Speaker 1: I want you to close your eyes and just picture
Speaker 1: a room. Okay, It's July nineteen forty seven. You are
Speaker 1: standing inside this secondary, highly classified medical facility. It's somewhere
Speaker 1: in the sweltering barren desert just outside of Roswell, New Mexico.
Speaker 1: The air conditioning, assuming they even managed to rig up
Speaker 1: some rudimentary system in this annex, is just completely failing
Speaker 1: against the oppressive summer heat.
Speaker 2: I can imagine.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you can practically smell the ozone, you know, the
Speaker 1: sterile bite of antiseptic, and just the heavy sweat of
Speaker 1: nervous men. The must have been incredible, oh absolutely. But
Speaker 1: inside this specific room, the psychological temperature feels like it
Speaker 1: has plummeted to absolute zero.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 1: The space is dead, silent. Standing around a cold steel
Speaker 1: examination table is a group of military men, high ranking officers,
Speaker 1: government scientists, and they are completely paralyzed, just frozen exactly.
Speaker 1: They aren't speaking, they are barely breathing because on that
Speaker 1: table is an extraterreshl right, and it is dying.
Speaker 2: It's a heavy image, it really is.
Speaker 1: But it isn't just fading away into the dark. It
Speaker 1: is moving its right hand, slowly, deliberately doing what exactly
Speaker 1: it is tracing this complex repeating pattern in the air
Speaker 1: above its own chest, and for exactly eleven minutes, this
Speaker 1: room full of the most powerful, highly trained men in
Speaker 1: the American military apparatus just stands there in total shocks,
Speaker 1: just watching, Yeah, watching a dying visitor from another world,
Speaker 1: desperately trying to write something in the empty air. Nobody speaks,
Speaker 1: but somewhere in the back of the room, somebody clicks
Speaker 1: a stopwatch.
Speaker 2: The sheer tension of that tableau is just staggering.
Speaker 1: It really gives me chills just visualizing that stopwatch ticking
Speaker 1: in the silence.
Speaker 2: I mean, we're looking at the ultimate collision of rigid
Speaker 2: military protocol and absolute existential awe.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: You have individuals who are conditioned by a world war
Speaker 2: to command to dominate their environments, and they are completely
Speaker 2: reduced to silence observers by the sheer weight of a
Speaker 2: paradigm just shattering in front of our eyes.
Speaker 1: Welcome to thrilling threads. You're here with us today, sitting
Speaker 1: right alongside us, really as the third person in that room.
Speaker 2: We're glad you're here.
Speaker 1: We are going to unpack one of the most astonishing
Speaker 1: mysteries buried in the historical record. Okay, let's unpack this,
Speaker 1: because if this sequence of events is true, I mean,
Speaker 1: if it happened the way these hidden testimonies claim, it
Speaker 1: changes how we view first contact forever.
Speaker 2: It fundamentally rewrites our understanding of language and our place
Speaker 2: in the universe.
Speaker 1: Our mission today is to trace this thread from an
Speaker 1: ignored anecdote of a dying hand, to a mathematical signal,
Speaker 1: to a profound linguistic translation, and finally into a terrifying
Speaker 1: void of missing records.
Speaker 2: And the methodology we are applying today is critical for this, right.
Speaker 1: We're not doing the usual stuff.
Speaker 2: No, we are not indulging in the standard roswell lore
Speaker 2: regarding metallic debris or weather balloon.
Speaker 1: Yeah no tinfoil Today exactly.
Speaker 2: We are strictly following a paper trail of witness testimony
Speaker 2: regarding a highly specific BEHA behavioral anomaly, testimonies that were fragmented, buried,
Speaker 2: and systematically ignored for decades.
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's jump right into the spark that ignited
Speaker 1: this specific investigation. For forty years, the idea of a
Speaker 1: hand twitching on an examination table was just treated as
Speaker 1: a throwaway detail.
Speaker 2: Just categorized as biological noise.
Speaker 1: Right. But then in nineteen eighty nine, a sworn deposition
Speaker 1: surfaces from a man named Colonel Harlan Wick. And this
Speaker 1: wasn't just some guy looking for a book deal, was it.
Speaker 2: Not at all? Colonel Wick gave this deposition to a
Speaker 2: private research organization based in Albuquerque in September of nineteen
Speaker 2: eighty nine.
Speaker 1: Okay, to really.
Speaker 2: Understand the evidentiary weight of this document, we have to
Speaker 2: look at the legal and psychological context of his life
Speaker 2: at that moment. He was sick, right, very, He was
Speaker 2: in his late eighties, and he was suffering from terminal
Speaker 2: lung cancer.
Speaker 1: Oh wow.
Speaker 2: Yes, And in jurisprudence and forensic psychology, a dying declaration
Speaker 2: carries a very unique burden of credibility because why would
Speaker 2: you lie on your deathbed? Precisely, the underlying assumption is
Speaker 2: that an individual facing imminent death is stripped of the
Speaker 2: earthly motivations to lie.
Speaker 1: That makes total sense.
Speaker 2: There is no pension to protect, no career to advance.
Speaker 2: There's no non disclosure agreement that holds any real terror anymore.
Speaker 1: Right, when you are staring down terminal illness, the threat
Speaker 1: of a court martial kind of loses its teeth. You
Speaker 1: just want to set the ledger straight exactly. So what
Speaker 1: exactly did he put on the record before he passed.
Speaker 2: Well, the transcript of his deposition, which was taken by
Speaker 2: a meticulous researcher named doctor Sylvia Crane, is really striking
Speaker 2: for its lack of hyperbole.
Speaker 1: Meaning he wasn't sensationalizing it correct.
Speaker 2: Wick described the entity and stark clinical terms. He noted
Speaker 2: a small stature, gray toned skin, and unusually large cranium.
Speaker 1: The classic descriptions, yes.
Speaker 2: But he offered biological specifics that completely defy the standard
Speaker 2: science fiction tropes of that era, like what For instance,
Speaker 2: he noted that the entity's eyes did not move independently
Speaker 2: in their se buckets like human eyes do. Wait really, yes,
Speaker 2: he said they tracked as a single, unified unit. It
Speaker 2: required subtle shifts of the entire head and neck architecture
Speaker 2: to maintain focus.
Speaker 1: Which is such a bizarre physiological detail to include.
Speaker 2: It is highly specific.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you are making up a story in
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty nine, you might pull from popular media, you know,
Speaker 1: like the big black almond eyes from the cover of Communion.
Speaker 2: Yes, that was the cultural touchstone at the time.
