: You to wonder a little bit. And so in that way,
Speaker 2: if you were to go in quote unquote scout as
Speaker 2: it is called, if you were to go and scout
Speaker 2: another planet or another solar system, this could be an
Speaker 2: undercover spy kind of technology, just by the way it looks.
Speaker 1: In general, That's kind of where I'm leaning personally. I
Speaker 1: don't think that it's a coincidence that throughout all of
Speaker 1: our technology and we've had these telescopes and observatories and
Speaker 1: all of these things set up for decades and then
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, this thing flies by, and now twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: eight years later, almost to the day, because it came
Speaker 1: around in September and October of twenty seventeen. Now sometime
Speaker 1: late October, we're gonna have Atlas fly by us. I
Speaker 1: don't think that that's just a coincidence. I think that
Speaker 1: this might have been, as they actually named it, the
Speaker 1: scout for whatever is about to come next, right, and
Speaker 1: this might be another scout very possibly, it very well
Speaker 1: could be.
Speaker 2: I mean, maybe they didn't get enough information off of
Speaker 2: their quick little roundabout trip around the Sun and through
Speaker 2: our solar system. But it's like, man, you know, imagine
Speaker 2: if imagine for a second that there was like an
Speaker 2: actual alien spacecraft out there, a mothership if you will,
Speaker 2: you wouldn't notice.
Speaker 1: It, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: You'd be like, oh, that is definitely not natural. If
Speaker 2: you pulled it up into the satellite or a telescope
Speaker 2: or something like that, you'd be like, wait a second,
Speaker 2: that ain't rock, you know what I'm saying. That's got metal,
Speaker 2: there's weird symbolism on it. What the fuck are we
Speaker 2: looking at now?
Speaker 1: But is that just our human brains telling us that
Speaker 1: it would be some sort of constructed object like that,
Speaker 1: hear me.
Speaker 2: I don't know how they get down as far as
Speaker 2: their technological advancement in other solar systems.
Speaker 1: If they exist out there, I wouldn't know. Nobody would know, really, Right,
Speaker 1: the Native American tribes used a hollowed out trunk of
Speaker 1: a tree.
Speaker 3: And they made a canoe out of it.
Speaker 1: And yes, it had it had been carved a little bit,
Speaker 1: but you could still tell that.
Speaker 3: That was the bulk of a tree.
Speaker 1: At one point, cut to Cortes and his men came
Speaker 1: with these giant sailed ships of all kinds of carved
Speaker 1: wooden planks that they nailed together and with ropes and
Speaker 1: all this other shit. Right, Is it that the Native
Speaker 1: Americans didn't have a way to shape boards and these things,
Speaker 1: or were they just trying to use the natural environment
Speaker 1: in the easiest way they knew how.
Speaker 2: That's what I think might be going on here if
Speaker 2: we're talking about some kind of sentient life.
Speaker 1: You played that out perfectly. We think of alien craft
Speaker 1: as being like we've seen in the movies. Right, it's
Speaker 1: gonna look titanium, and it's gonna have lights on it,
Speaker 1: and there's gonna obviously be a weird fog on it
Speaker 1: at all times because Independence Day type shit, clearly, right,
Speaker 1: But is that our own human understanding of things or
Speaker 1: with the aliens extressols call it whatever moniker you want.
Speaker 1: How do we know that that is the types of
Speaker 1: crafts that they would be flying? How do we know
Speaker 1: that a craft to them that is intergalactic worthy, like
Speaker 1: we would say see worthy for a boat galactically worthy?
Speaker 1: Why wouldn't they use something that's already built to traverse
Speaker 1: the galaxies i e. A meteor and asteroids, something that
Speaker 1: looks and behaves like such.
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't know.
Speaker 2: You could argue that that is the smarter way to
Speaker 2: go about it, though, right, you know, like if you're
Speaker 2: able to look at an asteroid or a comet kind
Speaker 2: of thing, and you're able to say, all right, we
Speaker 2: can observe every single mineral that's on this, every single
Speaker 2: shielding system that this thing might have the waight, the
Speaker 2: buoyancy of being out there in the liquid of space
Speaker 2: or whatever, you know what I mean, And if you're
Speaker 2: able to monitor and track all that data on a
Speaker 2: certain object and use it to your advantage it being
Speaker 2: a natural thing, I mean, why expend money at that point?
Speaker 1: You know, smarter or not harder? Bro, That's the way
Speaker 1: I like to live. But there's another side of this too.
Speaker 1: How do we know that this isn't camouflage? How do
Speaker 1: we know that this isn't a cloaking mechanism? Because if
Speaker 1: they're flying through space and they know that other living
Speaker 1: creatures are out there in space, i e. Humans, we're
Speaker 1: out here in space right the Earth is floating in space.
Speaker 1: That being said, would it not stand to reason that
Speaker 1: they might use a cloaking mechanism.
Speaker 3: We like to think that they would beIN light. And
Speaker 3: I'm not saying they are or are not. I don't
Speaker 3: know that for a fact.
Speaker 1: But it also stands to reason, at least in my brain,
Speaker 1: that if you're going to be flying through the galaxy
Speaker 1: and you're going to be passing planets, that might act
Speaker 1: a little crazy to you just doing such. Maybe hide
Speaker 1: your ship to look like something semi natural. The same
Speaker 1: way that the Sentinel island right, that island that's completely
Speaker 1: uncontacted off the southern coast of India.
Speaker 3: Bro.
Speaker 1: When they fly planes over that, the inhabitants come out
Speaker 1: and try to throw spears and bows, and arrows and
Speaker 1: shit at it. They think it's a screaming metal bird.
Speaker 1: They don't know what an airplane is. So it would
Speaker 1: make more sense that maybe we would camouflage that in
Speaker 1: some way, if we could cloak it.
Speaker 2: And I liked how you said that by bending light
Speaker 2: in that sense, it would make that if you think
Speaker 2: about it, like I would imagine that if you're going
Speaker 2: to have some sort of cloaking device, you would do
Speaker 2: it by bending light, reflecting light in some form or
Speaker 2: fashion in that way.
Speaker 1: But what's easier, like you said, what's more feasible? Is
Speaker 1: it a lot easier to learn how to bend light
Speaker 1: to hide yourself or just build your shit to look
Speaker 1: like a comet?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that it could be some kind of cloak.
Speaker 2: Then we got fucking space wizards out there. I mean,
Speaker 2: let's I mean, maybe.
Speaker 1: Let's say camouflage, right the same way that a sniper
Speaker 1: wears a gilly suit. It's it's it's not that he's
Speaker 1: not any more deadly with or without the suit. One
Speaker 1: makes him blend into his environment to where he can
Speaker 1: do his job without being spotted. You know, I'm thinking
Speaker 1: that it might be something along those lines. It's all
Speaker 1: in the realm of hypothetical here, and that's that's what
Speaker 1: I'm saying. Nothing is any more or less crazy than
Speaker 1: the other here.
Speaker 2: But isn't that funny how in the realm of advanced
Speaker 2: you know, sentience and also natural objects, that the smartest
Speaker 2: thing you could do is just do what nature already does.
Speaker 1: I think nature is pretty perfect, honestly. That's just me
Speaker 1: myself right right. And that's the other thing. As far
Speaker 1: as the interdimensional jumping in all these things, I'm again
Speaker 1: not saying that that isn't happening, or that there's not
Speaker 1: interdimensional life and interdimensional beings and all these things. What
Speaker 1: I'm saying is a yuah Mua wasn't interdimensional. Otherwise they
Speaker 1: just would have jumped through dimensions to get to where
Speaker 1: they were trying to see and moved on. They wouldn't
Speaker 1: have flown from way outside the Solar system of b
Speaker 1: line back out.
Speaker 3: Same with Atlas.
Speaker 1: I don't believe that this is a craft that is
Speaker 1: being used by interdimensional space beings. Otherwise they would have
Speaker 1: used the inner dimensions to jump and get to where
Speaker 1: they're going. They have to be operating in the third dimension,
Speaker 1: otherwise they wouldn't do it to this level.
Speaker 2: I mean, it depends on where it's coming from, though,
Speaker 2: you know what I mean. Like, I'll give you an example.
Speaker 2: I have literally, if I had a golf cart, I
Speaker 2: would and I have a gas station that's like half
Speaker 2: a mile away, right, I could jump in my car
Speaker 2: and I could be there in like literally a minute
Speaker 2: and a half if I just want to run to
Speaker 2: the gas station, get me some snacks, maybe an energy
Speaker 2: drink or something like that, and then roll back. But
Speaker 2: if I wanted to be at my leisure, because time
Speaker 2: is not really of the essence, this thing's not very
Speaker 2: far away, let me hop in the golf cart and
Speaker 2: go on a little cruise, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Maybe I don't know, just throwing out hypotheticals here. Could
Speaker 2: it be that they don't necessarily need to bend space
Speaker 2: and time because where they're coming from isn't that far away.
Speaker 1: That's also possible, I don't know, it's very possible. Or
Speaker 1: maybe bending time and space would tear fabric or tear
Speaker 1: the fabric of time and space, and they know that,
Speaker 1: so they don't like to fuck with them unless they
Speaker 1: absolutely have to. Like that's what I'm saying, it's all
Speaker 1: up in the air. Bro who's to say one way
Speaker 1: or a nothing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we don't know what kind of resources it takes
Speaker 2: to fucking put a rip in the reality, you know, Like.
Speaker 1: We want to assume, we want to assume that they
Speaker 1: have that figured out.
Speaker 3: We don't know that.
Speaker 1: We have no idea if they are that much more
Speaker 1: advanced than we are. They have to be more advanced
Speaker 1: to be able to travel through space as they are,
Speaker 1: but maybe they haven't, like figured out time travel. Just
Speaker 1: because they're more advanced, doesn't mean they're that much more
Speaker 1: you see what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: And I mean it could be possible that they're also
Speaker 2: dealing with somewhat of a limited resources.
Speaker 3: Very possibly anyway.
Speaker 1: All Right, So now that we're all kind of on
Speaker 1: the same page with it, I want to hear the
Speaker 1: rest of what doctor Meach has to say on it.
Speaker 1: Then we're going to read a little article about it,
Speaker 1: and then we're going to jump to Atlas.
Speaker 3: But let's keep going.
Speaker 9: So let's get back to the energetics. What is it
Speaker 9: made of?
Speaker 7: Well, ideally we would love to have a piece of
Speaker 7: amoa moa into the laboratory so we could study it
Speaker 7: in detail. But since even private industry can't manage to
Speaker 7: launch a spacecraft within a week to something like this,
Speaker 7: astronomers have to rely on remote observations. So astronomers will
Speaker 7: look at how the light interacts with the surface. Some
Speaker 7: colors may get absorbed, giving it a chemical fingerprint, whereas
Speaker 7: other colors may not. On the other hand, sub substances
Speaker 7: may just reflect more blue or red light efficiently. In
Speaker 7: the case of omuha Moa, it reflected more red light,
Speaker 7: making it look very much like the organic rich surface
Speaker 7: of the comet recently visited by the Rosetta spacecraft. Everything
Speaker 7: that looks reddish has the same composition. In fact, minerals
Speaker 7: that have tiny little bits of iron in the surface
Speaker 7: can also look red, as does the dark side of
Speaker 7: Saturn's moon Iapetus shown in these images from the Cassini
Speaker 7: spacecraft nickel iron meteorites. In other words, metal can also
Speaker 7: look red. So while we don't know what's on the surface,
Speaker 7: we know even less about what's on the inside. However,
Speaker 7: we do know that it must at least be strong
Speaker 7: enough to not fly apart as it rotates, so it
Speaker 7: probably has a density similar to that of rocky asteroids,
Speaker 7: perhaps even denser like metal. Well, at the very least,
Speaker 7: I want to show you one of the beautiful color
Speaker 7: images that we got from one of the ground based telescopes.
Speaker 7: All Right, I admit it's not all that spectacular. We
Speaker 7: just don't have the resolution. Even Hubble Space Telescope doesn't
Speaker 7: present a much better view. But the importance of the
Speaker 7: Hubble data was not bec because of the images, but
Speaker 7: because it extended our observations out to two and a
Speaker 7: half months from the discovery, meaning we get more positions
Speaker 7: along the orbit, which will hopefully let us figure out
Speaker 7: where Omuamua came from. So what exactly is omu ama
Speaker 7: We firmly believe it's likely to be a leftover archaeological
Speaker 7: remnant from the process of the birth of another planetary system,
Speaker 7: some celestial driftwood.
Speaker 9: Some scientists think that maybe.
Speaker 7: Omuamua formed very close to a star that was much
Speaker 7: denser than our own, and the star's tidal forces shredded
Speaker 7: planetary material early in the Solar System's history. Still, others
Speaker 7: suggest that maybe this is something that formed during the
Speaker 7: death throats of a star, perhaps during a supernova explosion,
Speaker 7: as planetary material got shredded. Whatever it is, we believe
Speaker 7: it's a natural object, but we can't actually prove that
Speaker 7: it's not something artificial. The color, the strange shape, the
Speaker 7: tumbling motion could all have other explanations. Now, while we
Speaker 7: don't believe this is alien technology, why not do the
Speaker 7: obvious experiment and search for a radio signal real quick.
Speaker 3: I do want to give props to her.
Speaker 1: While she is a scientist and does not believe that
Speaker 1: this is alien tech, she also did give the disclaimer
Speaker 1: that they cannot prove that it is not artificial, that
Speaker 1: it is not alien tech. So I at least want
Speaker 1: to give the props where they're due. Shouts out to
Speaker 1: her for keeping that third eye at least a fraction
Speaker 1: of the way open.
Speaker 2: Also, what does she have to compare it to if
Speaker 2: it was alien That's the thing we don't.
Speaker 1: I understand why she's taking it on the analytical ride
Speaker 1: instead of the hypothetical, you know, the fun hypothetical ride.
Speaker 1: I completely understand for her perspective and what she does
Speaker 1: for work. Of course, she's going to look at it
Speaker 1: as some sort of a natural thing, because aliens that
Speaker 1: would be crazy. But at least she is given the
Speaker 1: disclaimer of like, look, we don't know that for a fact,
Speaker 1: but this is what we believe. Now they now about
Speaker 1: the whole radio contact thing. I thought this was interesting.
Speaker 1: Listen here.
Speaker 7: That's exactly what the Breakthrough Listen Project did. But so
Speaker 7: far Omua Moore has remained completely.
Speaker 1: Quiet the Breakthrough project, the Breakthrough Listen Project. We're gonna
Speaker 1: put a pin in that one. We're going to talk
Speaker 1: about it after she wraps up. But it remained quiet
Speaker 1: as per our human radio systems. Like you see what
Speaker 1: I'm saying, How do you if somebody was to right
Speaker 1: now send you, Jonathan a Morse code method or a
Speaker 1: message rather excuse me, would you know what they're saying?
Speaker 2: I mean, I mean no, But I I'm also somebody
Speaker 2: that believes that aliens speak through telepathy, so that wouldn't
Speaker 2: cause any sound anyway. Well, let's say that this was
Speaker 2: a drone, right, and this wasn't being piloted by somebody
Speaker 2: it was. It's a craft that was sent out to
Speaker 2: do some research, some intel, if you will. It's going
Speaker 2: to be talking back and forth to whatever or whoever
Speaker 2: sent it. But just because we don't have.
Speaker 1: The capabilities to pick up on the signal, that it's
Speaker 1: sending doesn't mean that it's not sending a signal.
Speaker 2: I mean, it could be just to get real weird,
Speaker 2: it could be some kind of oh what is that
Speaker 2: shit called?
Speaker 1: I can never remember?
Speaker 2: The term remote viewing could be like if you think
Speaker 2: about it, I mean, if you are somebody that looks
Speaker 2: into remote viewing and you studied you know what they
Speaker 2: say allegedly happened back in the seventies and eighties and onward,
Speaker 2: then remote viewing goes It's like, and it's weird how
Speaker 2: that works, because it's not even like a learned thing.
Speaker 1: Some people are just better at it than others. I
Speaker 1: don't know why.
Speaker 2: And could they be peering in via the mind and
Speaker 2: that's how they're keeping up with it.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: So I just want to throw out all possibilities here,
Speaker 2: just as far as I don't know if these people
Speaker 2: are spiritually advanced. I wouldn't even necessarily say that remote
Speaker 2: viewing is a spiritual thing. I think it's just a thing,
Speaker 2: and maybe you access it through what some people might
Speaker 2: call spirituality. I don't know, but I don't think that's
Speaker 2: necessarily what it is. I think it's just a term
Speaker 2: that seems woo woo wie.
Speaker 1: So I'm not going to discredit that. I don't know
Speaker 1: if that's how they're viewing what this craft was seeing.
Speaker 1: It's possible. I suppose I was taking it more to
Speaker 1: let's say that our radios and our cars they're only
Speaker 1: for FM or AM, right, and maybe if you have
Speaker 1: serious you have XIM. But our military is operating off
Speaker 1: of OEM. Have you ever ever even heard of that?
Speaker 8: Uh?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think so. Poin is though, if you didn't
Speaker 1: have a radio that was able to pick that up,
Speaker 1: you wouldn't know that this group is talking to this
Speaker 1: group in any way, shape or form, just because you
Speaker 1: don't have the radio that's tuned to pick it up.
Speaker 1: It's like HAM radios.
Speaker 3: Well, OEM is a little bit different, but okay, same thing.
Speaker 2: I'm saying, Like, you're not gonna be able to turn
Speaker 2: on AM or FM to be able to listen in
Speaker 2: on a Ham radio conversation exactly.
Speaker 1: So the fact that the Breakthrough Listen group try to
Speaker 1: listen into what this craft was saying or communicating or
Speaker 1: whatever and they'd got nothing, that doesn't mean that there
Speaker 1: was no correspondence between it and whatever scented. It just
Speaker 1: means that they maybe didn't have their frequencies tuned to
Speaker 1: the right setting, if you will. Isn't that so strange?
Speaker 2: Not to get off topic here, but isn't that so
Speaker 2: strange that there's all these different radio waves and frequencies
Speaker 2: that are always around us at all times, yet we
Speaker 2: don't They seemingly don't affect us unless you get into
Speaker 2: the whole five G conversation. I get it in the
Speaker 2: coming six G conversation. I get that, But I'm saying,
Speaker 2: but for the most part, you don't sense a radio
Speaker 2: fucking frequency around you. You know, you don't sense Wi
Speaker 2: Fi or five G or three G or four G
Speaker 2: or AM or FM or or fucking handheld walkie talkie,
Speaker 2: you know, waves there anything like that.
Speaker 3: All of it is always going on all.
Speaker 1: Around us at all times, and there's no sense like,
Speaker 1: there's nothing, there's no kind of thing that we can
Speaker 1: put on our face to be able to view them
Speaker 1: in the ether or whatever. Isn't that strang right?
Speaker 3: I fully agree with you on this, and I think
Speaker 3: it's wild right, and I.
Speaker 1: Would I wish that we had the forethought to start
Speaker 1: taking like samples of the human genome before radios were
Speaker 1: invented and take a sample of us now to see.
Speaker 1: And I understand, like nutritionally, we know more about what
Speaker 1: is and is not good for our diet than they
Speaker 1: did one hundred five years ago. Like I get that,
Speaker 1: But I am curious if and I've had this theory
Speaker 1: for forever and I'm not saying that radio waves are
Speaker 1: causing cancer. I'm not saying that inherently, but I'm wondering
Speaker 1: if we suffer from long term effects of being bombarded
Speaker 1: with radio waves every single day that our forefathers two
Speaker 1: hundred years ago never had to deal with. Yeah, they
Speaker 1: had their own shit they were dealing with at the time,
Speaker 1: But I'm I've always been curious about that. Is there
Speaker 1: really a zero percent effect on our bodies being hit
Speaker 1: from radio waves every single hour of every single day.
Speaker 2: I mean, does it and does it have to happen?
Speaker 2: Like does it have to inflict upon our health or
Speaker 2: could it mess with us in other ways? Like for example, right,
Speaker 2: like the fucking stars they're they're emitting a frequency, the
Speaker 2: sun is emitting a frequency, the moon is emitting a frequency.
Speaker 2: All that shit is shining down on to us, right,
Speaker 2: I mean the moon, the moon obviously is a big one,
Speaker 2: because it affects the waves, as they say, you know
Speaker 2: what effect the tides, and it affects like women a
Speaker 2: little bit too. And and also like think, what do
Speaker 2: they call the lunatics? Right, Like there's a full moon
Speaker 2: a lot of times you'll see like lunatics going crazy.
Speaker 2: I know this last full moon that we just had
Speaker 2: a couple of days ago. I'm not gonna lie, bro,
Speaker 2: my shit was fucked. So I don't know if that's
Speaker 2: a moon thing or if that's just a me thing.
Speaker 2: Maybe it's a little mixture of both. Maybe it's just
Speaker 2: an amplifier of what you already are going through. I
Speaker 2: don't know, but it's just interesting how there's all these
Speaker 2: different frequencies always happening all around us. It makes you wonder,
Speaker 2: you know, how would we naturally live if we were
Speaker 2: not being inflicted by any frequencies at all, Like not
Speaker 2: even just the AMFM, but the star frequencies and all
Speaker 2: that shit.
Speaker 3: Well that's the thing, though.
Speaker 1: The star frequencies are natural, right, Humanity has always been
Speaker 1: hit with those types of frequencies. And I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that's inherently good or bad. If anything, I would say
Speaker 1: that evolutionally, we have acclimatized ourselves to not be affected
Speaker 1: by them so negatively if nothing else right, or at
Speaker 1: least that would stand.
Speaker 3: A reason in my own mind.
Speaker 1: But that being said, we weren't built to have and
Speaker 1: by we I mean just human beings. We weren't built
Speaker 1: to have FM and AM radio waves hitting us at
Speaker 1: all times. We weren't built to have satellites pinging our
Speaker 1: locations constantly. We weren't built to have a little black
Speaker 1: glass box in our pocket that's consistently giving off a
Speaker 1: radiation signal.
Speaker 3: Like you see what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: We were built for the astral stuff. We were built
Speaker 2: for the fucking human resonance and all that kind of shit,
Speaker 2: Like that's the more natural kind of stuff. Yeah right,
Speaker 2: But I also, like just staying on that for a second, though,
Speaker 2: if you think about all those different frequency bands and
Speaker 2: waves and all that shit, and then you send out
Speaker 2: a certain tone via the highway of that frequency wave,
Speaker 2: that is unnatural, you know, like almost like think about that,
Speaker 2: just even the conversation of four thirty two to four forty,
Speaker 2: you know, like could that be inflicting upon our natural state?
Speaker 2: I would almost say I can guarantee that it would.
Speaker 1: I believe it does, right, one hundred percent. I don't
Speaker 1: know what the quantifiable evidence would show on that, but
Speaker 1: I am personally of the belief that you're correct right
Speaker 1: that these radio waves, they may not be affecting us
Speaker 1: in a negative way. It may not at all, but
Speaker 1: at a molecular level, would I would surmise that humans
Speaker 1: are affected by them at least in some way, shape
Speaker 1: or form.
Speaker 3: It just that makes sense to me.
Speaker 1: So to circle all this back to the Amuamua conversation,
Speaker 1: the Breakthrough Listen project tried to listen in to what
Speaker 1: was being omitted by this object.
Speaker 3: They said that it was silent.
Speaker 1: But again, does that mean that it was in fact
Speaker 1: silent or is it that our human capabilities couldn't pick
Speaker 1: up on the signal that it was sending.
Speaker 3: That's all I'm saying a little bit of both. Possibly.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Hi, let's arter finish up here.
Speaker 7: Now, could we send a spacecraft to omuaman answer this
Speaker 7: question once and for all. Yes, we do actually have
Speaker 7: the technology, but it would be a long and expensive voyage,
Speaker 7: and we would get there so far from the Sun
Speaker 7: that the final approach trajectory would be very difficult. So
Speaker 7: I think o'moa Moa probably has many more things to
Speaker 7: teach us, and in fact, there might be more surprises
Speaker 7: in stores. Scientists such as myself continue to work with
Speaker 7: the data. More importantly, I think this visitor from Afar
Speaker 7: has really brought home the point that our solar system
Speaker 7: isn't isolated. We're part of a much larger environment, and
Speaker 7: in fact, we may even be surrounded by interstellar visitors
Speaker 7: and not even know it. This unexpected gift has perhaps
Speaker 7: raised more questions than it's provided answers. But we were
Speaker 7: the first to say hello to a visitor from another
Speaker 7: solar system.
Speaker 1: Indeed, indeed, again shouts out to doctor Karen Meach, how
Speaker 1: does she know that we were the first ones to
Speaker 1: tell it hello.
Speaker 3: Well, by we, she means her and her team. That's
Speaker 3: that was what that was.
Speaker 1: But anyway, all right, so this article is from planet
Speaker 1: planet dot net. So this is going to break down
Speaker 1: a muamu, a natural or artificial, And again they are
Speaker 1: going to throw some shade towards certain conspiratorial minded people.
Speaker 1: But again there's no answers and only questions when it
Speaker 1: comes to this object. So it's like, from what platform
Speaker 1: do they have the authority to say that any theory
Speaker 1: is crazy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I have a problem with that. It's like you
Speaker 2: don't even know, Like you and your people can't agree
Speaker 2: on what the fuck it is. How can you throw
Speaker 2: shade on people that are speculating on the outside. You know,
Speaker 2: it's like, people, we have the right to speculate, We
Speaker 2: have the right to dream and suppose and do all
Speaker 2: these things, right, Like, I don't know why anybody would
Speaker 2: have an issue with.
Speaker 1: That, because basically, anybody that can come up with a
Speaker 1: theory outside of the scientific one scientists take as an
Speaker 1: insult to their study.
Speaker 3: Aw And it's.
Speaker 1: Like, dude, Okay, I I could understand at least a
Speaker 1: little bit of what you're saying. But also, if you
Speaker 1: don't have any answers at this point, you're throwing shit
Speaker 1: at the wall to see what sticks, the same thing
Speaker 1: that we are doing.
Speaker 2: So look, they told us to stand six feet apart,
Speaker 2: to take an experimental drug and wear a fucking face mask.
Speaker 1: They look real retarded. Now, I mean there's still people
Speaker 1: that do that because, yeah, because trust the science.
Speaker 2: And that's the thing is that you can't just go
Speaker 2: about blindly having faith in fucking anything or any one,
Speaker 2: especially scientifically.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, so let's read in here all right.
Speaker 2: For decades, scientists anticipated the discovery of objects from other
Speaker 2: stars passing through the Solar System. One of us remembers,
Speaker 2: they're grad school advisor Tom Quinn at the University of
Speaker 2: Washington talking about this in the early two thousands, at
Speaker 2: which time the subject had already had a long history.
Speaker 2: It was not a mainstream subject subject of study because
Speaker 2: no such interstellar objects had yet been found. It was
Speaker 2: already well known to cosmic rays and some dust particles
Speaker 2: were interstellar, and we've had physical samples of those for decades.
Speaker 2: It had also been proposed that some comets in the
Speaker 2: Ort Cloud oo RT, which is a vast reservoir of
Speaker 2: comets swarming around the Sun thousands of times the Earth
Speaker 2: Sun distance, had been captured from sibling stars in the Earth,
Speaker 2: in the Sun's birthplace. What was missing was a clear
Speaker 2: sign of a macroscopic object coming from outside our Sun's
Speaker 2: sphere of influence. We call these interstellar objects.
Speaker 1: Real quick, the Ort cloud or Ort Khoier the fuck
Speaker 1: that was the cloud I was trying to think of earlier.
Speaker 1: When you asked where did these come from? I couldn't
Speaker 1: remember that you also said some of the K was
Speaker 1: the not Kepling K Kepler. Yeah, they also come from
Speaker 1: this area as well, but that I was just making
Speaker 1: the distinction.
Speaker 3: That orkcloud was what I was referring to.
Speaker 2: But any okay, I definitely would not have guessed that one.
Speaker 2: I didn't guess the Kepler one either. I looked it
Speaker 2: up because we have computers in front of us, so
Speaker 2: on we do so anyhow. On October eighteen, twenty seventeen,
Speaker 2: the first confirmed interstellar streak was detected in an image
Speaker 2: taken with the PAN Star's two telescope in Hawaii. The
Speaker 2: object looked like a streak rather than a point of
Speaker 2: light because it was moving so fast across the sky.
Speaker 2: The timeline of what happened next is fascinating and documented
Speaker 2: in Karen Meech's TED talk, which we just heard a
Speaker 2: little portion of The object was named a Muamua, meaning
Speaker 2: advanced scout in Hawaiian. A muamua was the subject of
Speaker 2: intense astronomical observation, but its brightness faded so quickly that
Speaker 2: within two weeks of its discovery it was lost to
Speaker 2: all but the largest ground based telescopes. The shortness of
Speaker 2: that observing window and the associated uncertainty in its physical properties,
Speaker 2: where the drivers of the controversy that followed. The immediate
Speaker 2: impression was that a Muamua looked sort of like an
Speaker 2: asteroid or a comet. It was too far away for
Speaker 2: us to resolve any surface details, but from its brightness
Speaker 2: at different wavelengths that appeared similar to those of water
Speaker 2: rich asteroids or dormant comets. Unlike comets, though, it did
Speaker 2: not show any evidence of outgassing or cometary activity. Normally,
Speaker 2: when comets get warm, their ices evaporate and we see
Speaker 2: them form a coma and see evidence of that gas escaping.
Speaker 1: Oh. Interesting, that's what a coma in space means. So basically,
Speaker 1: whenever you see an asteroid and you see it streaking
Speaker 1: like a star with a tail, right, that image that
Speaker 1: we all have that is from the ice gassing out,
Speaker 1: and it's kind of like it's like a kim trail behind.
Speaker 3: It jet right.
Speaker 1: Oh, it's just steam and we know it's not, but
Speaker 1: that is basically like the steam.
Speaker 3: Trail, for lack of better words, behind a comet. Muhama
Speaker 3: had no coma or comma. I've heard it called both,
Speaker 3: but yes, it had nothing to do with that. And
Speaker 3: Atlas also has none, so it's very separate and different
Speaker 3: from a comet or meteor or asteroid, unlike anything we've
Speaker 3: seen thus far.
Speaker 2: Comments recoil from this escaping gas, which acts like a
Speaker 2: rocket's thrust to alter their orbital trajectory. Astronomers quickly scrambled
Speaker 2: to put Amuamua in context. Analysis of its brightness variations
Speaker 2: revealed two surprising facts. First, based on its changing brightness,
Speaker 2: it became clear that Amua Moa spun every eight hours
Speaker 2: or so, but not but in a not quite repeating pattern.
Speaker 2: Surfaces feature or surface features rotating into and out of
Speaker 2: view often let us get a rotation period for an
Speaker 2: asteroid or commet, but in this case the period was irregular.
Speaker 2: This is an indicator of tumbling rotation, a perturbed but
Speaker 2: not uncommon spin state for small bodies in the Solar System.
Speaker 2: The second surprise was that at some points and it's tumbling,
Speaker 2: it was almost ten times fainter than usual. This is
Speaker 2: too much to explain with surface features, which meant its
Speaker 2: shape could not be anything like spherical. There are currently
Speaker 2: two possibilities that seem most likely a pancake shape with
Speaker 2: axis ratios of roughly six to six to one, or
Speaker 2: a cigar shape with axis ratios of eight to one
Speaker 2: to one. The pancake shape is more likely because there
Speaker 2: is a higher chance of seeing it of seeing it
Speaker 2: edge on compared with seeing a cigar shaped tip on,
Speaker 2: and a muamua does not get very dim that often.
Speaker 2: This realization came just too late for the popular image
Speaker 2: of amuamua as a long needle like object captured the
Speaker 2: public's imagination initially.
Speaker 1: That's the guy right there, this cigar shape. That is
Speaker 1: the image that most people. If you type in a muamua,
Speaker 1: this is typically the image that you're going to see
Speaker 1: pop up. Even though this is more likely the shape,
Speaker 1: and most experts would believe that this.
Speaker 3: Is the shape that it actually was. But I digress.
Speaker 2: All the flat earthers out there are saying, of course
Speaker 2: it's pancake shaped.
Speaker 1: The flat earthers would not believe in any of this anyway,
Speaker 1: because space isn't real to them. But like I said,
Speaker 1: for this conversation, we've got to at least take it
Speaker 1: on that kind of anyway.
Speaker 2: Within a few months, a dozen of Within a few months,
Speaker 2: a dozen explanations have been proposed for a muama's origins.
Speaker 2: These range from relatively mundanes, such as an asteroid or
Speaker 2: extinct common ejected from its home planetary system, to more
Speaker 2: novel explanations such as a leftover of an earlier generation
Speaker 2: of planets that was partially melted in the atmosphere of
Speaker 2: a dying massive star. Despite the debate, all models in
Speaker 2: the published literature remained within the realm of natural objects.
Speaker 2: The thorn in the side of conventional origins models came
Speaker 2: from measurements of the orbit of a Muama as it
Speaker 2: whizzed away from Earth, the Hubble Space Telescope and the
Speaker 2: very large telescopes in Chile.
Speaker 1: That's just what it's called, the very large telescopes. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean they used the Chilean term for it, but
Speaker 1: direct translation, it's that. But yeah, So the one in Chile,
Speaker 1: along with the Hubble, measured its position up to two
Speaker 1: full months after its discovery, allowing for a precise estimate
Speaker 1: of its orbital trajectory. Analogis showed that Amoamua's path as
Speaker 1: it left our view as a few ten of tens
Speaker 1: of thousands of kilometers off a off of a purely
Speaker 1: gravitational trajectory, an additional force had pushed it away from
Speaker 1: the Sun and slightly off of gravity's course. So okay,
Speaker 1: So an additional force had pushed it away from the Sun,
Speaker 1: and nobody has any explanation as to what that was.