Speaker 1: But unified ocular tracking. That sounds like the evolutionary biology
Speaker 1: of like an apex predator adapted for absolute.
Speaker 2: Focal lock, or conversely, a species that evolved in an
Speaker 2: environment where peripheral distraction was fatal.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's just too specific, too biologically reasoned to just
Speaker 1: pull out of thin air.
Speaker 2: I agree completely. Furthermore, Wicks deposition really drilled down on
Speaker 2: the hand.
Speaker 1: Movement eleven minutes.
Speaker 2: Yes, he specified it was the right hand, and he
Speaker 2: stated clearly that it was not a spasmodic reaction.
Speaker 1: She wasn't just twitching.
Speaker 2: No, it wasn't the chaotic thrashing we associate with mass
Speaker 2: of trauma. The hand was moving in slow, deliberate strokes
Speaker 2: through the air above the table.
Speaker 1: Okay, I have to push back on one specific detail though,
Speaker 1: the eleven minutes.
Speaker 2: You find the duration hard to believe.
Speaker 1: Well, when I hear a number that specific in a story,
Speaker 1: a part of my brain immediately flags it. I mean,
Speaker 1: couldn't an awkwardly precise number like eleven just be the
Speaker 1: hallmark of a really sophisticated liar?
Speaker 2: How So, like.
Speaker 1: Someone who knows that saying ten minutes sounds too generic
Speaker 1: or two rounded off, so they throw in eleven to
Speaker 1: manufacture this false sense of authenticity in isolation.
Speaker 2: Yes, an oddly specific number can definitely be a conscious manipulation, right. However,
Speaker 2: forensic analysis relies on the contextual scaffolding of a statement.
Speaker 2: Wick did not just offer the number eleven in a vacuum.
Speaker 1: He had a reason for knowing it exactly.
Speaker 2: He included a mechanical justification for his precision. He explicitly
Speaker 2: remembered hearing the mechanical click of a stopwatch being engaged
Speaker 2: somewhere behind him in the room. Oh wow. Yes, he
Speaker 2: didn't know who started it, but the auditory memory of
Speaker 2: that ticking is what anchored the duration.
Speaker 1: So he wasn't just guessing eleven minutes.
Speaker 2: No, he wasn't estimating at all. He was recalling the
Speaker 2: ultimate measurement recorded by a colleague in that room.
Speaker 1: That dynamic is just fascinating to me. Half the room
Speaker 1: is entirely paralyzed by ontological shock, and some unknown guy
Speaker 1: in the back has the ice cold presence of mind
Speaker 1: to think I need to time this phenomenon.
Speaker 2: It speaks to the conditioning of military scientists measure everything.
Speaker 1: But that split reaction actually mirrors the divide on the
Speaker 1: base itself, because not everyone saw a profound message in
Speaker 1: those movements.
Speaker 2: Far from it.
Speaker 1: The military apparatus immediately started fracturing over what they had witnessed,
Speaker 1: which actually brings us to our second key witness, Margaret Solaris.
Speaker 2: Margaret Solaris is vital here. She provides a crucial civilian
Speaker 2: vantage point to the event.
Speaker 1: She wasn't in the military.
Speaker 2: No, in the summer of nineteen forty seven. She was
Speaker 2: a civilian typist assigned to the Roswell arm Me Airfield.
Speaker 1: Okay, and how do we have her story?
Speaker 2: We only have her account because an independent researcher, Tom Hadfield,
Speaker 2: managed to record an audio interview with her decades later
Speaker 2: in nineteen ninety three.
Speaker 1: Got it. And she wasn't actually in the medical room.
Speaker 2: Right, correct, Solaris was not in the operating theater. She
Speaker 2: was stationed in an adjacent administrative room.
Speaker 1: But she heard something.
Speaker 2: Yes, the walls were thin, and she found herself listening
Speaker 2: to the immediate volatile aftermath of that eleven minute silence.
Speaker 1: She overheard two officers arguing furiously in the hallway right
Speaker 1: after they left the medical room.
Speaker 2: Yes, and she remembered the exact phrasing they.
Speaker 1: Used, which is just chilling. One officer was practically shouting,
Speaker 1: insisting that what they had just watched on that table
Speaker 1: was intentional communication.
Speaker 2: While the other officer was aggressively shutting him down.
Speaker 1: Yeah, insisting it was just biological noise.
Speaker 2: That phrase, biological noise is a masterclass in the psychology
Speaker 2: the nineteen forties military scientific complex. How do you mean, Well,
Speaker 2: consider the era, zibernetics was just emerging as a field.
Speaker 2: The military was beginning to view systems, including biological systems,
Speaker 2: in terms of mechanics and electrical impulses.
Speaker 1: So they saw the body as.
Speaker 2: A machine exactly. By labeling the entity's movements as biological noise,
Speaker 2: the officer was categorizing it as an involuntary motor response
Speaker 2: post trauma neurology.
Speaker 1: Just neurons firing randomly, right.
Speaker 2: The electoral system of an organic machine misfiring as it
Speaker 2: powers down.
Speaker 1: It's an incredibly potent psychological defense mechanism.
Speaker 2: It absolutely is.
Speaker 1: I mean, think about it like this. If I see
Speaker 1: a broken keyboard outputting a string of random characters, just
Speaker 1: garbage text, I don't try to read it.
Speaker 2: I just unplug the keyboard, right, there's no meaning there.
Speaker 1: But if that broken keyboard starts outputting a repeating structured
Speaker 1: string of code, suddenly I have to reckon with the
Speaker 1: fact that there is a ghost in the machine.
Speaker 2: That is a perfect analogy.
Speaker 1: For a military officer in nineteen forty seven dealing with
Speaker 1: the terrifying unknown. Classifying those hand gestures as biological noise
Speaker 1: is a desperate attempt to maintain dominance over the situation.
Speaker 2: Because if it's a spasm, is just a dying animal,
Speaker 2: you can ignore it exactly.
Speaker 1: But if it's intentional communication, then you have a sentient
Speaker 1: person dying on your table, begging for something, and you
Speaker 1: are entirely impotent to help or even understand.
Speaker 2: The philosophical burden of intentional communication in that room would
Speaker 2: be crushing. It grants the entity agency in inner life
Speaker 2: and an intellect that demands a response.
Speaker 1: It forces them to be accountable.
Speaker 2: Yes, the debate Selaris overheard wasn't just a scientific disagreement.
Speaker 2: It was an epistemological war over whether they were witnessing
Speaker 2: the breakdown of a biological machine or the final testimony
Speaker 2: of a cosmic neighbor.