Speaker 1: There is a theory that has been proposed, and I
Speaker 1: think this article gets into it. And literally, remember how
Speaker 1: just earlier in this article they said that with comets,
Speaker 1: the water that goes into its gaseous state kind of
Speaker 1: acts like a propulsion in certain cases for comets and asteroids, right,
Speaker 1: and it gives it that coma or comma how he
Speaker 1: pronounce it. And this craft had none of that. So
Speaker 1: keep that in mind whenever we talk about the hypotheticals
Speaker 1: as its propulsion goes. But let's contend.
Speaker 2: Interesting that there was additional force only around the Sun though,
Speaker 2: or at least what they were, you know, viewing there.
Speaker 2: Because dude, I'm telling you, we're gonna have to you
Speaker 2: know what, I'm going to reach back out to Crow
Speaker 2: Triple seven because the shit that he has been viewing
Speaker 2: with his telescope member he was shooting the he was
Speaker 2: shooting the moon initially, and we watched the documentary that
Speaker 2: he had talked about, and well, the documentary that he
Speaker 2: created dude.
Speaker 1: It ended up getting a shitload.
Speaker 2: Of awards like all over the world for that because
Speaker 2: not many people have been able to capture that lunar
Speaker 2: wave and those little things that were coming out of
Speaker 2: the Moon and stuff. Well, now he shifted his sights
Speaker 2: onto the Sun and he believes that he has captured
Speaker 2: what he believes is the second Sun. That it could
Speaker 2: be something that you know, the Sun that we see
Speaker 2: is just in front of the second Sun always in
Speaker 2: a sense, almost like a yin Yang kind of situation,
Speaker 2: you know what I mean, Like not necessarily a yin
Speaker 2: Yang kind of situation, but almost a second Son that
Speaker 2: is like a black sun.
Speaker 1: If we're going around the Sun every single year, does
Speaker 1: it move behind the Sun as we are? So it's
Speaker 1: like opposite of a I would love to give him
Speaker 1: on the show, like how we always only see one
Speaker 1: surface of the moon. It's almost locked into a gravitational
Speaker 1: force of the Sun that we see, so that we
Speaker 1: never really see it. It's always hiding behind.
Speaker 2: Then sometimes you're able to get glimpses of it from
Speaker 2: what he says. So as far as this this extra
Speaker 2: little force that they're talking about as it's going around
Speaker 2: the Sun, I wonder if the second Sun would have
Speaker 2: that that I don't know that thing to it.
Speaker 3: I would love to get Kroll in the show to
Speaker 3: talk about him.
Speaker 8: Man.
Speaker 1: It's basically he's saying that the Sun is spinning as well,
Speaker 1: because like a second son's behind it, and like that's
Speaker 1: the Earth and it's it's moving to where we can
Speaker 1: never see it because the Earth is only seeing one's
Speaker 1: face of the Sun as we're going around it. Now,
Speaker 1: would mean that the Sun is spinning as well. I
Speaker 1: would love to get him, want to talk about it?
Speaker 1: Sounds interesting, Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know, it's it's very fascinating. That's
Speaker 2: one of the few I don't listen to a lot
Speaker 2: of other conspiracy podcasts anymore because I in my mind
Speaker 2: it's almost like why why a comedian doesn't listen to
Speaker 2: other comedians because they don't want to take on that
Speaker 2: mentality or whatever. It's not necessarily that I don't like them,
Speaker 2: It's just that I don't want to listen to somebody
Speaker 2: talk and then you know, almost play it as if
Speaker 2: it's my own opinion, like because I forget kind of thing.
Speaker 2: But Crow is one of them that I still listen
Speaker 2: to along with Rogueways with Lindsay and that's well also
Speaker 2: Forbidden Knowledge News. But anyway, yeah, those I would love
Speaker 2: to get crows still listen to old Billy Billy Carson.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I never really did.
Speaker 3: Oh Forbidden Knowledge No, No.
Speaker 1: I'm talking yeah, Forbidden Knowledge News with Chris Matthew.
Speaker 3: Ah yes, yes, yes, okay, okay, okay, yeah, I'm not.
Speaker 2: I never really was like a humongous fan like a
Speaker 2: lot of other people are with Billy Carson. I just
Speaker 2: thought that some of the shit that he talked about
Speaker 2: was interesting.
Speaker 1: I see he's still putting out videos though he is
Speaker 1: still trying to claw his way back out of the
Speaker 1: Holy Dug for himself. It's slow going, but I mean
Speaker 1: he has to know that's his that's his livelihood.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I guess.
Speaker 1: But anyhow, you're not his biggest fan. That's okay.
Speaker 2: I'm not even saying that, I absolutely am. I'm just
Speaker 2: saying I understand.
Speaker 3: The hustle, you know, yeah, yeah, no, no, And I get it.
Speaker 2: Whenever you go up and you debate somebody and you're
Speaker 2: proven wrong and people like to, you know, cancel you
Speaker 2: or whatever. I don't think that that's right either, Like
Speaker 2: just because he got a couple of things wrong. Doesn't
Speaker 2: necessarily mean that everything that he says is wrong.
Speaker 1: No, No, not necessarily.
Speaker 3: I would agree with that.
Speaker 1: It does make me question the validity of everything he said,
Speaker 1: But it wasn't that getting losing a debate. That happens, right,
Speaker 1: That that comes with the territory filing cease and assist
Speaker 1: letters and then going to your homeboy's house at two
Speaker 1: in the morning to try to smack him with a
Speaker 1: with a what's it called a smack lawsuit? Yeah, I
Speaker 1: thought he took that a little too far for sure.
Speaker 3: Anyway, Moving off of the Carson conversation back to a.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So, the idea that a muam moa might be
Speaker 2: an artificial object and not a natural body like a
Speaker 2: common or an asteroid came up independently in the minds
Speaker 2: of many scientists almost immediately after it was discovered. Indeed,
Speaker 2: many scientists and members of the lay public had been
Speaker 2: primed that's.
Speaker 1: What we are.
Speaker 2: We're members of the lay public, which, you know, it
Speaker 2: sounds like a degrading term, but that's probably what we
Speaker 2: would be called.
Speaker 1: The uh shit I lost?
Speaker 2: Okay, had been primed for a prospect for such a
Speaker 2: big thing by or for prospect for such a thing
Speaker 2: by the nineteen seventy three book Rendezvous with Rama by
Speaker 2: Arthur C. Clark, the opening chapter of which tracks some
Speaker 2: of the events of the actual discovery of Amuamua in
Speaker 2: the eerie uh pre prescience Presence Prescience.
Speaker 1: In that book, a long cylindrical object enters the Solar
Speaker 1: system of an orbit that carries it close to the Sun,
Speaker 1: then out again, which upon it's discovered, uh, which upon
Speaker 1: which it is discovered by comet hunters and is eventually
Speaker 1: determined to be an alien spacecraft. What a coincidence? But
Speaker 1: do we do do we? Or do we not believe
Speaker 1: in such coincidences?
Speaker 3: Here?
Speaker 1: Bro I mean, he might have Babe Ruth that fucking thing.
Speaker 3: And that's the thing.
Speaker 2: As far as like authors go, they say, I don't
Speaker 2: know where it comes from, you know what I mean? Like, uh,
Speaker 2: what's what's the famous Michael Jackson quote? Like the reason
Speaker 2: why he had to like people would always ask him, like, Michael,
Speaker 2: why are you fucking writing lyrics for a new song
Speaker 2: after you just got done with a concert. You're writing
Speaker 2: this shit at three in the morning. He goes, Well,
Speaker 2: if I don't write it down, then Prince Will. He
Speaker 2: believed that that information just existed out there in that
Speaker 2: it was somebody to grab. And so as far as
Speaker 2: people writing books, especially somebody like Arthur C. Clark, of which
Speaker 2: I have plenty of his books, I mean, yes, fiction
Speaker 2: for sure, but fascinating. Nonetheless, could he have been pulling
Speaker 2: that information from the ether?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: That's up for speculation.
Speaker 3: It's interesting, shit man.
Speaker 2: In real life conversations among astronomers on Twitter, gleefully suggested
Speaker 2: that the name RAMA for our new visitor, and planetary
Speaker 2: Sciences checked their data for any signs of unusual color
Speaker 2: or spectral features that might indicate artifice alas the real
Speaker 2: object did not conform to Clark's vision. Beyond its rough
Speaker 2: shape and trajectory, It was considerably smaller, perhaps one hundred
Speaker 2: meters across instead of Rama's fifty kilometers, had the same
Speaker 2: colors as a typical Solar System comets and asteroids, and
Speaker 2: was apparently tumbling in an uncontrollable manner, giving it a
Speaker 2: highly variable brightness rather than the steady one in the book.
Speaker 2: It was also discovered on its way out of the
Speaker 2: Solar System, too late for close inspection or for human
Speaker 2: visitors as in Clark's novel, that that novel also anticipated
Speaker 2: rather fewer women scientists would study such objects than is
Speaker 2: the actual case today. I feel like he's kind of
Speaker 2: picking hairs at that point.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's throwing shade, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: But also, we're talking about scientists in the nineteen seventies,
Speaker 1: and that book was written as compared to the field
Speaker 1: of science today. In the nineteen seventies, Yeah, you had
Speaker 1: some female scientists in that field, but it was vastly
Speaker 1: less than what we have today.
Speaker 2: So I mean, you're only going on what is normal
Speaker 2: for the time. That's not necessarily a sexist thing, right that.
Speaker 1: You know they're gonna try to throw shade at it
Speaker 1: and say it's not an alien craft.
Speaker 3: This guy wrote about it, but he was wrong. It's like, Okay,
Speaker 3: I feel like you're missing the point here.
Speaker 1: That's like, fucking what's his nuts?
Speaker 4: That?
Speaker 2: I can't stand That went on and debated Graham Hancock
Speaker 2: on The Joe Rogan Show to talk about Glynn Dibble.
Speaker 2: I can't stand that fucking douchebag.
Speaker 1: Why because everything is racist, everything is sexist, and the
Speaker 1: only explanation for Atlantis is because you're such a racist
Speaker 1: piece of shit. I'm like, bro Kanda, fuck on, I'll.
Speaker 3: Give you that.
Speaker 1: And he even said that he does not believe the
Speaker 1: Graham Hancock is a racist. He was saying that a
Speaker 1: lot of the earlier sources for Atlantis being these things,
Speaker 1: and we and you talked about that, right, Why how
Speaker 1: did the Aztecs build these pyramids?
Speaker 3: They couldn't have done this.
Speaker 1: That could be taken as a racist epitaph here, because
Speaker 1: you're saying that these Indigenous people were not smart enough
Speaker 1: to know how to cut and stack rocks into a pile.
Speaker 1: That's that could be seen as racist. Now, I know
Speaker 1: what Graham is trying to say. It's not that they
Speaker 1: weren't smart enough to cut rocks. It is the incredible
Speaker 1: alignment and precision and all these things that would take
Speaker 1: insane instruments in tooling and all these things.
Speaker 3: Flint is saying that that is not the case. But
Speaker 3: I mean, we.
Speaker 2: Couldn't create it to the precision that it is in
Speaker 2: this day and age. So essentially, if he's calling those people,
Speaker 2: you know, savages or whatever, he'd be calling even the
Speaker 2: current day people savages.
Speaker 1: I mean we could. It's not it's not that difficult.
Speaker 1: It would, It's just not that's not what they say
Speaker 1: for what to make a pyramid? Fuck a bass pro
Speaker 1: shop that's in a pyramid.
Speaker 2: I'm not Yes, anybody can make a pyramid. What I'm
Speaker 2: saying is is that the the the extreme dimensions that
Speaker 2: they went as far as creating the King's Chamber that
Speaker 2: you light in or you let in a little bit
Speaker 2: of sound, or you let in a little bit of light,
Speaker 2: it's going to cause a harmonic frequency to cause you
Speaker 2: go to to go into like a weird state of mind,
Speaker 2: like they're not doing that true.
Speaker 1: Though, dude, pyramids are notoriously horrible for harmonics.
Speaker 3: That is you have Have you not heard of that?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 1: No, no, like you could look it up, like pyramids are
Speaker 1: horrible for sound resonance, Like that's that's why amphitheaters are
Speaker 1: built in round shapes rather than hard angled shapes like pyramids.
Speaker 3: Have you ever heard of? What I'd said?
Speaker 5: Though?
Speaker 1: Yeah, but that's that is what I would consider to
Speaker 1: be incorrect. I know people that have gone there and
Speaker 1: sat in the King's Chamber for that. As far as
Speaker 1: you remember, we talked about the crystal skulls and there
Speaker 1: were these people that just they sat with it and
Speaker 1: they heard voices. They knew that it was from this
Speaker 1: thing and it was real because they vibed with it
Speaker 1: and all these things.
Speaker 3: Come to find out it was completely fake.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I'm gonna agree to disagree on your concept
Speaker 2: on this. I just think, and especially in exact measurements
Speaker 2: and in relations to a Ryan's belt, that's what sets
Speaker 2: the the the these pyramids in Egypt at Giza apart
Speaker 2: from all the other pyramids, Like, yeah, all the other pyramids.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: I could see how you could say, oh, well, anybody
Speaker 2: could do this because other civilizations have done it. But
Speaker 2: have they done it to the level of the specificity
Speaker 2: of the Pyramids of Giza. No, nobody has.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not trying to undercut how impressive it is,
Speaker 1: like at all, but yeah, we could recreate that today.
Speaker 3: Like it's it's not it's just about money and time.
Speaker 3: It's not. Uh, it's not impossible.
Speaker 2: Really, Okay, the show coming up, I'm gonna try and
Speaker 2: prove you wrong. That's gonna be a fun one. I
Speaker 2: just love, you know, arguing about this kind of shit
Speaker 2: because I I'm telling you, I have heard so many
Speaker 2: qualified individuals say that there's no way that we could
Speaker 2: recreate them exactly as they are, exactly as they lay,
Speaker 2: exactly at their dimensions and all that.
Speaker 1: That kind of shit. So why would it be considered
Speaker 1: one of the seven fucking Wonders of the world if
Speaker 1: we know that we can recreate it now? That makes
Speaker 1: no sense. Why would it? You wouldn't call it a
Speaker 1: fucking wonder of the world if you because it now,
Speaker 1: because it was built fucking four thousand, damnure five thousand
Speaker 1: years ago.
Speaker 3: That makes it a wonder of the world.
Speaker 1: Dude, Are there any other wonders of the world that
Speaker 1: we would be able to create right now?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 1: As far as the seven ancient Wonders of the world,
Speaker 1: Let's see, we're talking about the lighthouse now, Alexandria. We
Speaker 1: were talking about the colossus at not Carthage. I'm trying
Speaker 1: to remember where the colossus was, but it fell. It
Speaker 1: was made out of mostly ivory and gold. The Hanging Gardens,
Speaker 1: the pyramids, of course, shit, there was a couple others
Speaker 1: that were like one of the seven ancient owners of
Speaker 1: the world, and like, yeah, we could recreate the hanging gardens,
Speaker 1: It's that's not difficult. But the fact that they were
Speaker 1: able to build that in the day and age to
Speaker 1: which it was built is what makes it so incredible.
Speaker 3: Hmm.
Speaker 1: Okay, Like we have we know how to cut stone,
Speaker 1: and we can we can laser etch stone. These days,
Speaker 1: we have cranes, we have all this kind of information.
Speaker 3: We could build a pyramid.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we could cut quartz and the gold capstone and
Speaker 1: all these things. We could recreate it. But do you
Speaker 1: realize how much money that would take, how much time
Speaker 1: that would take, how much manpower resources for? But for
Speaker 1: what they were doing it for what some would say
Speaker 1: a religious purpose. And I'm not gonna say if that
Speaker 1: was right or wrong or bit bah like whatever. They
Speaker 1: did it because it was important to them to do it.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't be important for us to do that. That would
Speaker 1: be that there'd be no reason. It would just be
Speaker 1: a guy trying to flex his richness.
Speaker 3: I guess. I mean, which, if we're gonna be technical,
Speaker 3: is what that kind of was in another sense?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, and I don't know, maybe they say
Speaker 2: that you wouldn't be able to do it today with
Speaker 2: technology that they had back then. I don't know if
Speaker 2: that's considered if that's up against like with our modern technology.
Speaker 1: That might be a different conversation. I mean, you could,
Speaker 1: but it would take a lot of slave labor, and
Speaker 1: we we that's frowned upon in almost every country on
Speaker 1: Earth except for more Tania. But anyway, we're getting way
Speaker 1: off the conversation, and we can do an episode on
Speaker 1: it for the Pyramids.
Speaker 3: I am down.
Speaker 2: Our iPhones are made by fucking essentially slave labor, and
Speaker 2: we all have one.
Speaker 3: Very true, very true. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Anyway, I don't know. That might be something I'll look into.
Speaker 2: If I find that you're right, then I just won't
Speaker 2: do a show on it.
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't know. I could be wrong.
Speaker 2: Anyhow, getting back to the article here. Nonetheless, the object's
Speaker 2: novelty and the possibility for first contact was enough for
Speaker 2: astronomers to check for signs of artificial radio transmissions from
Speaker 2: the object using the Allen Telescope array operated by the
Speaker 2: SETI Institute in Mountain View, California, the Murchison World Or
Speaker 2: Wide Field Array, and the one hundred meter Robert C.
Speaker 2: Byrd Green Bank Telescope. The latter observations by astronomers at
Speaker 2: the University of West Virginia and the University of California
Speaker 2: Berkeley used the Breakthrough Listen equipment in what was at
Speaker 2: the time the most sensitive and broadband SETI investigation ever
Speaker 2: performed on a single target. No signs of artificial signals
Speaker 2: were detected.
Speaker 3: They say, all right, real quick, real quick, let's pause
Speaker 3: where we are at on that conversation too. Well, actually, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: we got a little bit more to go. So all right,
Speaker 3: the shit I lost my spot.
Speaker 1: Go down right, there's okay. Yeah, so let's talk about
Speaker 1: the Breakthrough Listen equipment. We're not gonna spend a whole
Speaker 1: lot of time on it. I do have an article
Speaker 1: pulled up here, but it's rather quick when it looks long.
Speaker 1: But that's the entirety of it. Just so we're all
Speaker 1: on the same page with what the Breakthrough Listen project is,
Speaker 1: let's read these two paragraphs right here.
Speaker 2: Breakthrough Listen is an astronomy project to search for intelligent
Speaker 2: extraterrestrial communications, with one hundred million dollars in funding, in
Speaker 2: thousands of hours of dedicated telescope time on state of
Speaker 2: the art facilities, and the most comprehensive search for alien
Speaker 2: communication to date. The project began in January of twenty
Speaker 2: sixteen and is expected to continue for ten years.
Speaker 1: So that's coming up on the end real quick, January
Speaker 1: of twenty sixteen. This object came in twenty seventeen. Again,
Speaker 1: do we think it's a coincidence that out of nowhere
Speaker 1: they developed an entire project to try to listen and
Speaker 1: communicate with extraterrestrial life one year to Amuamua making its entrance.
Speaker 2: So you're saying that if it was alien, then they
Speaker 2: may have detected that we were building this technology and
Speaker 2: therefore would have to come scope out the Solar System. Now,
Speaker 2: it didn't go around Earth though, it just shot around
Speaker 2: the Sun.
Speaker 1: It shot by Earth, but we didn't realize that until
Speaker 1: after it had already passed by the Sun. Oh Okay,
Speaker 1: it did come within one hundred and thirty what was
Speaker 1: the number she said? It was like one hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty thousand or something like that. It came close, but
Speaker 1: not like it shot between us and our moon or
Speaker 1: something like that. I didn't like affect our tidal waves
Speaker 1: or anything. But it was closer to the Earth than
Speaker 1: when they realized that it was there. That's why they
Speaker 1: had to go two months back in time with the
Speaker 1: hubble to see where it came from. They realized, oh
Speaker 1: my god, it was right by us, but they didn't
Speaker 1: realize it yet. But all I'm saying is, isn't it
Speaker 1: just a crazy coincidence that all one year, almost two
Speaker 1: years prior to the amuamua exposure, they literally developed the
Speaker 1: group that was trying to make contact with these things.
Speaker 3: I'm just saying.
Speaker 2: It is a component of Yuri Milner's Breakthrough Initiatives program.
Speaker 2: The science program for Breakthrough Listen is based at Berkeley
Speaker 2: SETI Research Center, located in the Astronomy Department at the
Speaker 2: University of California, Berkeley. The project uses radio wave observations
Speaker 2: from the Green Bank Observatory and the Parks Observatory, and
Speaker 2: visible light observations from the automated Planetfinder. Targets for the
Speaker 2: project include one million nearby stars and the centers of
Speaker 2: one hundred galaxies. I mean, it didn't do a very
Speaker 2: good job at detecting this one. Then are you looking
Speaker 2: at one hundred galaxies?
Speaker 1: Looking at one hundred galaxies, but you missed the thing
Speaker 1: that was literally passing but right by your house.
Speaker 2: All data generated from the project are available to the
Speaker 2: public and SETI at Home. Bioinc or bo inc is
Speaker 2: used for some of the data analysis. The first results
Speaker 2: were published in April twenty seventeen, with further updates expected
Speaker 2: every six months.
Speaker 1: Okay, so that's the over under of it right now,
Speaker 1: let's talk about the breakthrough. Listen is eavesdropping on strange
Speaker 1: interstellar object a muamua.
Speaker 2: Okay, Alien hunting scientists are are lending a telescopic ear
Speaker 2: to a muamua, a mysterious object recently spotted speeding through
Speaker 2: the Solar System. A muamua, first detected in October with
Speaker 2: the pan Star's one telescope in Hawaii, is the first
Speaker 2: likely visitor from interstellar space to ever be spotted in
Speaker 2: Earth's Solar System. The object reach a peak speed of
Speaker 2: one hundred and ninety six thousand miles per hour during
Speaker 2: and during its closest approach to Earth. Also in October,
Speaker 2: the reddish, potentially cigar shaped object passed by about eighty
Speaker 2: five times the distance from Earth to the Moon.
Speaker 1: It's up to a quarter mile long.
Speaker 3: So yeah, that was wrong.
Speaker 1: I said two hundred thousand miles per hour at its
Speaker 1: fastest one hundred ninety six. I don't think anybody's gonna
Speaker 1: give you shit for that one. Jacob I'm just saying
Speaker 1: some people are are meticulous motherfuckers, and if you get
Speaker 1: one little thing wrong, it's like, okay, sorry, maybe I
Speaker 1: round it up a little bit. That's why I don't
Speaker 1: read the Spotify comments, bro, that's.
Speaker 3: All it's not. Yeah, it's just the Spotify comments.
Speaker 1: But yeah, it's like earlier whenever I said Haley's comment
Speaker 1: the fastest that he gets as compared to this, it's
Speaker 1: like a nine thousand mile per hour difference.
Speaker 3: But that's also as compared to what.
Speaker 1: Muhamua's or o muhamouh, excuse me, it's slowest speed, it's
Speaker 1: fastest with one hundred and ninety six thousand, that is
Speaker 1: substantially less than what you said.
Speaker 3: Hailey's was one hundred and thirty three thousand.
Speaker 1: Yeah, something like that. I mean, bro, that is cooking.
Speaker 1: There is nothing that we've ever seen go that fast anyway.
Speaker 2: Continuing, Yeah, So, the Global SETI Program Breakthrough Listen, funded
Speaker 2: by Yuri Milner, a Silicon Valley technology investor, announced today
Speaker 2: on December eleventh, it will turn the one hundred meter
Speaker 2: Green Bay tell Scoto Or in West Virginia to listen
Speaker 2: for potential alien signals.
Speaker 1: From the object.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I did telling Danma.
Speaker 2: Scientists have been intrigued by the reddish elongated object because
Speaker 2: of its long and thin shape, which is unlike the
Speaker 2: asteroids and commets researchers have seen that are native to
Speaker 2: the Solar System. Researchers working on long distance space transportation
Speaker 2: have previously suggested that a cigar or needle shape like
Speaker 2: a Muamua exhibits is the most likely architecture for an
Speaker 2: interteller interstellar spacecraft, since this would minimize friction and damage
Speaker 2: from interstellar gas and dust. Breakthrough Listen representatives said in
Speaker 2: the statement in quotes, while a natural origin is more likely,
Speaker 2: there is currently no consensus on what the on what
Speaker 2: that origin might have been, and break Through Listen as
Speaker 2: well positioned to explore the possibility that Amuama could be
Speaker 2: an artifact.
Speaker 3: So real quick.
Speaker 1: Also, they're saying that the cigar shape, which we know,
Speaker 1: is not the likely shape of it.
Speaker 3: It was more disk like.
Speaker 1: But at the time this article was from twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: when it was still hot, right like hot off the presses.
Speaker 1: This was the going news to people that were paying
Speaker 1: attention to it. Anyway, the cigar or needle shape is
Speaker 1: the most likely architecture for interstellar spacecraft, since this would
Speaker 1: minimize friction and damage from interstellar gas and dust. There's
Speaker 1: no friction in space, dog, there's no air in space.
Speaker 1: So right off the rip, it's like, what are you
Speaker 1: talking about, dog?
Speaker 2: Is it maybe because it's so skinny that it's not gonna,
Speaker 2: you know, be bumping elbows with other comments and other
Speaker 2: planets and shit.
Speaker 3: Like if that's what they're gonna say, then cool.
Speaker 1: Like they said, from like debris and shit, it's the
Speaker 1: least likely to get hit by debris. I don't necessarily
Speaker 1: believe that, but okay, anyway.
Speaker 2: The telescope will begin observing the object tomorrow, December December thirteenth,
Speaker 2: at three pm across four radio bands from one to
Speaker 2: twelve gigahertz, and will observe over a total of ten
Speaker 2: hours for its first phase, broken up into four segments
Speaker 2: based on the object's rotation. At the object's current distance
Speaker 2: from Earth, it would take less than a minute for
Speaker 2: a for the telescope to detect a transmission with the
Speaker 2: powers of a cell phone. With the power of a
Speaker 2: cell phone's breakthrough listen representative said, that's interesting.
Speaker 3: So remember how I said this earlier.
Speaker 1: This does not mean that Amua mua was not transmitting
Speaker 1: signal in some way, shape or form. It's very possible
Speaker 1: that it was not within this range. Now, this is
Speaker 1: a wide range, one to twelve gigahertz. That is a
Speaker 1: wide range. I am not going to deny that. But
Speaker 1: it's only four radio bands and it was between those frequencies.
Speaker 3: Is it possible that it.
Speaker 1: Was transmitting something outside of those and that's why nothing
Speaker 1: was detected? So interesting?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's all I was trying to see, like one
Speaker 2: to twelve gigaherts on the spectrum that it is, Like
Speaker 2: how high does that go up?
Speaker 1: But I mean, that's what I'm saying. How do we
Speaker 1: know that it was even transmit emitting a radio or
Speaker 1: a sound signal. Maybe it's communicating through light, Maybe it's
Speaker 1: communicating through a means that humans really have never even
Speaker 1: heard or thought of yet. Maybe, like you said, it
Speaker 1: is astral projection or something in that regard, Like who knows.
Speaker 1: Just because they didn't pick up a signal from it,
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that it wasn't transmitting a signal.
Speaker 2: That's all I'm saying, right right, I mean, if you
Speaker 2: just want to get weird here for a second, you
Speaker 2: know the the what is it called the fungus network,
Speaker 2: the my cereal network. Does the my celial network technically
Speaker 2: give off a sound whenever it's communicating with trees and
Speaker 2: all other plant life?
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't believe.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I don't know it didn't. I
Speaker 1: don't know if they would need to do that. But
Speaker 1: to your point, we didn't even know that the my
Speaker 1: seal network existed ten years ago. Like, that's that's relatively
Speaker 1: new information to us. And I'm not gonna say new technology.
Speaker 1: Trees have been doing tree shit and mushrooms have been
Speaker 1: doing mushroom shit since the beginning of time. Right, Just
Speaker 1: because we just now discovered it, doesn't mean that it's
Speaker 1: new information. It might be new for us. We don't
Speaker 1: know the type of communication that a muamua might have
Speaker 1: been using. It might be something that we don't even
Speaker 1: know exists. That's one hundred percent with you here.
Speaker 2: Even without a signal, the telescope's radio inspection could reveal
Speaker 2: additional information about water or ice on the subject or
Speaker 2: on the object rather or a coma of gas surrounding it,
Speaker 2: neither of which have yet been spotted. A muamua's presence
Speaker 2: within our solar system affords breakthrough listen and opportunity to
Speaker 2: reach unprecedented sensitivities to possible artificial transmitters and demonstrate our
Speaker 2: ability to track nearby fast moving objects, said the director
Speaker 2: of Berkeley Seti Research Center. Whether this object turns out
Speaker 2: to be artificial or natural, it's a great target for listen.
Speaker 1: Okay, so again they found nothing, but I at least
Speaker 1: wanted to give props that the scientific community was doing
Speaker 1: what they could to try to reach out to this
Speaker 1: craft or at least pick up on what signal it was.
Speaker 1: They fell short of the mark, But it wasn't this like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: that must be an asteroid. Like no, they legitimately thought
Speaker 1: if this is something, because we can't explain where it
Speaker 1: came from, we can't explain why it's going as fast
Speaker 1: as it is, we can't explain the trajectory that it
Speaker 1: was on or any of these things. Yo, how do
Speaker 1: we know it's not a craft? And at least they
Speaker 1: tried to the capabilities that they could at the time
Speaker 1: to make contact, and I want to at least give
Speaker 1: the props of the scientific community for that.
Speaker 3: Sure.
Speaker 2: So the most prominent suggestion that a Muha Moa was artificial.
Speaker 2: Began with a paper by Biali and Lobe which analyzed
Speaker 2: the possibility that Amua Moa might be a light sale,
Speaker 2: an extremely thin sheet used for spacecraft propulsion via radiation pressure.
Speaker 2: This paper was primarily an analysis of the survivability of
Speaker 2: thin objects and interstellar space, but concluded with the exotic
Speaker 2: scenario that Amoa Morea might have been such an object,
Speaker 2: perhaps a discarded piece of a launch apparatus.
Speaker 1: So Lobe, by the way, is the guy from Harvard
Speaker 1: who is currently saying that the Atlas is a mothership.
Speaker 1: Oh shit. He is the Harvard astrology guy that is,
Speaker 1: or astrophysics guy that is saying that he believes that
Speaker 1: Atlas is not just another crazy space debris. He believes
Speaker 1: that it is something of extraterrestrial importance in some way,
Speaker 1: shape or form. And the scientific community is shitting on
Speaker 1: him for this, I might add, but they have no
Speaker 1: answers that make sense either.
Speaker 3: This is what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: It's like they're eating themselves alive, throwing shit at the
Speaker 1: wall to see what sticks when none of them have
Speaker 1: any clue. Lobe is just as credible, in my opinion
Speaker 1: as the doctor we heard from the Ted talk.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's the problem within the scientific community. If
Speaker 2: you go out of line, you are completely disregarded. And
Speaker 2: that's why so many of them stay in line with
Speaker 2: what everybody else believes. Because if you're somebody that is
Speaker 2: thinking outside the box, for I mean, for heaven's sake,
Speaker 2: you think outside the box and you're not so lockstep
Speaker 2: with every other scientist and every other opinion of the
Speaker 2: supposed experts, then you're somehow out an outcast now and
Speaker 2: nobody wants to listen to you because you're that kooky
Speaker 2: scientist that said that this could be an alien. It's like,
Speaker 2: you know, this is the problem with that whole scientific
Speaker 2: community is because there are I mean, I mean, you
Speaker 2: just get slapped out if you have any you know, original.
Speaker 1: Thought, right, and so, and I'm not saying that I
Speaker 1: agree with Lobe. I'm not saying that I disagree with
Speaker 1: lob And we need people like him though. He is
Speaker 1: proposing a very interesting perspective and I think we need that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so where we're all right in their paper? Bally,
Speaker 2: is that all you would say that BALI? I think
Speaker 2: it's not Bailey, it's b I A l y.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so Baali and Lobe estimates that Ama was around
Speaker 1: one hundred or a thousand kilograms and about one millimeter
Speaker 1: millimeter thick.
Speaker 3: No wow, Yeah, they're saying it was like a piece
Speaker 3: of paper out there.
Speaker 2: Okay, interesting, which seems to be too bulky to be
Speaker 2: an effective light sale. Ours are typically thousands of times
Speaker 2: thinner than this. Oh so this is too thick? Is
Speaker 2: one millimeter?
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's because they were acting like it was a sale,
Speaker 1: like as a ship, and it was using radiation to
Speaker 1: pull it somewhere. That was like the propulsion method is.
Speaker 1: Or it's like I said, it's all in the realm
Speaker 1: of theories and possibilities here.
Speaker 2: Look, it's only crazy or not crazy until you can
Speaker 2: actually get your hands on the thing and actually observe it.
Speaker 2: You know, I would say that there's no such thing
Speaker 2: as a crazy thought. If you if this thing is
Speaker 2: so far away, you only got the data that you have.
Speaker 2: I mean, hey, dude, let your imagination run wild.
Speaker 1: And that's the other thing too. This is a clearly
Speaker 1: human perspective. Well, what's making it go? There's no trail
Speaker 1: behind it, there's no comma, there's no this, there's this
Speaker 1: Maybe it's like a light sale. Brother, the beings that
Speaker 1: built this craft you think are still using sales. That
Speaker 1: sounds like a very human perspective. But again, it's not
Speaker 1: any more crazy than any other proposed theory at this time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is also unclear whether such a sale would
Speaker 2: not fold up, or if it would indeed continue to
Speaker 2: tumble after millions or billions of years in interstellar space.
Speaker 2: Until recently, no one had performed an analysis of what
Speaker 2: the brightness variation and accelerations of a light cell might be,
Speaker 2: and so it was unclear whether the light cell hypothesis
Speaker 2: fit the data any better than a comet would. Nevertheless,
Speaker 2: the suggestion has received widespread attention in the media on
Speaker 2: account of numerous media interviews by the second author, A
Speaker 2: VI Lobe, and the subsequent publication of his trad his
Speaker 2: trade science book, Extraterrestrial, The First Sign of Intelligent Life
Speaker 2: Beyond Earth, which debuted on the New York Times bestseller
Speaker 2: list and was favorably reviewed in the print edition of
Speaker 2: the newspaper. Doctor Loebes's book and public discussions have been
Speaker 2: much less circumspect and equivocal than the biali inlob paper,
Speaker 2: and make strong claims about the quality of the evidence
Speaker 2: for Amua moya being artificial.