Speaker 1: But from a purely neurological standpoint, distinguishing between the two
Speaker 1: shouldn't even be a matter of debate.
Speaker 2: It really shouldn't. Spasms and syntax operate on fundamentally different
Speaker 2: physiological principles.
Speaker 1: Walk us through that. How hard is it physically to
Speaker 1: distinguish a dying muscle twitch from a deliberate gesture.
Speaker 2: Very easy. Actually, spasms are dictated by entropy. They follow
Speaker 2: the path of least electrical resistance within the nervous system.
Speaker 1: So it's chaotic.
Speaker 2: Yes. When the brain experience is massive trauma, inhibitory signals fail.
Speaker 2: This leads to chaotic, randomized muscle contractions all over the
Speaker 2: body and sintes. The physical act of forming a gesture
Speaker 2: to convey meaning is the exact opposite. It requires immense
Speaker 2: cognitive overhead.
Speaker 1: It takes effort.
Speaker 2: Immense effort. You have to intentionally inhibit dozens of surrounding
Speaker 2: muscles in the arm and hand just to isolate a
Speaker 2: single finger oh I see, or to lock the wrist
Speaker 2: at a specific planar angle. Movement meant to communicate requires
Speaker 2: the active suppression of noise.
Speaker 1: So the very fact that this hand was moving slowly
Speaker 1: and deliberately means it was actively fighting off the chaotic
Speaker 1: spasms of a dying body exactly, which makes the biological
Speaker 1: noise argument look entirely wilfully ignorant. It was a choice
Speaker 1: not to see it, and that debate might have just
Speaker 1: faded into history as an unsolved argument if it weren't
Speaker 1: for your third piece of this puzzle. Because this is
Speaker 1: where the anecdote hardens into empirical data. Yes, enter Dennis Farlow,
Speaker 1: andentre Dennis Farlow tell us about him.
Speaker 2: Dennis Farlow elevates this case from a curious historical footnote
Speaker 2: to a structural anomaly. He was a former Army Air
Speaker 2: Force corman. Ok He was interviewed in Phoenix, Arizona by
Speaker 2: doctor Sylvia Crane, the exact same researcher who took Colonel
Speaker 2: Wook's deposition.
Speaker 1: Okay, I want to stop right there and look at
Speaker 1: doctor Crane's methodology for a second. Shortly, because any skeptic
Speaker 1: listening is immediately going to say, well, obviously, Wick and
Speaker 1: Farlow just went to the same Roswell reunions, drank some beers,
Speaker 1: and got their story straight.
Speaker 2: That is the standard vector for narrative contamination. Yes, we
Speaker 2: see that a lot in UFO literature.
Speaker 1: Right, But doctor Crane didn't just take their word for it.
Speaker 2: Not at all. Doctor Crane was a rigorous investigator who
Speaker 2: understood social network analysis long before it was a digitized field.
Speaker 2: She conducted exhaustive background checks on both men.
Speaker 1: What did she look for?
Speaker 2: She cross referenced military service records, post war employment history,
Speaker 2: residential addresses, and social affiliations.
Speaker 1: And what did she find.
Speaker 2: She definitively established that Farlow and Wick had absolutely zero
Speaker 2: social overlaps, zero none. They had not served in the
Speaker 2: same units prior to that week in Roswell, they attended
Speaker 2: no mutual veterans events, and they had not communicated in
Speaker 2: the forty two years since nineteen forty seven.
Speaker 1: Two completely isolated nodes of information exactly. And what Farlow
Speaker 1: described to doctor Crane wasn't just a general waving of
Speaker 1: a hand. He didn't just corroborate the eleven.
Speaker 2: Minutes, No, he provided much more.
Speaker 1: He provided the actual geometric structure of the movement itself.
Speaker 2: Yes, Farlow observed a repeating sequence, a sequence he described
Speaker 2: watching the hand execute between six and nine distinct independent gestures. Okay,
Speaker 2: and then, rather than devolving into randomness or stopping, the
Speaker 2: hand reset its position.
Speaker 1: It looped, it looped back to the start.
Speaker 2: Yes, it cycled back and repeated the exact same sequence
Speaker 2: of six to nine gestures in the exact same chronological order.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 2: Farlow's own words in the transcript were like someone writing
Speaker 2: the same word repeatedly.
Speaker 1: A dying nervous system doesn't write a loop.
Speaker 2: It mathematically cannot. If we apply Claude Shannon's information theory,
Speaker 2: which is the foundational mathematics of signal processing, we can
Speaker 2: quantify this.
Speaker 1: How does that work?
Speaker 2: Shannon demonstrated that information is a measure of decrease and uncertainty.
Speaker 2: A seizure or a post trauma spasm represents maximum entropy.
Speaker 2: It is highly unpredictable and contains zero structured information.
Speaker 1: It's just random firing precisely.
Speaker 2: What Farlow described, however, is an algorithm because of the loop.
Speaker 2: Because to produce six to nine distinct spatial coordinates in
Speaker 2: a specific sequence requires a memory buffer, spatial awareness, and
Speaker 2: fine motor control. To repeat that exact sequence requires a
Speaker 2: feedback loop checking the current movement against a stored intent.
Speaker 1: Which means intelligence.
Speaker 2: Yes, when two completely unconnected observers report a complex, multi
Speaker 2: step repeating algorithmic loop, the biological noise hypothesis completely collapses.
Speaker 1: You cannot generate that level of structured data through random
Speaker 1: biological misfire.
Speaker 2: It is undeniably a signal.
Speaker 1: When I sit with that realization, it strips away all
Speaker 1: the clinical analysis and just leaves this profound, suffocating tragedy.
Speaker 2: It is very dark.
Speaker 1: I mean, put yourself in the position of that being
Speaker 1: for a moment. You have traverse distances we literally cannot fathom. Right,
Speaker 1: your craft has suffered a catastrophic failure. You are an
Speaker 1: excruciating agony, lying naked on a metal.
Speaker 2: Slash, surrounded by enemies, essentially.
Speaker 1: Surrounded by a ring of giant, hairless primates wrapped in
Speaker 1: olive drab fabric, staring at you with this mixture of
Speaker 1: terror and clinical detachment. You know your biological functions are
Speaker 1: cascading toward failure.
Speaker 2: Time is running out.
Speaker 1: Exactly, and so you use the absolute last reserves of
Speaker 1: your cellular energy to trace these six to nine gestures
Speaker 1: in the air, over and over.
Speaker 2: A loop, because the data must survive, because you.
Speaker 1: Know you have to get this data out. You are
Speaker 1: desperately hoping that just one of these primates has the
Speaker 1: cognitive architecture to recognize a repeating syntax.