Speaker 3: And this is a picture of the book. By the way,
Speaker 3: I thought it looked cool.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it looks tight.
Speaker 3: Some extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence.
Speaker 2: Much of the meta discussion about doctor Loeb's claims has
Speaker 2: centered on variations of Carl Sagan's phrasing of the old
Speaker 2: maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Doctor Loeb argues
Speaker 2: in his book and elsewhere that this claim, or that
Speaker 2: his claim that Amua moa is alien technology, is in
Speaker 2: the end not so extraordinary. This is ultimately a philosophical
Speaker 2: objection to the presumption many of us have made that
Speaker 2: the project is natural, or that the object is natural,
Speaker 2: and to subsequent analysis is analysis of the data made
Speaker 2: under the presumption under that presumption. Rather to doctor loebe
Speaker 2: this might seem to be questioned begging. This might seem
Speaker 2: to be question begging. Okay, if we assume it is
Speaker 2: a it is natural before we begin our analysis, that
Speaker 2: then we cannot claim to have come to the conclusion
Speaker 2: that it is natural based on evidence. Okay, it's just
Speaker 2: a philosophical They just disagree. Yeah, essentially, so we would
Speaker 2: counter as the scientists. It says the scientists analyzing a
Speaker 2: MOA MOA in a natural context have not dismissed the
Speaker 2: alien technology hypothesis out of hand. Indeed, many of us
Speaker 2: were engaged in many of the earlier mentioned discussions of
Speaker 2: it being an artifact, just that it is unlikely enough
Speaker 2: and the evidence for that possibility weak enough that it
Speaker 2: has not been worth following up. After all, A tacit
Speaker 2: corollary of Sagan's maxim in the scientific community is that
Speaker 2: the burden is on the one making an extraordinary claim
Speaker 2: to do the hard work of showing that it holds
Speaker 2: up to scrutiny. Ultimately, however, this is part of the discussion.
Speaker 2: This part of the discussion comes down to one personal
Speaker 2: assessment of the likelihood that alien spacecraft visit the Solar System,
Speaker 2: which can only be debated philosophically. We believe the claim
Speaker 2: to be extraordinary, requiring much more evidence than exists to
Speaker 2: be seriously entertained. Doctor Lobe apparently finds the claim to
Speaker 2: be quite reasonable. Indeed, he devotes much of his book
Speaker 2: to this argument, and therefore requires not much more than
Speaker 2: the cursory analysis he has done for us already to
Speaker 2: consider it likely. So, rather than debate the merits of
Speaker 2: the idea that alien spacecraft exists in the Solar System,
Speaker 2: and we three authors have different opinions on this topic.
Speaker 2: We will stay here. We will here, stay close. I
Speaker 2: think that was wrong.
Speaker 1: We will stay here, close to the data and discuss
Speaker 1: the merits of doctor Lobe's evidence so that the real
Speaker 1: can come to their own conclusions.
Speaker 2: We will grow. We will group evidence in two camps.
Speaker 2: Properties of amama that are consistent with natural objects in
Speaker 2: the Solar System or prior expectations for interstellar objects, and
Speaker 2: anomalist properties that might argue for either a new class
Speaker 2: or understanding of natural objects or for artifice, depending on
Speaker 2: one's priors.
Speaker 1: And that also checks out right. They're saying, listen, we're
Speaker 1: not saying there's a zero percent chance of it. We're
Speaker 1: gonna say that we're going to show the evidence for both.
Speaker 1: So I'll read this part evidence for the naturalness. What
Speaker 1: evidence is needed to demonstrate that amua mua is a natural,
Speaker 1: non artificial object. Most scientists are not used to defending
Speaker 1: the concept of naturalness. Each observation of a muamua can
Speaker 1: be interpreted in the context of known populations of small
Speaker 1: bodies on its way in it was observed to be
Speaker 1: on exactly the type of orbit that was expected for
Speaker 1: non active interstellar objects. Its colors are consistent with D
Speaker 1: type asteroids, commets, and even Pluto. Its brightness variations are
Speaker 1: unusual but not unprecedented, and the census of small, faint
Speaker 1: asteroids and comets in the Solar System is woefully incomplete.
Speaker 1: Many small bodies are in tumbling rotation states, and many
Speaker 1: comets show non gravitational acceleration. What is hard to explain
Speaker 1: is the combination of these different factors in a single object,
Speaker 1: rather than any individual trait. So again, the color, yeah,
Speaker 1: they have stuff out there that's that color. The crazy rotation, yeah,
Speaker 1: they got stuff that rotates like that, like crazy, it's
Speaker 1: going fast like that. They got stuff that's kind of
Speaker 1: out there going fast. Okay, cool, But none of them
Speaker 1: are all seen in the same object. So this is
Speaker 1: why it's a bit on the anomalous side. On the
Speaker 1: other hand, there's no priori reason. I think that is
Speaker 1: meant to be a prior reason. There's no alternative reason
Speaker 1: to suppose that the artificial objects should share any of
Speaker 1: these properties with comets and asteroids, except non gravitational acceleration.
Speaker 3: So this constitutes evidence that a muhamua is.
Speaker 1: Natural and kind of or and of a kind of
Speaker 1: Solar system asteroid and comments. Now, let's talk about doctor
Speaker 1: Loeb's evidence for anomalies. In his book, doctor Lobe lays
Speaker 1: out three major and two minor anomalies that he believes
Speaker 1: argues for a muhamua's artificial nature. The major pieces of
Speaker 1: evidence are its shape, its reflectivity or albedo, and most
Speaker 1: significantly to doctor Lobe, its non gravitational acceleration phrased an
Speaker 1: apocryphal comment by Galileo before the Inquisition, Lobe repeats through
Speaker 1: his book, and yet it deviated.
Speaker 3: That's the quote. And yet it deviated, which that's the
Speaker 3: thing it did. It did, But anyway, The.
Speaker 1: Minor pieces of evidence are the space density of smaller
Speaker 1: or similar objects implied by its discovery, and its velocity
Speaker 1: through interstellar space. Below, we added each piece of evidence
Speaker 1: individually and in concert in light of the significant amount
Speaker 1: of research that has been done before and since doctor
Speaker 1: Lobe's initial claim.
Speaker 3: So the major argument.
Speaker 1: Being its shape, it is too elongated to be a
Speaker 1: natural object, and its longest to shortest axis ratio is
Speaker 1: at least five, perhaps ten, whereas the most extreme Solar
Speaker 1: System objects have an axis rotation of less.
Speaker 3: Than three or ratios.
Speaker 1: Rather truth the model fits, the light curve data are
Speaker 1: more consistent with a pancake shape with axis ratios of
Speaker 1: six six one. That is not a ten to one,
Speaker 1: but it is still much flatter and almost all than
Speaker 1: almost all Solar System objects, which typically have an access
Speaker 1: ratio of less than three to one, although there are
Speaker 1: a few with equally large light curve variations. Those rare
Speaker 1: cases also involve equally small bodies, and almost always when
Speaker 1: seen directly opposite of the Sun from us when at
Speaker 1: quote unquote full moon phase as opposed to at an
Speaker 1: angle at crescent moon phase. Okay, that matters because many
Speaker 1: planetary surfaces are extra reflective when directly opposite of the Sun,
Speaker 1: an effect we known as the opposition surge, and so
Speaker 1: some of the light curve variations may be due to
Speaker 1: the effect rather than the elongation shape. So it may
Speaker 1: yet be the case that all the observed bodies in
Speaker 1: the Solar System have axis ratios of less than three
Speaker 1: to one. On the other hand, little is known about
Speaker 1: the shapes of such small bodies, and perhaps more elongated
Speaker 1: shapes are common among them. Interestingly, the Copper Belt object,
Speaker 1: a RoCoF Ara cooth sure visited by New Horizons in
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, is composed of two bodies, one of which
Speaker 1: is pancake shape, although its axis ratios are more like
Speaker 1: two to two to one, so right off the rip,
Speaker 1: its shape makes it, if nothing else, one of the
Speaker 1: biggest anomalies that we have in our existence.
Speaker 2: Right now, you can understand why spectators such as your
Speaker 2: boy Lobe might throw out something that might be not
Speaker 2: necessarily anomalists, but possibly maybe it's a fucking alien. I
Speaker 2: could see why somebody might speculate on that.
Speaker 1: But you also keep in mind you Lobe is a
Speaker 1: professor of astrophysics at Harvard.
Speaker 3: Like, He's not some scrub.
Speaker 1: He's not he's not a he's not a professional conspiracy theorist.
Speaker 1: He is a man of science in academia, and he
Speaker 1: based off of his research in the field to which
Speaker 1: he has quite a stance in and has done the
Speaker 1: work and put in the years and all the stuff,
Speaker 1: he believes that these anomalies are too large to just sidestep.
Speaker 2: Right which which makes it all the more interesting is
Speaker 2: that he is within academia and and probably why he's
Speaker 2: getting so much shit talked about him because they don't
Speaker 2: like they don't like people like that stepping out of
Speaker 2: line with what everybody else is saying. Absolutely, I mean,
Speaker 2: as crazy in hair brained as it might sound, you
Speaker 2: still got to take him somewhat seriously. I mean, just
Speaker 2: for the pedigree that he has, that he holds already
Speaker 2: I know, and.
Speaker 1: Now there will be people that say that we can't
Speaker 1: trust academia because it's all part of the Rockefeller system
Speaker 1: of education, and how would you try anything out of
Speaker 1: the TechBook, Which, okay, I can acknowledge that that is
Speaker 1: a true statement. There's merit to that.
Speaker 3: There is merit to that.
Speaker 1: However, again, if this dude has built a thirty or
Speaker 1: forty year career off of knowing about astrophysics and space
Speaker 1: and stars and all these things, I feel like he's
Speaker 1: speaking with a little more weight behind his words than
Speaker 1: your average Joe Blow, who you know has read some
Speaker 1: articles off of the internet as me and you do.
Speaker 2: That's just my no agree to and I would say that,
Speaker 2: you know, his thought process wouldn't even necessarily be correlating with,
Speaker 2: you know, academia, because academia would lead you to believe
Speaker 2: that the majority of scientists who get something right is
Speaker 2: that's just what is right, you know. So I don't
Speaker 2: know if he's necessarily he's definitely not going with academia
Speaker 2: right now.
Speaker 1: He's opposite way. Yeah, which, which let's just be real.
Speaker 2: Maybe he's doing it to sell books because he does
Speaker 2: have something to gain.
Speaker 1: It was a New York Times bestseller.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: You know that you got to look at all the
Speaker 2: different angles with this kind of stuff.
Speaker 3: Maybe he's true.
Speaker 2: Maybe he's not making that fucking kind of chetta cheese
Speaker 2: working at Harvard. I don't know what you know, professors
Speaker 2: of it at Harvard make.
Speaker 3: Maybe it's not enough. It's very possible. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know. But watching interviews with him and things,
Speaker 1: he doesn't seem like a grifter. He seems like a believer.
Speaker 1: I'll say that much. I think that he really does
Speaker 1: stand by what he is saying. I don't think he's
Speaker 1: doing it just for the hype.
Speaker 2: Well that makes me want to buy the book then, like,
Speaker 2: And that's my thing is that you know, there's there's
Speaker 2: a there's a conversation to be had with you know,
Speaker 2: who's wrong and who's right, and and people that are
Speaker 2: just looking to gain money as opposed to people that
Speaker 2: are being original and they actually believe something, I personally
Speaker 2: will always go and I would want to listen to
Speaker 2: the guy that actually believes in his counter argument, whether
Speaker 2: it's true or not. That that's beside the point. My
Speaker 2: point is is that it's it adds a little bit
Speaker 2: more validity to me that he believes it wholeheartedly.
Speaker 1: But that's the thing too, it's not just like a
Speaker 1: faith based thing either. He is showing his receipts as
Speaker 1: to why he believes it. He's applying logic to it.
Speaker 1: And I agree with you, I am I'm more inclined
Speaker 1: to believe him as of this moment. And it's not
Speaker 1: even because most of the other people in academia that
Speaker 1: are trying to shit all over Lowe, they can show
Speaker 1: their receipts as to why they believe what they believe
Speaker 1: about it, right, So it's.
Speaker 3: Literally he said versus she said.
Speaker 1: On this however, none of them, including Lobe, have any
Speaker 1: actual proof or have any actual.
Speaker 3: Like this has to be what it is.
Speaker 1: It's all theories, it's all speculation, it's all hypotheticals at
Speaker 1: this point, and.
Speaker 2: If this guy is able to take the same data
Speaker 2: that everybody else is getting and he's able to interpret
Speaker 2: it differently, I feel like that that's at least worth
Speaker 2: listening to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, especially because all the other people, although they
Speaker 1: are the masses as far as this it's concerned, none
Speaker 1: of their perspectives make sense either. Like it's not, none
Speaker 1: of it does. We're gonna get to more of it
Speaker 1: in a minute. The reason why, I'll kind of jump
Speaker 1: ahead here for a second, The reason why they think
Speaker 1: that a moa moa sped off from the Sun is
Speaker 1: because they believe that it had pockets of hydrogen embedded
Speaker 1: into it, and when it got close enough to the Sun,
Speaker 1: this hydrogen expanded and burned off and acted like a
Speaker 1: rocket propulsion.
Speaker 3: That's scent it off.
Speaker 1: Okay, not impossible, No, it's not impossible. Here's my issue, right,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm gonna I'm gonna stop sharing the screen
Speaker 1: for just a minute.
Speaker 3: All right, here's my issue with this.
Speaker 1: Let's say this this hook of ape for the sense
Speaker 1: of the argument of it being a cigar shape, which
Speaker 1: we don't believe anymore. They did it first, They don't
Speaker 1: think so anymore. But let's just say this, Okay, take
Speaker 1: that part off.
Speaker 3: Boom.
Speaker 1: We got this cylinder cool, and it's going by this
Speaker 1: heat source. And if there's that much hydrogen pockets all
Speaker 1: over it, why would it be directionally pushing it one way?
Speaker 1: If the entire thing heated up by the sun, wouldn't
Speaker 1: it be expanding in all directions from it like a
Speaker 1: hand grenade. That wouldn't send it off like a rocket
Speaker 1: in a specific direction.
Speaker 2: Well, And also if it has those hydrogen pockets on
Speaker 2: there that are allowing it to expand, wouldn't I would
Speaker 2: almost think that it would cause it to explode in.
Speaker 3: General like a hand grenade exactly.
Speaker 1: So why would there be a remaining object after that?
Speaker 3: Right? That?
Speaker 1: That makes zero sense to me, But that is you're
Speaker 1: gonna if anybody looks this up at muha, muha, and
Speaker 1: what happened right, The going quote unquote expert narrative at
Speaker 1: this time is that trapped gases inside of this rock,
Speaker 1: which okay, let's say.
Speaker 3: It is a let's say it is even.
Speaker 1: The pancake shape, right cylinder, and it goes by the
Speaker 1: moon and it's not I'm sorry, the sun. It's spinning
Speaker 1: this way. It's kind of wobbling a little bit. It's tumbling,
Speaker 1: it's doing all these things. If the gas is trapped
Speaker 1: inside of that were to expand the same thing, it
Speaker 1: would go off in all directions. It wouldn't kind of
Speaker 1: have a fuse and take off like a bottle rocket
Speaker 1: out of one port. That's not the way heat transfer works,
Speaker 1: especially on an object that's small. It's not like this
Speaker 1: was the size of a small planet. This was one
Speaker 1: thousand meters long. Arguably.
Speaker 2: Well, Jacob, it's an interesting fact that you bring that
Speaker 2: up there, sir, that silver disc like thing, and then
Speaker 2: you talk about it in correlation with the moon. The
Speaker 2: moon is always associated with silver, and we have some
Speaker 2: silver things we do.
Speaker 1: Indeed, Wow, the lid actually it's a lid for some
Speaker 1: beef product that I take as a matter of fact.
Speaker 1: It's a ground up beef, beef heart. But yeah, that
Speaker 1: was a lid for that. But you're right, as I
Speaker 1: was just looking at that silver and that gold, you know,
Speaker 1: we should make a mention of the fact that we
Speaker 1: do have a sponsor through a silver and gold distributor,
Speaker 1: and if you would like to get your start in
Speaker 1: the buying and selling and trading of gold and silver,
Speaker 1: Boyan and minted coins and real weight of these precious metals.
Speaker 1: Then go to the link in the description below cecsilver
Speaker 1: dot com.
Speaker 3: When you fill out your information.
Speaker 1: Our homeboy Wayne Clark is going to be the one
Speaker 1: to reach out to you and get you squared away.
Speaker 3: Listen, do you want to buy a little bit? Do
Speaker 3: you want to buy a lot of bit?
Speaker 1: Do you want to take a portion of your retirement
Speaker 1: and put it into precious medals? I promise if you
Speaker 1: talk to your financial advisor or your CPA, or your
Speaker 1: accountant or whatever you go to and ask them, should
Speaker 1: you invest in precious metals? Every one of them will
Speaker 1: say at least a portion of your nest each should
Speaker 1: be invested in precious metals right now? Okay, gold is
Speaker 1: over three thousand dollars an ounce. Silver is a little
Speaker 1: over thirty six dollars an ounce. Right now, it's still affordable.
Speaker 1: Why you can get your hands on some of this?
Speaker 1: Now is the time to buy once again, go to
Speaker 1: cocsilver dot com.
Speaker 3: The link is in the description below. By the way,
Speaker 3: segue Jonathan, You're welcome, sir.
Speaker 2: By the way, this is going to be totally off topic,
Speaker 2: but I saw this shit earlier today dude, did you
Speaker 2: hear about what Africa just found? I think it was
Speaker 2: like either today or here it was. It was published
Speaker 2: July seventh, so that was last month. Africa just found
Speaker 2: literally found it as they were digging and mining and
Speaker 2: shit like that. They found thirty one million tons of
Speaker 2: gold worth twelve trillion dollars.
Speaker 3: Cool. They about to be rich. No they're not. No,
Speaker 3: they're not. Africa might get a couple hundred mili of that.
Speaker 1: I mean depending on that.
Speaker 3: That's how slave mining works. Dude. If you go and
Speaker 3: watch like, have you ever seen the movie Blood Diamond.
Speaker 2: No, I was talking about the country maybe the what
Speaker 2: says it was in Uganda.
Speaker 3: So here's how that works.
Speaker 1: Let's say that you found one hundred dollars worth of
Speaker 1: gold in the mines that day. Once you bring it
Speaker 1: to your person and they go to their person and
Speaker 1: they go to their person, the person who found that
Speaker 1: might get.
Speaker 3: Ten dollars for it. Of that hundred.
Speaker 1: Maybe if the person who's running their mind is like
Speaker 1: kind to them, right, the government man of the leaders
Speaker 1: would get it right.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, yeah, that's what I was gonna get the
Speaker 3: big cutt.
Speaker 2: No, I'm not saying like you ge't some Beverly hillbilly
Speaker 2: type shit. I'm talking about the country just richer.
Speaker 1: Yeah, at least for a little bit. They're gonna blow
Speaker 1: it as they do. But yeah, wow, that is insane though, So.
Speaker 2: Twelve brillion dollars worth. Imagine just finding that twelve trillion.
Speaker 2: I'm pretty sure that's like the world's debt, isn't it.
Speaker 3: Oh no, no, no, hell, America's debts more than that,
Speaker 3: is it?
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, our budget just went up five trillion cud lord, Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying
Speaker 1: to like undercut the incredible.
Speaker 2: Find that the national debt of America is thirty six trillion,
Speaker 2: literally three times that. Fine, that is crazy. How in
Speaker 2: debt we are? That is on and the irs wants
Speaker 2: to come after individuals. Kim on, yeah, kim shit, get
Speaker 2: the fuck out of here.
Speaker 1: No, I didn't hear about that. Fine, that's excellent. Shit,
Speaker 1: probably talk about that on a Cajun Night episode this week.
Speaker 3: Fuck yeah.
Speaker 1: Anyway, all right, to get back to the sharing of
Speaker 1: the screen, and let's get to it. So I'm going
Speaker 1: to jump ahead a little bit to the major argument
Speaker 1: of Albedo, right or the reflective nature of a muhamah
Speaker 1: The claim a muamoa reflected at least ten times as
Speaker 1: much light as a typical Solar system object, making it
Speaker 1: much more consistent with a mirror or reflective solar sale
Speaker 1: rather than a natural body.
Speaker 3: Truth of the.
Speaker 1: Matter is that, first, even if a muhamua reflected ninety
Speaker 1: percent of the light hitting it, giving it an albedo
Speaker 1: of zero point nine, that would make it just as
Speaker 1: shiny as many icy bodies in our solar system, including
Speaker 1: the large or Coopler belt object.
Speaker 3: Eris what is it?
Speaker 1: I think they pronounced it Kuiper belt.
Speaker 3: Oh that's i Kuiper belt. Yeah yeah, yeah, okay, okay.
Speaker 3: But the albita of a muhamoa is unknown.
Speaker 1: In fact, it is impossible to note from a single
Speaker 1: measurement the brightness whether it was very large but a
Speaker 1: dark body or a very small but reflective body. Just
Speaker 1: how shiny we infer a solar system body to be
Speaker 1: depends on how big we determine it to be, because
Speaker 1: we know their sizes. It has been determined that asteroids
Speaker 1: typically have a reflectiveness of five to twenty percent up
Speaker 1: to fifty percent. The dusting nuclei of comets range from
Speaker 1: two percent to seven percent, and Pluto surface is about
Speaker 1: sixty to seventy percent. All we know about the size
Speaker 1: of a muhamua is that it was not detected by
Speaker 1: the Spitzer space telescope, which would have detected the infrared
Speaker 1: radiation if it exceeded a certain size. Therefore, a muhamua
Speaker 1: could not have been too extreme in the large and
Speaker 1: dark category. But this only tells us that its albedo
Speaker 1: must be greater than four percent. Almost any Solar system
Speaker 1: body would fit that. Bill okay, so basically saying that
Speaker 1: his claim about it being a crazy shape.
Speaker 3: Not so much or the propulsion rather the claim.
Speaker 1: About its shininess albedo being more than anything else.
Speaker 3: That's also not really true.
Speaker 1: And we could see in the videos of it, as
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, it got dimmer and brighter, but
Speaker 1: that was because of its tumble and its rotation.
Speaker 3: But you know, neither here nor there.
Speaker 2: Well, they probably couldn't get it right because it was
Speaker 2: a Spitzer, which means it's a quitter, is what it is, right.
Speaker 2: You know spitzers as too.
Speaker 1: So another major argument is non gravitational acceleration without evidence
Speaker 1: of outgassing or dissintegration. Uh, the claim a muamu experienced
Speaker 1: an acceleration distinct from gravity as it left the Sun,
Speaker 1: unlike any experience by any natural Solar System body, and
Speaker 1: therefore must not be natural.
Speaker 3: All right, here's where we're going to get to some silliness. Okay, truth.
Speaker 1: According to the writer, a muhamou definitely experience a non
Speaker 1: gravitational acceleration as determined by its position in the sky,
Speaker 1: especially as fixed by the final observant observation rather of
Speaker 1: a muama by the Hubble telescope. Important to bear in mind,
Speaker 1: a muamua conformed almost exactly to a hyperbolic orbit around
Speaker 1: the Sun due to gravity alone. It is not as
Speaker 1: if it took a right angle turn to check out
Speaker 1: Earth then zipped over to Mars. Loebe's claim is not
Speaker 1: that it took such a turn that, but that the
Speaker 1: fact that it deviated at all implies that it's so
Speaker 1: light that even sunlight could push it around, and that
Speaker 1: this argues it is not a large, massive object like
Speaker 1: a comet or an asteroid, but something designed to be
Speaker 1: gently pushed by starlight, like a light sale. But this
Speaker 1: slight deviation from a purely gravitational orbit was not that
Speaker 1: unusual comet's routinely experienced non gravitational acceleration that pushes them
Speaker 1: away from the sun slightly. This acceleration depends on the
Speaker 1: amount of sunlight striking the comet and heating its surface,
Speaker 1: and so it varies as the reciprocal of the distance
Speaker 1: from the Sun squared. That's because the acceleration depends on
Speaker 1: the quote unquote rocket effect. Sublimation of surface ices. What
Speaker 1: that means for anybody who doesn't know when something goes sublime,
Speaker 1: that means that. All right, So we understand there's solids, liquids,
Speaker 1: and gases. Right for this conversation, take plasma and put
Speaker 1: it to the side for just a second. Right, When
Speaker 1: something goes from a liquid to a gas, that would
Speaker 1: be evaporation.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: When something goes from a gas to a liquid, that's
Speaker 1: called condensation. When something goes from a solid straight to
Speaker 1: a gas, that's called going sublime. That's called sublimation.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: An example of this would be dry ice. Whenever you
Speaker 1: drop it in water, it goes sublime. Okay.
Speaker 2: I just always thought that it meant that it doesn't
Speaker 2: practice santoria.
Speaker 3: It ain't got no crystal ball, And if it had
Speaker 3: a million dollars. It's spend it all. God, we're stupid.
Speaker 3: Dad's I know, I know, Sublime just out there doing
Speaker 3: it until he died. Anyway, neither here nor there.
Speaker 1: So it was basically saying that the trapped frozen liquids
Speaker 1: on the surface of this when it goes by the
Speaker 1: sun would sublimate right go sublime, which causes gases to
Speaker 1: push off of the sunlit side, accelerating the commet outward.
Speaker 1: The acceleration experienced by a muhamoa also varied as one
Speaker 1: over are squared strongly implicating sunlight as well, technically measured
Speaker 1: to b r to the power of a with somewhere
Speaker 1: between negative one point five and negative two. I'm not
Speaker 1: smart enough at matt to know what they're talking about,
Speaker 1: but it sounds like they know a thing or two.
Speaker 1: But anyway, for comments, the typical acceleration from this effect
Speaker 1: is zero point zero one percent of the strength of
Speaker 1: the gravitational acceleration for a muama it was closer to
Speaker 1: point one percent of the strength of the gravity. So
Speaker 1: this is indeed somewhat anomalous. I mean, it's ten times stronger,
Speaker 1: ten times stronger, and you're saying that that's from something
Speaker 1: going sublime.
Speaker 3: And here's my issue with this.
Speaker 1: When commets have that happen, you see the cone behind it,
Speaker 1: you see that tail behind it, because that is the
Speaker 1: gases that just burned off of the surface of it.
Speaker 3: A muamua had none of that.
Speaker 1: Nothing went sublime on that, and we know that because
Speaker 1: we tracked it on the hubble.
Speaker 3: So their entire point that they're making here is debunked.
Speaker 3: But all right, but does this large acceleration rule out
Speaker 3: the rocket effect? Not necessarily, as the force from the
Speaker 3: rocket effect is proportional to the amount of surface area
Speaker 3: on the object, but the inertia of the object is
Speaker 3: proportional to its mass.
Speaker 1: Small bodies have more surface area per mass. You can
Speaker 1: see this by considering chopping up a cucumber. The amount
Speaker 1: of the mass of the cucumber is the same after chopping,
Speaker 1: but the surface area of all of the pieces is
Speaker 1: far greater than when we only have the green skin
Speaker 1: like it was on the outside. Okay, this means they
Speaker 1: will experience a much larger rocket effect inversely proportional to
Speaker 1: their size. So what they're saying is that the smaller
Speaker 1: object will receive a larger rocket effect proportional to their size.
Speaker 1: This thing was not big at all. And I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that it experienced a rocket effect because again, there
Speaker 1: was no signs of sublimation happening to be used as
Speaker 1: its propulsion.
Speaker 3: All we know is that it came directly right.
Speaker 1: You see this, It passed right by the Earth, between
Speaker 1: the Earth and the Sun, and then zipped off at
Speaker 1: one hundred and ninety six thousand miles per hour. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it seems to be a bit of a hard angle there, right.
Speaker 1: It didn't take a direct current turn and come check
Speaker 1: out Earth and zip over to go see Mars.
Speaker 3: No, it didn't.
Speaker 1: It didn't because as far as we know, Mars doesn't
Speaker 1: have life on it, but we have life on Earth.
Speaker 3: So I mean kind of sent to.
Speaker 1: Do a little intel, little intelligence gathering, a little research.
Speaker 2: I mean, who's to say that if it is alien,
Speaker 2: that they wouldn't have the technology to just be able
Speaker 2: to dip into a solar system and gather all the
Speaker 2: day that that that that they would need Almost like ummmm,
Speaker 2: I don't know, Like you don't need to be right
Speaker 2: next to your Wi Fi router to have Internet that
Speaker 2: you could just be in the vicinity of it.
Speaker 1: Okay, fair enough, This is what I'm saying. They're trying
Speaker 1: to like debunk lobes claims, but they really can't even
Speaker 1: by their own emission right. Speaking of the next claim,
Speaker 1: a muamo's deviation from its ordinary orbit via outgassing requires
Speaker 1: it to have lost ten percent of its mass.
Speaker 3: Here's the truth of it. This is true.
Speaker 1: They literally just said that that's accurate, but it's not
Speaker 1: inconsistent with natural objects, especially if a muhamo was composed
Speaker 1: of most mostly ices and not rock. Indeed, as with
Speaker 1: the bar of bath soap after many uses, extreme amounts
Speaker 1: of mass loss also explains its large axis ratios. But
Speaker 1: it didn't lose ten percent of its mass. It was
Speaker 1: the same side as it was the entire time. It
Speaker 1: didn't lose shape in any way, shape or form, So
Speaker 1: again it doesn't really make sense. Another claim low rightes
Speaker 1: that comets are ungainly rocks. They're rough and irregular surfaces
Speaker 1: retain unevenly distributed ice. As the sun melts the ice
Speaker 1: and the outgassing produces propulsion, it does not, or it
Speaker 1: does sot across that rough and pitted surface.
Speaker 3: The result is a herky jerky acceleration. Truth. There are
Speaker 3: two ways that we.
Speaker 1: Could measure the acceleration of a muamua by its deviation
Speaker 1: from a hyperbolic path through the Solar System and its
Speaker 1: rotation period changed. The first of these we just don't
Speaker 1: know about. Our measurements of its path through the Solar
Speaker 1: System are too sparse to say if it accelerate if
Speaker 1: its acceleration was smooth as for the rotation period. Lobe
Speaker 1: sites of paper by Roman Raphikov, who finds that the
Speaker 1: outgassing required to explain to muamus acceleration would have provided
Speaker 1: a tork, spinning it up to speeds much faster than
Speaker 1: we observed it tumbling and likely breaking it into pieces.
Speaker 3: Yet this only holds.
Speaker 1: True if all of a mumamooa outgas from a single
Speaker 1: stationary jet. Subsequent studies have shown that if a mumamooa's
Speaker 1: jet instead followed the substellar point, the spin that would
Speaker 1: be induced would not lead to the breakup, but would
Speaker 1: instead match the observed tumbling rotation.
Speaker 3: I again, I don't agree with this, dude.
Speaker 1: So you're saying that the only way it could have
Speaker 1: broke apart is if it all did. It's outgassing from
Speaker 1: one point, But if it outgases from all the points
Speaker 1: all together, then it's going to take it off like
Speaker 1: a rocket.
Speaker 3: That makes no sense.
Speaker 1: If it outgases from all of its points at one time,
Speaker 1: that's going to go off like a hand grenade and
Speaker 1: it's going to explode it. If it outgases from one point,
Speaker 1: it would be like a bottle rocket, like we observed.
Speaker 3: So you see what I'm saying. They're stepping over their
Speaker 3: own thesis here.
Speaker 2: I just don't understand how you say we don't know
Speaker 2: what it was, but it was, isn't that right?
Speaker 7: Yes?
Speaker 1: Okay, So, and the article keeps going on and if
Speaker 1: anybody wants to read it, it's from planetplanet dot net.
Speaker 3: It's all good. It's all good.
Speaker 1: So there's a theory to say that it was a
Speaker 1: natural object. And like we heard from the doctor earlier,
Speaker 1: maybe it was a breakoff from a solar system when
Speaker 1: it was being formed, right, a remnant of a big bang,
Speaker 1: for lack of better words, or the collapsing of a star.
Speaker 3: It's not a very calm process.
Speaker 1: It's quite violent, and maybe it blew apart something of
Speaker 1: a much larger scale, and this was a piece of
Speaker 1: debris from that that's just been hurtling through space and
Speaker 1: just through sheer accidental and coincidences happened to come near
Speaker 1: our earth and there is nothing more to see here.
Speaker 1: Got to tell you that I am not of that belief,
Speaker 1: notwith looking at everything that there is to look.
Speaker 3: At with the Muhamua.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the way that it's acting is very unnatural. And uh,
Speaker 2: they don't even necessarily they can't even necessarily agree on
Speaker 2: the shape of it, let alone how it would be propulsed,
Speaker 2: let alone, like you know where it came from before
Speaker 2: you know, we we noticed it, which wasn't until after
Speaker 2: it fucking passed us. Right, So to say that you
Speaker 2: have all the information to be able to debunk certain
Speaker 2: theories is bunk in and of itself.
Speaker 1: I agree one hundred percent. Now, like we said earlier,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that this is artificial. I'm not not
Speaker 1: saying that. I'm saying that it's possible that this is
Speaker 1: made of the same types of materials that commets and
Speaker 1: meteors are made out of. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: perhaps it's been taken in use for a different purpose
Speaker 1: by an intelligent being from somewhere else.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: The outgassing conversation I think is completely debunked the radio
Speaker 1: frequencies that that group was trying to you know, have
Speaker 1: contact with it. They only ran it for a certain range.
Speaker 1: There's no way that they could have captured it because
Speaker 1: they were casting it with what they thought was the
Speaker 1: widest net possible. Bro, we don't even know if they're
Speaker 1: communicating through radio waves, like, we don't know what they
Speaker 1: were using. So it's it was a very valiant effort.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean that it actually was silent just
Speaker 1: because we couldn't hear.