Speaker 2: And they didn't know no.
Speaker 1: And for eleven minutes you perform this exhaustion inducing loop
Speaker 1: and they just stand there with a stopwatch. It's the
Speaker 1: ultimate locked room mystery, but the walls of the room
Speaker 1: are built out of incompatible consciousness.
Speaker 2: The tragedy is rooted in the asymmetry of the encounter.
Speaker 2: The entity possessed a highly structured message, but the receivers
Speaker 2: entirely lacked the semiotic framework to perceive it as anything
Speaker 2: other than anomaly.
Speaker 1: They couldn't see the language exactly.
Speaker 2: The lock was language and the key was missing.
Speaker 1: Which sets us up for the next phase of this Yes.
Speaker 2: It establishes the central challenge of the.
Speaker 1: Entire narrative, right because if we accept that this was
Speaker 1: a structured, repeating signal, how do you even begin to
Speaker 1: translate a language that utilizes no sound, no written alphabet,
Speaker 1: and shares absolutely zero cultural or evolutionary context with humanity.
Speaker 2: You need a very specific type of mind.
Speaker 1: You need someone who doesn't think in terms of alphabets,
Speaker 1: which brings us to the most fascinating figure in this
Speaker 1: entire saga, doctor Elliot Marsh.
Speaker 2: Doctor Marsh is the lynchpin of this entire case.
Speaker 1: I love doctor Marsh's background because he is the absolute
Speaker 1: antithesis of the UFIL circuit. He wasn't giving breathless lectures
Speaker 1: at conventions or self publishing paperbacks about ancient alien.
Speaker 2: Not at all. Doctor Elliot Marsh was deeply embedded in
Speaker 2: the legitimate, rigorous academic world.
Speaker 1: He was a linguist, right, Yes, he.
Speaker 2: Was a deeply private, highly respected structural linguist attached to
Speaker 2: a prestigious, albeit low profile research institute in Santa Fe,
Speaker 2: New Mexico.
Speaker 1: And his specialty was unique.
Speaker 2: His specific area of expertise is what makes him the
Speaker 2: perfect and perhaps the only person equipped to decode this event.
Speaker 2: Marsh specialized in non phonemic symbolic communication systems.
Speaker 1: Okay, so synthesizing that for our exploration here, non phonemic
Speaker 1: Marsh wasn't looking for syllables, right, or grammar rules based
Speaker 1: on breath and vocal cords.
Speaker 2: No, he spent his life studying how intelligent consciousness could
Speaker 2: encode complex meaning entirely through space, geometry and gesture.
Speaker 1: Which is precisely the right framework for this.
Speaker 2: It is human language is overwhelmingly phonemic. We modulate airflow
Speaker 2: through our vocal tracks to produce acoustic waves that map
Speaker 2: to abstract concept. Yes words, but Marsh was obsessed with
Speaker 2: the alternatives. How do you encode syntax into the distance
Speaker 2: between two physical objects.
Speaker 1: Like using space as the alphabet?
Speaker 2: Exactly? How does spatial relationships above below intersecting dictate grammatical
Speaker 2: tense or emotional weight?
Speaker 1: So the timeline brings us to the early nineteen nineties.
Speaker 1: A colleague who knows Marsh's obsession with weird linguistic edge
Speaker 1: cases slips him a bootleg copy of the Margaret Solaris
Speaker 1: tape the typeists interview, right the interview where she recounts
Speaker 1: the officer's arguing over biological noise versus intentional communication. Marsh
Speaker 1: takes this tape into his office, he.
Speaker 2: Listens to it, and then he just sits with it.
Speaker 1: According to his own later notes, he sat with that
Speaker 1: tape for three days, three days of absolute silent marination.
Speaker 2: It's a profound reaction.
Speaker 1: What I want to know is what does a world
Speaker 1: class structural linguist here in a secondhand story about an
Speaker 1: argument in a hallway that makes him decide to risk
Speaker 1: his entire academic reputation and dedicate the rest of his
Speaker 1: life to a UFO rumor.
Speaker 2: I believe marsh heard the unmistakable mathematical echo of syntax
Speaker 2: buried under human ignorance explain that well, when he heard
Speaker 2: the phrase biological noise, he likely recognized the classic human
Speaker 2: cognitive bias. We categorize anything we lack the tools to
Speaker 2: measure as noise.
Speaker 1: If you don't understand it, it's just static exactly.
Speaker 2: But when he crossed referenced that military dismissal with the
Speaker 2: description of the movement itself, slow deliberate repeating, his training
Speaker 2: in non phonemic structures would have triggered massive.
Speaker 1: Alarm, because that's not noise, right.
Speaker 2: A structural linguist hunts for patterns that defy entropy. He
Speaker 2: realized instantly that the entity's behavior was an algorithmic delivery
Speaker 2: of spatial data.
Speaker 1: So the three days of silence.
Speaker 2: He sat in silence for three days because he was
Speaker 2: calculating the sheer magnitude of the task ahead of him.
Speaker 2: He knew that if he pulled on this thread, he
Speaker 2: would have to abandon orthodox linguistics completely.
Speaker 1: He'd be out on his own.
Speaker 2: He chose to pursue the signal anyway.
Speaker 1: And he goes completely underground to do it. Over the
Speaker 1: next decade, Marsh embarks on this incredibly obsessive private hunt.
Speaker 2: It was relentless, he really was.
Speaker 1: He bypasses all the commercials, sensationalized Roswell material. He digs
Speaker 1: into municipal archives, FOIA reading rooms, sworn to positions, and
Speaker 1: uncataloged audio tapes. The hard data and his perseverance pays
Speaker 1: off in a way that is hard to fathom. He
Speaker 1: didn't just find wicked Farlow.
Speaker 2: No, he found much more.
Speaker 1: Marsh managed to locate and verify seventeen separate accounts of
Speaker 1: the hand.
Speaker 2: Movement, spending different decades.
Speaker 1: Yeah recorded in different archives, from witnesses who had no
Speaker 1: knowledge of each other.
Speaker 2: The methodology Marsh applied to those seventeen accounts as a
Speaker 2: masterclass in data extraction. Think about the raw material he
Speaker 2: was working with, Seventeen testimonies from individuals with wildly different
Speaker 2: educational backgrounds, vocabularies, and psychological states.
Speaker 1: They all described it differently.
Speaker 2: Yes, you have medical officers using anatomical terminology and you
Speaker 2: have civilian technicians using Layman's metaphors.
Speaker 1: Right like if one witness says the hand was waving
Speaker 1: like a symphony conductor making a box, and another witness
Speaker 1: says he was drawing a square window on the ceiling.
Speaker 2: Exactly. The metaphor distracts from the action.
Speaker 1: It confuses the data.
Speaker 2: That is exactly the problem Marsh faced, So he utilized
Speaker 2: a process of linguistic and semantic reduction. He stripped away
Speaker 2: the interpretive filters.
Speaker 1: He got rid of the words conductor and window.
Speaker 2: He ignored them entirely. He isolated the underlying vector gmetry.
Speaker 2: He charted the planar constraints, the anchor points of the wrist,
Speaker 2: the specific arc of the fingers wow. And when he
Speaker 2: projected the geometric data from all seventeen independent accounts over
Speaker 2: one another, he achieved what he termed gestural.
Speaker 1: Coherence, meaning they all matched.
Speaker 2: The noise of human interpretation fell away, and a single,
Speaker 2: unified mathematical structure emerged. All seventeen witnesses were describing the
Speaker 2: exact same underlying six to nine movements.
Speaker 1: It's like standardizing seventeen wildly different police sketches drawn by
Speaker 1: different artists into one perfect three D wireframe of a suspect.
Speaker 2: That is a very apt comparison.
Speaker 1: But there is a detail in Marsh's private notes. The
Speaker 1: ones found in his Taus archives after he died. That
Speaker 1: elevates this from a fascinating math problem to something deeply haunting.
Speaker 2: You're referring to the ocular tracking.
Speaker 1: Yes, Marsh didn't just look at the hand. He looked
Speaker 1: at the testimonies regarding the being's head and eyes.
Speaker 2: Yes. Marsh synthesized the accounts to realize that during the
Speaker 2: execution of this gestural loop, the entity was not staring
Speaker 2: blankly into the middle distance.
Speaker 1: It wasn't zoned out, nor was it.
Speaker 2: Looking at its own hand. Its unified ocular structure was
Speaker 2: actively tracking the faces of the human observers surrounding the table.
Speaker 1: It was monitoring them.
Speaker 2: It was engaging in a communicative feedback loop. Marsh categorized
Speaker 2: the sequence as recursive and explicitly designed to be repeated.
Speaker 2: Why does that matter When you are transmitting a message
Speaker 2: to a receiver of unknown capability, You repeat the packet,
Speaker 2: and you monitor the receiver for any biometric sign of comprehension.
Speaker 1: Like checking if they get it exactly.
Speaker 2: A widening of the eyes, a shift in posture, a reciprocal.
Speaker 1: Gesture, and you getting this. Please tell me you were
Speaker 1: getting this. It wasn't just throwing a message in a
Speaker 1: bottle into an empty ocean.
Speaker 2: No, it was actively desperately trying to force a cognitive
Speaker 2: bridge into existence.
Speaker 1: Which makes the stockwatch detail so much more brutal. It
Speaker 1: was looking for a sign of intelligence, and all we
Speaker 1: gave it was the cold measurement of its own death.
Speaker 2: It is a profound failure of connection.
Speaker 1: So Marsh spends a decade confirming the structure. He achieves
Speaker 1: gestural coherence, He builds the wire frame of a language,
Speaker 1: and then he decides to share his translation with the world.
Speaker 2: And he did it very quietly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he doesn't call the New York Times, he doesn't
Speaker 1: go on television. He chooses the most obscure, controlled environment imaginable.
Speaker 2: November nineteen ninety seven, the Albuquerque.
Speaker 1: Symposium set the scene for us.
Speaker 2: It was a private gathering scheduled to quietly mark the
Speaker 2: fiftieth anniversary of the Roswell event. Marsh agreed to deliver
Speaker 2: a single presentation to an audience of approximately forty people,
Speaker 2: very intimate, extremely No press were invited, no official transcripts
Speaker 2: were kept.
Speaker 1: So how do we even know what he said?
Speaker 2: The only reason we know what happened in that room
Speaker 2: is because of a consumer grade cassette tape recorded by
Speaker 2: a hobbyist named Phil Guerrero, and as.
Speaker 1: Is practically a law of physics in historical mysteries, Guerro
Speaker 1: didn't hit record until halfway through the presentation.
Speaker 2: It is the perpetual Agoni friction of historical research.
Speaker 1: I'm afraid it drives me completely insane. We have the
Speaker 1: Rosetta Stone of the twentieth century being unveiled and we
Speaker 1: only get the last thirty two minutes of the tape.
Speaker 2: It is frustrating, but those thirty two minutes are phenomenally dense.
Speaker 1: What did he cover in that time?
Speaker 2: Marsh used that time to explain the framework of his translation.
Speaker 2: To break the sequence, he mapped the gestural geometry against
Speaker 2: seventeen different pre contact indigenous communication systems.
Speaker 1: Wow, so he looked at human history first.
Speaker 2: Yes, he also cross referenced it with ancient Mesopotamian numerical methods.
Speaker 2: But the true key to unlocking the syntax was a
Speaker 2: mathematical concept applied to linguistics.
Speaker 1: What was it?
Speaker 2: Topological language?
Speaker 1: Stop right there, because this is where the mechanics get
Speaker 1: incredibly weird and fascinating. We need to unpack topological language.
Speaker 2: It is a difficult concept to grasp.
Speaker 1: It's not like English, where a drawn circle means oh
Speaker 1: and a line means ie. Topology is about spatial relationships.
Speaker 2: Yes, Topology is the mathematical study of properties that are
Speaker 2: preserved through deformation, twisting, and stretching. In a topological language,
Speaker 2: the meaning does not reside in the rigid shape of
Speaker 2: a symbol, but in how symbols relate to one another
Speaker 2: in space.
Speaker 1: Can you give an example?
Speaker 2: Consider the Mesopotamian numerical methods Marsh referenced, specifically the use
Speaker 2: of hollow clay balls called.
Speaker 1: Bull at bulaz okay.
Speaker 2: In ancient sumer before written Cuneiform. They would put a
Speaker 2: specific number of clay tokens inside a hollow clay ball
Speaker 2: and then stamp the outside of the ball to represent
Speaker 2: what was inside.
Speaker 1: So the meaning is about what's inside versus outside.
Speaker 2: Exactly, the meaning was entirely dependent on spatial containment. What
Speaker 2: is inside, what is outside? What intersects the boundary like knots? Yes. Similarly,
Speaker 2: think of an ink in kipu, a system of knotted strings.
Speaker 2: The meaning isn't the string itself, it's the distance between.
Speaker 1: The knots, the spacing mass, the.
Speaker 2: Type of intersection. How the string loops over and under
Speaker 2: itself in three dimensions.