Speaker 2: It, right right, Yeah, you just maybe you just don't
Speaker 2: have the capabilities to be able to hear it or
Speaker 2: detect it, detect any kind of you know, unnatural thing.
Speaker 3: Absolutely so.
Speaker 1: Anyway, now that we've learned a good bit about a muamua,
Speaker 1: let's talk about this other.
Speaker 3: Thing that is coming at us right now.
Speaker 1: Three y atlas just got weird and NASA's new data
Speaker 1: is changing everything about interstellar commets.
Speaker 3: Brother, let's talk thing that's coming our way right now.
Speaker 1: How do we go from one eye to three eye?
Speaker 1: What was the two.
Speaker 3: I honestly don't know.
Speaker 1: I'll look that up. Okay, we can watch this if
Speaker 1: I'm not mistaken. Was it the Borvitas comment, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Look it up and see if there was a two eye.
Speaker 1: I might be completely taking a shot in the dark here,
Speaker 1: But you know, I don't know, and I don't even
Speaker 1: know if that's just kind of what it is, or
Speaker 1: if there's another reason for the three eye classification on this.
Speaker 2: You know two I Borisov, you were right, ah on
Speaker 2: It is the first confirmed interstellar comet discovered by Jeneity
Speaker 2: Borisov on August thirty of twenty nineteen. So you had
Speaker 2: one in twenty seventeen, twenty nineteen, and then now we're
Speaker 2: coming up on twenty twenty five. So I mean for
Speaker 2: it to never have happened and then all this shit,
Speaker 2: three of them happening within eight years, that's kind of weird.
Speaker 3: You see what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, I hubble has been out there for a minute,
Speaker 2: like the sixties or some shit. The Hubble's been out
Speaker 2: there since the sixties, I think, right, maybe the seventies.
Speaker 1: I'm not one hundred percent on that one either, to
Speaker 1: be completely honest with you, but either way, I can't
Speaker 1: sit here and believe that over the course of the
Speaker 1: last seven years we have had three super anomalies that
Speaker 1: have never happened before ever, and then somehow they're not connected.
Speaker 2: Oh damn, we were way off. That shit goes like
Speaker 2: in the eighties. Huh, nineteen ninety Oh damn. Okay, but
Speaker 2: you see what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: It's it's it's like the more we gain technology and
Speaker 1: the more expansions we have going on out of nowhere,
Speaker 1: space force is created. We have three interstellar objects for
Speaker 1: lack of better words, that we can't explain, and this
Speaker 1: one's coming for us right now.
Speaker 3: Bro.
Speaker 2: Well, and even the first one wasn't detected until twenty
Speaker 2: seven years after fucking Hubble went out there. So then
Speaker 2: you have nothing for twenty seven years, you get one
Speaker 2: in twenty seventeen, one in nineteen, then one in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty five. That's that's kind of strange. I mean, that's
Speaker 2: definitely going out of the original pattern.
Speaker 3: Yes, But here's the other side of that, right. Hubble
Speaker 3: didn't pick up a muamua because it was too small
Speaker 3: to see, like, it didn't send off enough of a
Speaker 3: signature for its infrared to pick up on it. Three
Speaker 3: eye atlas is like I said, it's like the size
Speaker 3: of Manhattan. It's like the size of fucking Mount Everest,
Speaker 3: hurtling at us. There's the way you can't see this, bitch.
Speaker 1: Amua Moa was like a couple of football fields right exactly.
Speaker 1: It was one thousand meters one kilometer long. Okay, this
Speaker 1: is the size of an actual mountain. So let's learn
Speaker 1: a little bit more about three Eye Atlas.
Speaker 10: On July first, twenty twenty five, astronomers called a cosmic
Speaker 10: intruder racing through our rolar system at over two hundred
Speaker 10: thousand kilometers per hour, faster than any interstellar object ever seen.
Speaker 10: They named it three I slash Atlas, making it only
Speaker 10: the third confirmed wanderer from beyond our star. But this time,
Speaker 10: NASA's new data turned everything we thought we knew about
Speaker 10: interstellar comets upside down. The speed is just the start.
Speaker 10: What three Eye slash Atlas carries inside could rewrite our
Speaker 10: entire understanding of the galaxy's history. So why is this
Speaker 10: ancient visitor so different? And what secrets did astronomer's spot
Speaker 10: that forced the biggest rethink in years? The answer begins
Speaker 10: right at its astonishing discovery. Astronomers working at the Atlas
Speaker 10: Survey Telescope in Chile first noticed something odd. In the
Speaker 10: early hours of July First.
Speaker 3: Saving Money.
Speaker 10: Twenty twenty five, their automated sky scans picked up a faint,
Speaker 10: fast moving object, one that did not match any known
Speaker 10: asteroid or comet in the system. Within hours, researchers flagged
Speaker 10: the detection and began checking archival data that led them
Speaker 10: to this Wiki transient facility, where images from June fourteenth
Speaker 10: showed the same object already streaking through the sky, hidden
Speaker 10: against the crowded backdrop of the Milky Way's core. This
Speaker 10: quick confirmation allowed the team to carcon to calculate a
Speaker 10: preliminary orbit almost immediately. The official designation C SLASH twenty
Speaker 10: twenty five N one ATLAS breaks down like this, C
Speaker 10: means comet twenty twenty five, and one reflects the discovery date,
Speaker 10: and the eye marks it as interstellar. Only two objects
Speaker 10: have ever received that label before. The Atlas team's rapid
Speaker 10: response and the global network of telescopes meant that within
Speaker 10: just a day, the world new a third interstellar visitor
Speaker 10: had entered our Solar System, and its path was unlike
Speaker 10: anything seen before. Three Eye Slash Atlas didn't just wander
Speaker 10: into the Solar System. It stormed in at speeds that
Speaker 10: break every record. The latest calculations put its hyperbolic excess
Speaker 10: vlux's velocity at fifty eight kilometers per second. That's over
Speaker 10: two hundred thousand kilometers per hour or about one hundred
Speaker 10: thirty thousand miles per hour, fast enough to cross the
Speaker 10: distance from Earth to the Moon in just under two hours.
Speaker 10: Its orbit is even stranger. The eccentricity clocks in at
Speaker 10: six point two, which is far beyond the threshold for
Speaker 10: a Solar system escape. For comparison, an object needs an
Speaker 10: eccentricity just over one to be unbound. Atlas's value is
Speaker 10: six times that. This isn't a gentle loop around the Sun.
Speaker 10: It's a one way ticket out, never to return. Size
Speaker 10: estimates put its nucleus somewhere between seven and twenty kilometers across,
Speaker 10: making it not only the fastest but possibly the largest
Speaker 10: interstellar comet we've ever detected. When astronomers saw these numbers,
Speaker 10: they knew right away this was no ordinary comet. Its
Speaker 10: sheer speed and trajectory flagged it for intense study and
Speaker 10: raised a new question. What kind of forces could send
Speaker 10: an object hurtling through the galaxy at such velocity. The
Speaker 10: answer could change what we know about the origins of
Speaker 10: planetary cins systems themselves. In twenty seventeen, the first interstellar
Speaker 10: object ever detected, Au Muamua, shot through the Solar System
Speaker 10: and left astronomers baffled. Unlike any comet or asteroid seen before,
Speaker 10: it showed no coma, no tail, just a faint, tumbling
Speaker 10: streak of light. Its brightness changed dramatically, hinting at a strange,
Speaker 10: elongated shape, possibly cigar like, maybe even pancake flat, depending
Speaker 10: on how you interpret the data. No outgassing, no dust,
Speaker 10: just unexplained acceleration and a path that defied easy explanation.
Speaker 10: That mystery fueled wild theories. Was it a natural fragment
Speaker 10: or could it be something artificial, a probe, maybe from
Speaker 10: another civilization. Two years later, two Borisov arrived. This time
Speaker 10: the story was different. Borisov looked and acted like a
Speaker 10: classic comet, a bright coma, a streaming tail, and plenty
Speaker 10: of gas and dust. Its chemistry matched the icy wanderers
Speaker 10: born in our own Solar System. No odd accelerations, no
Speaker 10: missing coma, no need for exotic explanations. Borisov said the
Speaker 10: baseline interstellar objects could be perfectly ordinary.
Speaker 1: Comets, which is also why I never brought up the
Speaker 1: Borisov in this conversation, because it had the tail and
Speaker 1: it seemed like any other comet that we could view
Speaker 1: through our own solar system.
Speaker 3: It came from outside.
Speaker 1: Of it, but it didn't it didn't spark the imagination,
Speaker 1: oh like a mua mua did.
Speaker 3: Just so everybody's clear.
Speaker 2: Man, all this talk about pancakes making me hungry, not
Speaker 2: gonna lie, and it just makes me think, you seeing
Speaker 2: that fucking uh, it's like a budgy.
Speaker 1: Bird or something like that.
Speaker 2: That's uh, it sings making pancakes, making making pancakes.
Speaker 3: You ever heard that? That's from uh the Adventure time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but the somebody taught a bird to do that.
Speaker 2: No way, Yeah, like a real bird.
Speaker 3: Oh that's fucking hilarious.
Speaker 10: Uh huh.
Speaker 3: Anyway, I just want to give the distinction.
Speaker 1: That's why I didn't pull up articles on Boris off
Speaker 1: because by every metric, it is a comet. You see
Speaker 1: the oulgas sing, you see the tail it passed through,
Speaker 1: and it was going fast, but it wasn't cooking at
Speaker 1: these types of speed. Not a crazy anomaly like the
Speaker 1: other two. It was an anomaly because it's interstellar, but
Speaker 1: it wasn't like the amuamua and not like the Atlas.
Speaker 3: But just want to give the clarification.
Speaker 1: That's why I didn't really spend a lot of time
Speaker 1: talking about that one on this episode.
Speaker 3: Let's continue.
Speaker 2: Actually before you hit continue on that, I did want
Speaker 2: to throw it out there too, because we had talked
Speaker 2: about the the symbolism with the or not the symbolism,
Speaker 2: but the name meaning with a muamua. And if you
Speaker 2: just think about Atlas, why they would name it like this?
Speaker 2: Obviously it's a lot larger, but I just want to
Speaker 2: throw this out. So Atlas was a Titan condemned to
Speaker 2: hold up the sky for eternity after Titan Titan no Maki,
Speaker 2: which is a war between Titans and Olympians. So could
Speaker 2: it mean that it's that Atlas would be essentially a
Speaker 2: symbol for carrying a heavy burden, uh supporting or holding
Speaker 2: something up or endurance and strength makes you wonder, you know, Okay,
Speaker 2: it could it just be something it's so big, it's
Speaker 2: such like a it's like a titan, so you call
Speaker 2: it Atlas?
Speaker 1: Or could it be that it was discovered at the
Speaker 1: Atlas Observatory in Chili. Oh that was the reason. No,
Speaker 1: it was called the Atlas, was it?
Speaker 2: I thought it was called like the the very Large
Speaker 2: Observatory or some shit.
Speaker 3: No, there's more than one. There's more than one in Chili.
Speaker 1: But to your point, why did they name that facility
Speaker 1: Atlas in the first place?
Speaker 10: Okay, I was just speculating, gotcha, dog, just from somewhere
Speaker 10: else in the galaxy. With Atlas, the question hangs in
Speaker 10: the air. Will it behave like borisov or will it
Speaker 10: surprise us the way O Muamua did. Each new visitor
Speaker 10: reopens the debate. Are these just natural relics or could
Speaker 10: one of them finally be the evidence of something more.
Speaker 10: On July twenty first, twenty twenty five, the Hubble Space
Speaker 10: telescope locked onto three I, also known as Atlas. As
Speaker 10: it swept through the inner Solar System. The resulting images
Speaker 10: captured something unmistakable, a tear drop shaped coma with a
Speaker 10: dust tail streaming directly away from the sun. This was
Speaker 10: not a static, inert rock. The coma glowed with gas
Speaker 10: and dust, a clear sign of active outgassing. As sunlight
Speaker 10: warmed its ancient surface. The dust tail fanned out by
Speaker 10: solar radiation pressure traced a path that matched predictions for
Speaker 10: a natural comet, not an engineered object. Hubble's sharp vision
Speaker 10: revealed the nucleus swaddled in a hazy envelope, with the
Speaker 10: bright head tapering into a long, delicate streamer. The orientation
Speaker 10: of the tail pointed exactly where physics says it should,
Speaker 10: away from the Sun, not towards any planet or along
Speaker 10: an unnatural trajectory. Each pixel of Hubble's data told the
Speaker 10: same story. Three I Atlas was venting material, behaving exactly
Speaker 10: as a comet should when it wakes up near a star.
Speaker 10: For astronomers, this single image settled the debate nature not
Speaker 10: artifice was at work. Stroscopic data from three way Slash
Speaker 10: Atlas delivers a direct look at chemistry from another star system.
Speaker 10: Gemini South and NASA's infrared telescope facility captured a broad
Speaker 10: absorption band near two point zero microns. A fingerprint of
Speaker 10: water ice grains about ten micrometers across this ice is
Speaker 10: not recent. Kinematic models based on the comets fifty eight
Speaker 10: kilometers per second hyperbolic velocity point to an origin in
Speaker 10: the galaxy's thick disc where stars and their planets formed
Speaker 10: over seven billion years ago. Alongside the ice. The visible
Speaker 10: spectrum shows a red slope of eighteen percent per one
Speaker 10: thousand angstrums, matching D type asteroids and signaling a mix
Speaker 10: of ancient organics and silicates. Each spectral line, each chemical
Speaker 10: clue preserves a record of planetary greens older than our
Speaker 10: own sun. Radio telescopes have scanned three I slash Atlas
Speaker 10: since July, searching for any hint of artificial signals. The
Speaker 10: Allen telescope array collected over twenty one terabytes of data
Speaker 10: in a week. No radio emissions, no techno signatures, nothing
Speaker 10: but natural static. Atlas will reach peri Helian on October thirtieth,
Speaker 10: twenty twenty five, then reappear for final observations in early
Speaker 10: December before fading back into deep space. For now, it
Speaker 10: remains what the data show, a silent natural messenger from
Speaker 10: another star.
Speaker 1: Shout out to space, unfiltered. For all the information about
Speaker 1: the three iye Atlas. Now that being said, there is
Speaker 1: like you said, there's a gas outpouring of it. But
Speaker 1: they didn't realize that until very recently. Up until I
Speaker 1: want to say, it was like a week or two ago.
Speaker 1: They couldn't see it because it was coming directly at us,
Speaker 1: and that gas is coming on the back side of it,
Speaker 1: so they couldn't see that. That being said, does that
Speaker 1: necessarily mean that it is natural? Or could that be
Speaker 1: the remnants of some kind of propulsion that is sending
Speaker 1: it here in the first place? I mean our spacecraft's
Speaker 1: leave behind a tail exactly.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I don't know.
Speaker 1: It's very possible that Atlas is a comment and it's
Speaker 1: not that big of a deal and people are freaking
Speaker 1: out over nothing.
Speaker 3: It's very possible, in my opinion.
Speaker 1: It's equally possible that this might be a for lack
Speaker 1: of better words, alien mothership.
Speaker 2: Let's go well, let's find out. This is from USA today.
Speaker 2: It says NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has gotten an up
Speaker 2: close look at headlight at a headl line grabbing object
Speaker 2: known as three I at lists that has recently wandered
Speaker 2: into Earth's cosmic neighborhood from far away. The image, which
Speaker 2: NASA bills as the sharpest ever picture of an object
Speaker 2: most astro most astronomers.
Speaker 1: Am I saying that wrong?
Speaker 2: Astronomers stam all right agree, is almost definitely a comet,
Speaker 2: depicts the interstellar visitor that originated from outside our Solar
Speaker 2: System from elsewhere in the Milky Way. Three i at
Speaker 2: Lists first made news in early July when scientists confirmed
Speaker 2: it as the third ever observed interstellar interloper in our system.
Speaker 2: The space object further attracted the public's fascination again later
Speaker 2: in the month when a controversial astrophysicist from Harvard University
Speaker 2: began claiming that it could be an alien spaceship. What
Speaker 2: we definitely know about three i at Lists is that
Speaker 2: it has been drifting through interstellar space for billions of years,
Speaker 2: gaining speed from the gravitational slingshot effect of passing countless
Speaker 2: stars and nebulus. How do you know that it's been
Speaker 2: out around for or for billions of years?
Speaker 3: That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: Y'all just discovered it in June in what with what
Speaker 1: kind of authority can you say it's been out there
Speaker 1: hurdling for billions of years?
Speaker 6: Bro?
Speaker 1: Now, what do you compare that to It's it's the
Speaker 1: third ever interstellar thing that we have, Like that makes
Speaker 1: no sense to make such a claim.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So it's as Fortunately Hubble is just the first,
Speaker 2: and NASA's fleet of telescopes slated to observe the likely
Speaker 2: comment as scientists look to learn more about the object
Speaker 2: size of physical properties.
Speaker 3: So what, I'm grateful that they said likely comment not confirmed.