Speaker 1: So Marsh hypothesized that the entity was using its own
Speaker 1: chest as a topological anchor, a sort of baseline ground yes,
Speaker 1: and using the space immediately above it as a three
Speaker 1: dimensional volumetric canvas.
Speaker 2: Exactly the mechanism. If I make a gesture and then
Speaker 2: my second gesture physically intersects the space where the first
Speaker 2: gesture occurred, that intersection creates a new chrammatical meaning.
Speaker 1: So it's not a string of words.
Speaker 2: No, the sequence of six to nine gestures wasn't a
Speaker 2: string of separate words. It was a single complex topological
Speaker 2: knot being tied in the empty air.
Speaker 1: So, using this topological framework, Marsh stands in front of
Speaker 1: these forty people in Albuquerque, and he drops the hammer.
Speaker 2: He reveals the translation.
Speaker 1: He states that he has cracked the sequence. He concluded
Speaker 1: that this topological knot encoded three or four relational concepts,
Speaker 1: and he was confident enough in his mathematics to translate
Speaker 1: the third element in the sequence.
Speaker 2: And that translation was profound.
Speaker 1: He told the room that the third element translated to.
Speaker 2: Origin, origin, not a destination, not a biological distress signal,
Speaker 2: not a plea for sanctuary. Original it came from the
Speaker 2: foundational concept of where one comes from.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's pressure test this translation, because my immediate human
Speaker 1: instinct really rebels against it.
Speaker 2: Why is that?
Speaker 1: Well, if I crash my car in a remote foreign
Speaker 1: country and I am bleeding out on a hospital table
Speaker 1: surrounded by people who don't speak my language, I am
Speaker 1: not going to use my last breath to pantomime the
Speaker 1: GPS coordinates of my hometown.
Speaker 2: You focus on survival, right.
Speaker 1: My biological imperative is survival. I'm going to point to
Speaker 1: my wounds, I am going to ask for help. I
Speaker 1: am going to express pain.
Speaker 2: It is a very human response.
Speaker 1: Why would an incredibly advanced intelligence prioritize the concept of
Speaker 1: origin while its internal organs are failing. Is it a
Speaker 1: cosmic headstone like here lies a traveler from this sector.
Speaker 2: Or a plea for repatriation of remains?
Speaker 1: Right? Is it a plea to ticket's body back?
Speaker 2: Those assumptions are entirely rooted in human evolutionary biology, which
Speaker 2: prioritize immediate physical preservation.
Speaker 1: We have to think alien.
Speaker 2: We must step outside our framework. Consider the philosophical and
Speaker 2: logistical reality of a species capable of interstellar traversal. Okay,
Speaker 2: their conception of individual identity might be inextricably linked to
Speaker 2: their spatial origin. If you cross light years of vacuum,
Speaker 2: where you are from might be the defining characteristic of
Speaker 2: what you are. As a wild thought, but more importantly,
Speaker 2: let's look at it through a purely linguistic and mathematical lends.
Speaker 1: The baseline issue.
Speaker 2: Yes, how do you establish communication when you share absolutely
Speaker 2: zero referential reality with your receiver?
Speaker 1: You have to build a common ground from scratch.
Speaker 2: Precisely, if I want to convey a complex concept to you,
Speaker 2: say the nature of a threat or the location of
Speaker 2: my ship, I cannot do that until we establish a
Speaker 2: shared coordinate plane.
Speaker 1: You need a map before you can point to something.
Speaker 2: Origin is the ultimate necessary baseline. It is entirely possible
Speaker 2: that the entity was establishing a cosmic baseline. Exist here,
Speaker 2: you exist there. Origin establishes the grid.
Speaker 1: Oh man.
Speaker 2: The entity wasn't asking for medical help because it's diagnostic
Speaker 2: systems or just its own physical awareness told it that
Speaker 2: biological repair by these primitive observers was impossible.
Speaker 1: It knew it was going to die.
Speaker 2: The priority shifted from survival to data transmission. It had
Speaker 2: to establish the coordinate plane so that the other three
Speaker 2: concepts in the sequence could theoretically be understood.
Speaker 1: I know I'm dying, but the data must survive, and
Speaker 1: the data requires you to know where I came from exactly.
Speaker 1: The sheer weight of that realization is stunning. So Marsh
Speaker 1: drops this revelation on the crowd. He says the word origin.
Speaker 1: The room is trying to process the magnitude of what
Speaker 1: he just said, and.
Speaker 2: Then the tape ends.
Speaker 1: Phil Guerrero's tape cuts out forty seconds later, the magnetic
Speaker 1: tape just reaches the end of the spool. It is madening,
Speaker 1: it really is. But as we pull back and look
Speaker 1: at the macro picture of this case today, a short
Speaker 1: cassette tape is the absolute least of our worries.
Speaker 2: That is where the story gets even dark.
Speaker 1: Because when modern researchers try to find corroborating evidence of
Speaker 1: this symposium or track down the original witness transcripts, we
Speaker 1: don't just hit dead ends. We hit a highly organized,
Speaker 1: surgically maintained void.
Speaker 2: We transition here from analyzing the linguistics of a signal
Speaker 2: to analyzing the architecture of a cover up. And you
Speaker 2: are correct to call it an organized void?
Speaker 1: How bad is it?
Speaker 2: Between twenty twenty one and twenty twenty three, several independent
Speaker 2: academic researchers attempted to retroactively verify Marsh's timeline.
Speaker 1: Using FOIA requests.
Speaker 2: I assume yes. They filed exhaustive Freedom of Information Act
Speaker 2: request targeting the Albuquerque Symposium and any federal monitoring of
Speaker 2: marcia's Santa Fe Institute.
Speaker 1: And the responses they got weren't just standard red actions.
Speaker 1: They got what's known as a Glomar response.
Speaker 2: Right. Yes, the government responded with uniform noncommittal silence.
Speaker 1: We can neither confirm nor deny exactly.
Speaker 2: They neither confirm nor deny the existence of the records.
Speaker 2: The glomar response is typically reserved for highly classified national
Speaker 2: security operation.
Speaker 1: It's not for civilian conferences.
Speaker 2: No, it originated during a CIA submarine retrieval mission. Deploying
Speaker 2: a glomar response against inquiries regarding as Civilian Linguistic Symposium
Speaker 2: in nineteen ninety seven is a massive structural anomaly.
Speaker 1: It means they care about it.
Speaker 2: It suggests the symposium itself is classified, but.
Speaker 1: The institutional pushback goes way beyond legal red tape. Let's
Speaker 1: look at the civilian.
Speaker 2: Records, the erasure there is even more alarming.
Speaker 1: Take Gerald Hoyt. He was a retired aerospace contractor and
Speaker 1: he was the logistical organizer for the nineteen ninety seven
Speaker 1: symposium in Albuquerque.
Speaker 2: He kept everything.
Speaker 1: He was known for being obsessively meticulous with his records.
Speaker 1: His widow, Patricia, still has boxes of his files. Every
Speaker 1: single event he organized from nineteen eighty eight to two
Speaker 1: thousand and three is perfectly documented.
Speaker 2: The tend logs, receipts.
Speaker 1: Speaker agreements, catering receipts, the works. Except for November nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety seven. The files for that specific month are just gone.
Speaker 1: The folders are literally missing.
Speaker 2: It is a surgical extraction of a specific temporal and
Speaker 2: it is part of a broader, undeniable pattern.
Speaker 1: There are other examples.
Speaker 2: Consider Tom Hadfield. He was the researcher who conducted the
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety three interview with Margaret Solaris.
Speaker 1: The typeist who overheard the argument yes.
Speaker 2: In nineteen ninety five. Hadfield has parked outside a diner
Speaker 2: in Flagstaff, Arizona. Someone breaks into his vehicle.
Speaker 1: Okay, a break in happens, but they.
Speaker 2: Bypass the stereo. They ignore his wallet on the console.
Speaker 2: They surgically extract his master cassette of the Solaris interview
Speaker 2: from his briefcase.
Speaker 1: Look a tape.
Speaker 2: The tape that contained the untranscribed raw portions of her
Speaker 2: testimony was stolen.
Speaker 1: It's so targeted, and then you get the most devastating
Speaker 1: loss of all. Doctor Sylvia Crane, Yes, the foundational researcher,
Speaker 1: the researcher who took the sworn depositions from Colonel Wick
Speaker 1: and Dennis Farlow. In nineteen ninety eight, a year after
Speaker 1: Marsh's presentation, her house catches on fire.
Speaker 2: It was a massive blaze.
Speaker 1: Thank goodness, she survived, but her office was entirely gutted.
Speaker 1: Her original typed transcripts, complete with her handwritten margin notes,
Speaker 1: her crossroft and data. All the raw material she hadn't
Speaker 1: yet published turned to ash.
Speaker 2: If you approach these events in isolation, this skeptical mind
Speaker 2: can easily.
Speaker 1: Dismiss them sure coincidence.
Speaker 2: A misplaced file folder is bureaucratic error. A car break
Speaker 2: in in Flagstaff is a random crime of opportunity. A
Speaker 2: house fire is a tragic electrical fault. Right, But forensic
Speaker 2: investigation requires pattern recognition.
Speaker 1: It's like searching for a black hole. You can't actually
Speaker 1: see a black hole with a telescope because it trapps light.
Speaker 1: It is defined by absence.
Speaker 2: That's a brilliant way to frame it.
Speaker 1: But you know exactly where it is and how massive
Speaker 1: it is because you can see how it violently bends
Speaker 1: the light of all the stars around it, the gravity
Speaker 1: of it. In this case, the documentary record thins out
Speaker 1: precisely where it should be the thickest. The erasure is
Speaker 1: too precise. It's like an immune system attacking a very
Speaker 1: specific antigen. It is every single piece of primary foundational
Speaker 1: evidence that proves the existence of this gestural sequence was
Speaker 1: surgically removed, stolen, or destroyed within a few years of
Speaker 1: Marsh cracking the code.
Speaker 2: The texture of absence, as some archivists call it, is
Speaker 2: profound here. Yeah, I generally caution against leaping to grand,
Speaker 2: unified conspiracy theories because institutional incompetence accounts for roughly ninety
Speaker 2: percent of missing government files.
Speaker 1: Usually they just lose it right.
Speaker 2: However, the precision of this institutional blankness strongly suggests an
Speaker 2: active organizational engagement with Marsh's material.
Speaker 1: It wasn't an accident.
Speaker 2: It implies the existence of a parallel, highly funded apparatus
Speaker 2: that was quietly monitoring civilian research into the roswell anomalies.
Speaker 1: And when they realized what Marsh did.
Speaker 2: When Marsh stood up in nineteen ninety seven and proved
Speaker 2: he had cracked the topological grammar, they didn't just panic.
Speaker 2: They executed a systematic sweep of the board. They sterilized
Speaker 2: the civilian record.
Speaker 1: Which leaves us with almost nothing but ghosts, the fading,
Speaker 1: unrecorded memories of the forty people in that room in Albuquerque.
Speaker 2: Which are disappearing as time goes on.
Speaker 1: But we do have one fun final account of that
Speaker 1: day which brings us to the end of Marsh's public life.
Speaker 1: After Phil Guerrero's tape ran out, there was a brief
Speaker 1: Q and A session. Yes years later, an anonymous linguistics
Speaker 1: graduate student from the University of New Mexico who was
Speaker 1: in the audience that day described the atmosphere. She said
Speaker 1: that when Marsh finished speaking the word origin, a silence fell.
Speaker 2: Over the room, a heavy silence.
Speaker 1: But she made a point to emphasize that it wasn't
Speaker 1: a polite, academic silence. It was a heavy, suffocating silence.
Speaker 2: It was the silence of cognitive recalibration.
Speaker 1: Just everyone's mind's blowing at once.
Speaker 2: Forty highly educated individuals simultaneously realizing that the paradigm of
Speaker 2: human history, biology, and language had just structurally collapsed, and
Speaker 2: they were struggling to integrate the terrifying new reality Marsh
Speaker 2: had just outlined.
Speaker 1: And out of that heavy silence, someone in the back
Speaker 1: row asks doctor Marsh the most agonizingly obvious question, If
Speaker 1: you have noted about this structure for years, why did
Speaker 1: you wait fifty years after Oswell to say anything?
Speaker 2: Is the natural question to ask.
Speaker 1: And Marsh's response to that question is just haunting. It's
Speaker 1: the kind of quote that sticks in your ribs. He
Speaker 1: looked at the audience and said, I waited until I
Speaker 1: was sure I wasn't wrong about the structure. I'm still
Speaker 1: not sure about the content, but the structure holds.
Speaker 2: The structure holds. Yeah, it is a profoundly beautiful and
Speaker 2: tragic scientific.
Speaker 1: Testament he knew he didn't have at all.
Speaker 2: Marsh was acknowledging the hard epistemological limits of his own mind.
Speaker 2: He wasn't arrogant enough to claim he had perfectly, flawlessly
Speaker 2: translated the inner thoughts of an extraterrestrial consciousness.