Speaker 3: I'm glad they said that.
Speaker 1: So what is three iyat lists?
Speaker 3: So look, this is.
Speaker 1: The path that is trojected to take. It's going to
Speaker 1: go between us and Mars. Okay, yeah, man, so a
Speaker 1: likely comment known as three i at lists. Oh I
Speaker 1: already read that part, didn't I why repeating itself?
Speaker 2: Yeah, The object, which scientists estimate to be more than
Speaker 2: twelve miles wide, is wizzing at one hundred and thirty
Speaker 2: thousand miles per hour relative to the Sun on a
Speaker 2: trajectory that on October thirtieth will bring it within about
Speaker 2: one hundred and thirty million miles of Earth. So far away,
Speaker 2: but in the realm of basically infinity, it's pretty close.
Speaker 1: In the vastness of space, that's literally on our doorstep, dude,
Speaker 1: And it's just so happening to pass by us that
Speaker 1: it's closest point the day before Halloween. Oh, that is interesting.
Speaker 2: Before all hallows eve, sir, when the veil is at
Speaker 2: its thinnest. I'm just saying it's symbolic if nonetheless if
Speaker 2: nothing else so Telescope and Chile part of NASA's funded
Speaker 2: part of the NASA funded Asteroid Terrestrial Impact Last Alert
Speaker 2: System or ATLAS. OH, that's why it's called that Asteroid
Speaker 2: Terrestrial Last Alert System at LA S. There you go,
Speaker 2: was the first to spot would initially look like an
Speaker 2: unknown asteroid on a path approaching Earth's orbit. The observation
Speaker 2: was reported to the Minor Planet Center, the official authority
Speaker 2: for observing and reporting new asteroids, comets, and other small
Speaker 2: bodies in the Solar System. The object eventually confirmed to
Speaker 2: almost certainly be a comet and name three i at Lists,
Speaker 2: was later confirmed to have interstellar origins after follow up observations.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: Hubble's observations of three i at Lists have allowed astronomers
Speaker 2: to more accurately estimate the size of the comet's solid
Speaker 2: icy nucleus. Hubble captured the image of the comet on
Speaker 2: July twenty first, which NASA released Thursday, August seventh in
Speaker 2: a blog post. The upper limit on the diameter of
Speaker 2: the comet's nucleus is anywhere between one thousand feet and
Speaker 2: three point five miles across. Researchers concluded. Hubble's observations may
Speaker 2: have helped pinpoint the comet size, but scientists still have
Speaker 2: not determined what comprises its core.
Speaker 1: Okay, I will have to give a healthy bit of
Speaker 1: what the fuck to that one. Hubbles observations may have
Speaker 1: helped pin point the comets size, yet the nucleus is
Speaker 1: anywhere between one thousand feet to three point five miles across.
Speaker 1: That doesn't sound very pinpoint to me, bro. I mean, see,
Speaker 1: that's the thing is within what realms? You know? I
Speaker 1: mean a mile is five two hundred and eighty feet, right,
Speaker 1: so we got three and a half of those. It's
Speaker 1: somewhere between one thousand feet and roughly twenty thousand feet.
Speaker 1: It's somewhere in there we've pinpointed down. It's like, that's
Speaker 1: that's a wide margin for error there.
Speaker 3: My boy.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, especially if it's gonna, you know, blast up against
Speaker 2: us potentially. You know, you'd rather a thousand feet compared
Speaker 2: to three and a half miles.
Speaker 3: That's that's crazy out loud, dude.
Speaker 2: It's precise cosmic origins remain a mystery. No one knows
Speaker 2: where the comment came from. The astronomer at the University
Speaker 2: of California, who authored a research paper about the hubble
Speaker 2: finding set. In a statement, he goes, it's like glimpsing
Speaker 2: a rifle bullet. It's like glimpsing a rifle bullet for
Speaker 2: one thousandth of a second. You can't project that back
Speaker 2: with You can't project that back with any accuracy to
Speaker 2: figure out where it started on its path. Observations from
Speaker 2: other NASA missions, including the infrared James Webb Telescope, say
Speaker 2: that will further will help further refine our knowledge about
Speaker 2: the comment, including its chemical makeup.
Speaker 1: NASA said, now this is our Guy Avy Lobe, and
Speaker 1: he is suggesting that it's alien tech.
Speaker 2: Not all researchers have been convinced that three I at
Speaker 2: lists is a comment. Avy Lobe, an astrophysicists from Harvard University,
Speaker 2: authored a paper with two others uploaded July sixteenth to
Speaker 2: the pre print server our ziv, speculating about whether the
Speaker 2: object could be hostile alien technology. Lobe has long had
Speaker 2: a preoccupation with extraterrestrials, even co founding the Galileo Project,
Speaker 2: a research program at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Speaker 2: dedicated to the search alien life. But while Lobe has
Speaker 2: often encouraged scientists to have an open mind about extraterrestrials.
Speaker 2: His theories and research have often rankled other astrophysicists in
Speaker 2: the field, who pushed back on some of his Boulder
Speaker 2: claims some huh. For instance, when the first interstillar object
Speaker 2: ever detected in our solar system was spotted in twenty seventeen,
Speaker 2: Lobes similarly posited that it was of extraterrestrial origin, a
Speaker 2: theory later debunked.
Speaker 1: And again we read the report trying to debunk it,
Speaker 1: and they really did a piss poor job of the debunking.
Speaker 3: I should say, not up.
Speaker 1: To the liking that you would hope, not at all.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: I had another video up, but we really don't have
Speaker 1: to watch that as of this moment. However, this is
Speaker 1: actually live tracking of the atlas right and there's a
Speaker 1: YouTube channel that's dedicated to it, and it shows our
Speaker 1: shows a couple hours ago when we started, So this
Speaker 1: is accurate up until right now. And they're showing all
Speaker 1: of the for lack of better words, the cosmos here.
Speaker 1: I'm a make the scream bigger here. I like the
Speaker 1: cosmic space music in the back.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, it does. Add to the ambiance it do.
Speaker 3: So three I Atlas is right here.
Speaker 1: And this is live twenty four to seven tracking it
Speaker 1: until it gets to us, and as a time of
Speaker 1: recording about two and a half months, give or take.
Speaker 1: It's almost putting me into a slight meditative state with
Speaker 1: this music.
Speaker 3: I'm not gonna lie I had a feeling. You were
Speaker 3: gonna say that I had a feeling. But anyway, yeah, bro,
Speaker 3: I don't know what to make of it.
Speaker 1: I I'm not saying that I one hundred percent believe
Speaker 1: that it's alien or I should say alien tech. And
Speaker 1: I am also not gonna say that I believe that
Speaker 1: it is of natural origins either. I'm somewhere in the
Speaker 1: middle of this. But again, you and I look at
Speaker 1: things from very different perspectives in a lot of ways,
Speaker 1: but we also come to a lot of agreements on
Speaker 1: the important stuff, right.
Speaker 7: It.
Speaker 1: I find it very, very interesting that the instant that
Speaker 1: humans develop nuclear power then developed nuclear bombs, we all
Speaker 1: of a sudden started having a bunch of UFOs and
Speaker 1: UAPs and usos and flying saucers and flying tic TACs
Speaker 1: and orbs and all these things start showing fish. The
Speaker 1: flying jellyfit All of these things just started showing up
Speaker 1: around the time when we started dropping nukes on each
Speaker 1: other and testing them for more purposes.
Speaker 2: Right by the way, not to throw you off crack here,
Speaker 2: did you know that there are two animals that could
Speaker 2: literally live forever if they weren't impeded or eaten by anything,
Speaker 2: And that jellyfish is one of those things that could
Speaker 2: potentially live forever that it has no, it doesn't have
Speaker 2: any set lifespan. And the the other one is a lobster.
Speaker 3: I was gonna say in the other one lobsters.
Speaker 1: Yeah, isn't that crazy?
Speaker 8: Though?
Speaker 1: The fucking things could live literally forever hypothetically.
Speaker 3: I mean, yeah, there's no they would. Just the lobsters,
Speaker 3: they just keep molting their shell and as long as
Speaker 3: they don't get injured or or eaten by something else,
Speaker 3: hypothetically they could just continue to live forever. I hadn't
Speaker 3: heard that about jellyfish though. That's interesting.
Speaker 2: I just read that today. But yeah, I mean, I
Speaker 2: don't know what to really make of this. To be
Speaker 2: honest with you, I'm I personally, I'm not gonna sit
Speaker 2: here and say that I don't think that alien life
Speaker 2: could could not come from outer space. I just believe
Speaker 2: that it's more likely that if alien life would present
Speaker 2: itself to us here on Earth or in the vicinity
Speaker 2: of Earth, that it would be more of a an
Speaker 2: interdimensional kind of activity only because and the only reason
Speaker 2: I say that is because if you're if you have
Speaker 2: access to be able to basically cut through space and time,
Speaker 2: why would you put up with the hassle of travel?
Speaker 1: And I would agree with that. That's why I think
Speaker 1: that there's probably more than one thing happening at the
Speaker 1: same time. Right, if this is a craft, perhaps the
Speaker 1: beings that are on it, like we said in the
Speaker 1: beginning of the episode, maybe they don't have the technology
Speaker 1: to cut through space and time, right, Maybe they don't.
Speaker 1: Maybe some other group does out there, some other beings
Speaker 1: from another galaxy or another dimension. Maybe they have it,
Speaker 1: maybe not this group, or maybe they know how to
Speaker 1: do that, but they understand that. Yeah, tearing a hole
Speaker 1: in the fabric of space in time is easier than
Speaker 1: putting it back, right, Like, once you open that portal,
Speaker 1: you can't close that. Maybe that's where black holes come from.
Speaker 2: Well, it's like the idea of like anybody that's ever
Speaker 2: looked into the Philadelphia experiment allegedly. I mean, some people
Speaker 2: disagree that that ever happened. Some people say it's just
Speaker 2: a fictional story. I still find it pretty damn fascinating,
Speaker 2: especially if you like stranger things. But because that's in
Speaker 2: correlation with the Montalk project and stuff like that. But
Speaker 2: the Philadelphia experiment is interesting because they allegedly opened up
Speaker 2: a portal in time and traveled somewhere else, and then
Speaker 2: whenever they wanted to jump back into that vehicle to
Speaker 2: be able to portal themselves back to where they were,
Speaker 2: they did, except for it wasn't exact. But so whenever
Speaker 2: they jumped, they were on like this this boat or
Speaker 2: this ship or something like that, right, but they didn't
Speaker 2: get the exact time right to come back. It was
Speaker 2: like maybe a couple of seconds or a couple of
Speaker 2: milliseconds off. And because of that, and because of the
Speaker 2: motion of the ship itself, they they whenever they jump back,
Speaker 2: they fucking molded themselves into the steel walls. So that
Speaker 2: would be unfortunate. But yeah, I don't, I don't know,
Speaker 2: and just this whole idea about aliens in general. I
Speaker 2: just I want to believe in this shit, I really do.
Speaker 2: I want to believe that there could be potential physical
Speaker 2: alien motherships coming from other planets. I just find it
Speaker 2: to be personally less likely than the other way.
Speaker 3: Good Cult members, tell us what you think about this.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of things being speculated about when it
Speaker 1: comes to the three I at lists right, especially when
Speaker 1: you take that in with conjunction of the forming of
Speaker 1: the Space Force, because space needs to be a war
Speaker 1: fighting front. Okay those are his words, not mine. Then
Speaker 1: we have the first three interstellar things come right by us,
Speaker 1: all within seven years of each other, all of them
Speaker 1: directly after the forming of the Space Force.
Speaker 3: Who's to say what's happening here? We want to hear
Speaker 3: from you. We want to hear what you have to
Speaker 3: say about it.
Speaker 1: Like my gorgeous co host said earlier, if you would
Speaker 1: like to support the show, then come check us out
Speaker 1: on Patreon, dot com slash Cult to Conspiracy Podcast. If
Speaker 1: you would like to join us for the third as
Speaker 1: All the Way Open Tire, we do that every Tuesday
Speaker 1: night at nine pm Central, we go live. We talked
Speaker 1: all for good cult members where we can even further
Speaker 1: have this open form discussion about these types of things.
Speaker 1: But another way that you could let us know what
Speaker 1: you think about this and also boost our algorithms would
Speaker 1: be too, please hit.
Speaker 3: The five stars, hit the shares so like subscribes to.
Speaker 1: Collins, leave a posting review and shares of their friends
Speaker 1: of family shares everywhere.
Speaker 3: Here's the deal.
Speaker 1: The more activity the algorithm see across all of our
Speaker 1: listening platforms, the more we get promoted to more potential
Speaker 1: listeners who could that become potential cult members, actors. You
Speaker 1: fine ladies and gentlemen, why you're gonna go check out
Speaker 1: menemisteries shout this other show and getting the same level
Speaker 1: of respective there with the five star reviews and the
Speaker 1: positivity in the comments.
Speaker 3: Come check out the Cage to.
Speaker 1: Night and come join each of us for our individual patrons,
Speaker 1: and we host every Wednesday night at nine pm Central.
Speaker 1: Links to those in the descriptions as well, and we
Speaker 1: thank if everybody's already gone and done so.
Speaker 2: And before we wrap it up, I did also want
Speaker 2: to give a shout out to our boy Matt Rife.
Speaker 2: Matthew Rife, the real Rife, not the comedian Rife. Not
Speaker 2: that he's not real, but he's you know, he's not
Speaker 2: doing the Lord's work like Matthew rife is go and
Speaker 2: check out real rifetechnology dot com. That link is down
Speaker 2: into the description below, and if you use the promo
Speaker 2: code cult or just use the link, you'll be able
Speaker 2: to get ten percent off of a real rife machine.
Speaker 2: And there's all different kinds of varieties. And yes, some
Speaker 2: of them, the bigger ones, which are the more powerful ones,
Speaker 2: are going to be a little bit more expensive. But
Speaker 2: I believe he actually has a handheld one too, if
Speaker 2: I'm not mistaken, no, or something like that, right, And so,
Speaker 2: if you want to be able to experience the natural
Speaker 2: healing frequencies of the human body without having to rely
Speaker 2: on big pharma, maybe you want to reverse certain ailments
Speaker 2: or certain whatever is bothering you. Maybe you just got
Speaker 2: a headache, maybe you have maybe you're somebody that has
Speaker 2: the like what are they called whenever people who have
Speaker 2: headaches every day. There are people that suffer from headaches
Speaker 2: every day. There's another word for that.
Speaker 3: Anyway, migrains.
Speaker 2: We can just call it that these things work, wonders,
Speaker 2: and especially if somebody if you're somebody with back pain,
Speaker 2: leg pain, you have any kind of arthritis, even there
Speaker 2: are literally thousands of different frequencies that you can use
Speaker 2: to help alleviate, if not completely wipe out through the
Speaker 2: use of just natural frequencies. And you're not gonna even
Speaker 2: feel it. I mean, you'll hear it just because of
Speaker 2: the tiny bead that is spinning around due to the
Speaker 2: frequencies that are being emitted from the thing, but you're
Speaker 2: not gonna feel anything. You're just gonna feel like, holy shit,
Speaker 2: this thing is magical. And so if you want to
Speaker 2: get a little piece of that, maybe for yourself, maybe
Speaker 2: for your grandparents, maybe for your parents, maybe your kids.
Speaker 2: I mean, hey, everybody can stand to benefit from one
Speaker 2: of these bad boys. Definitely go check out the link
Speaker 2: below to be able to get your hands on one
Speaker 2: of these rife machines. So with that being said, this
Speaker 2: was another beautiful episode of need Cult of Conspiracy. And
Speaker 2: my name's Jonathan Jacob and there's one very important, extremely
Speaker 2: vital piece of information we needed to learn just as
Speaker 2: soon as humanly possible.
Speaker 1: Hey, cult members, Jacob here just want to ask who
Speaker 1: wants better sex? The best way to get started is
Speaker 1: to go to Adam and Eve dot com. Right now,
Speaker 1: Adam Eve is offering fifty percent off just about any item.
Speaker 3: But that's not all.
Speaker 1: When you get one item, they will also send three
Speaker 1: bonus sexy items and six free movies. They offered a
Speaker 1: screen shipping as your privacy is a priority, plus free
Speaker 1: shipping on your entire order. Doesn't matter how much you
Speaker 1: spend or what you buy. All we packaged and sent.
Speaker 3: Discreetly for free.
Speaker 1: That's fifty percent off one item and ten free gifts
Speaker 1: to boot bring more pleasure and satisfaction into your bedroom.
Speaker 1: Just go to Adam and Eve dot com and select
Speaker 1: any one item. It could be an adventurous new toy
Speaker 1: or anything you desire. Just enter the offer code cult
Speaker 1: at checkout and you'll get fifty percent off almost any item,
Speaker 1: plus ten free gifts, three bonus items, six free movies,
Speaker 1: and free shipping. Use the offer code cult that Seult
Speaker 1: at Adam and Eve dot com.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: This is an exclusive offer specific to this podcast, so
Speaker 1: be sure to use this code to get you not
Speaker 1: just the discount and the free goodies, but also the
Speaker 1: one hundred percent free shipping with the code Cults