Speaker 1: But he knew the vessel was real.
Speaker 2: He was mathematically, fundamentally certain that a language exists in
Speaker 2: that movement. He was certain that it was not biological noise.
Speaker 2: He proved the existence of the vessel, even if he
Speaker 2: couldn't perfectly read all the contents.
Speaker 1: And the ultimate crushing tragedy here is that marsh died
Speaker 1: in two thousand and four. He took so much of
Speaker 1: his intuitive insight, the connections he never wrote down to
Speaker 1: the grave.
Speaker 2: A monumental loss of knowledge.
Speaker 1: His life's work is now horribly fragmented. It scattered across
Speaker 1: a partially cataloged postuenous archive in Taos, a half finished
Speaker 1: cassette tape, and the aging memories of a few dozen
Speaker 1: people who are mostly terrified of government reprisal if they
Speaker 1: go on the record.
Speaker 2: It is truly tragic.
Speaker 1: We had the Rosetta stone in our hand, and we
Speaker 1: lost it before we could finish dusting it off.
Speaker 2: The loss of public knowledge is immense. However, we must
Speaker 2: engage in the logical extrapolation of what Marsha's work represents.
Speaker 1: What do you mean?
Speaker 2: This is where the narrative connects to a much larger,
Speaker 2: darker operational reality.
Speaker 1: Oh because of the government sweep.
Speaker 2: If a solitary, unfunded academic working out of a small
Speaker 2: institute in Santa Fe was able to identify the topological structure,
Speaker 2: strip the interpretive filters, and decode the concept of origin
Speaker 2: using nothing but public library archives and secondhand civilian tapes, Oh, man,
Speaker 2: what do you think happened inside the apparatus that confiscated
Speaker 2: the rest of the data.
Speaker 1: That is the exact thought that keeps me staring at
Speaker 1: the ceiling at two am.
Speaker 2: We must assume that a classified entity operating with a
Speaker 2: black budget, access to supercomputers, untouched primary military records, and
Speaker 2: infinite resources have already mapped the entire sequence.
Speaker 1: They didn't just stop it origin.
Speaker 2: If they have the full translation of that eleven minute loop,
Speaker 2: what do they do with the answer?
Speaker 1: Because we only know one concept, Origin, what were the
Speaker 1: other two or three elements in that sequence?
Speaker 2: We simply do not know.
Speaker 1: Was it a warning like origin? Dangerfully? Was it a
Speaker 1: promise origin Earth returning? We are entirely in the dark.
Speaker 1: We are blind to the rest of the message, and
Speaker 1: you have to wonder about the being itself. Did it
Speaker 1: know We couldn't read the sequence it had to right.
Speaker 2: It is highly probable it recognized our cognitive limitations.
Speaker 1: It's looking at these military men staring blankly at it
Speaker 1: with a stopwatch. It knew it was surrounded by absolute
Speaker 1: infants linguistically speaking, and yet it burned its final moments
Speaker 1: of life to write the message in the air anyway.
Speaker 2: It trusted the future.
Speaker 1: It trusted that eventually, fifty years later, someone like Elliot
Speaker 1: marsh would evolve enough to figure it out.
Speaker 2: It represents an act of profound cosmic optimism to encode
Speaker 2: a vital message into the absolute void, trusting that eventually
Speaker 2: intelligence will recognize intelligence.
Speaker 1: It's beautiful in a really sad way.
Speaker 2: It is the ultimate leap of faith in the permanence
Speaker 2: of data over the fragility of biology.
Speaker 1: So what does this all mean for us today? On
Speaker 1: our show Here on Thrilling Threads, we've traced an impossible
Speaker 1: branching journey.
Speaker 2: From a desert annex to a missing archive.
Speaker 1: We started with the slow movement of a dying hand
Speaker 1: on a cold metal table in a silent, sweltering room
Speaker 1: in nineteen forty seven. We followed the quiet courage of
Speaker 1: unconnected witnesses like Harlan Wick and Dennis Farlow, men who
Speaker 1: just wanted the truth on the record before they died.
Speaker 2: We observed doctor Marsh's brilliance.
Speaker 1: We watched a brilliant, obsessive linguist named Elliot Marsh risk
Speaker 1: his academic legacy to find the mathematical signal hidden inside
Speaker 1: the bio logical noise. We arrived at a single paradigm
Speaker 1: shattering concept origin, and we saw the pushback, and we
Speaker 1: saw how a shadow apparatus systematically swept the board clean
Speaker 1: to erase that concept from human history.
Speaker 2: We are left navigating the architectural remnants of a profound
Speaker 2: historical anomaly. But Marsh was right, Yes, the structure holds,
Speaker 2: even if the complete meaning remains deliberately obscured by time
Speaker 2: and institutional interference.
Speaker 1: I want to leave you with a final provocative thought,
Speaker 1: something to chew on long after our time together today
Speaker 1: is done. Think about the physical mechanics of what doctor
Speaker 1: Marsh was describing, topological language, volumetric spatial relationships.
Speaker 2: It's a completely different way of thinking.
Speaker 1: If you are stranded light years away from your home
Speaker 1: system and you are trying to tell a completely alien
Speaker 1: species where you came from, what coordinate system do you use?
Speaker 2: What is the reference point?
Speaker 1: What spatial reference do you use to point to your
Speaker 1: home star from a sterile table in New Mexico. You
Speaker 1: can't use our constellations. They look completely different from the
Speaker 1: other side of the galaxy.
Speaker 2: You'd have to use universal constants.
Speaker 1: Are you referencing pulsars? Are you describing a dimensional frequency?
Speaker 1: How do you map the universe with your bare hands?
Speaker 2: It entirely challenges our provincial conception of spatial reasoning and
Speaker 2: universal geometry.
Speaker 1: We want to hear what you think if you were
Speaker 1: in that room, on that table, knowing you were dying,
Speaker 1: knowing you were surrounded by beings who couldn't understand a
Speaker 1: single thing you were doing. What is the one concept
Speaker 1: you would try to leave behind?
Speaker 2: What would your topological not be?
Speaker 1: What is your origin message? Think about it. We want
Speaker 1: you to drop a comment and tell us what your
Speaker 1: six gestures would be. What would you write in the air.
Speaker 2: We'd love to hear your theories.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining us for this incredible
Speaker 1: exploration on thrilling threads. Remember, sometimes the most important messages
Speaker 1: in history aren't spoken out loud. They are written in
Speaker 1: the empty air, just waiting for someone brave enough to
Speaker 1: see the structure until next time.