Speaker 1: Hello everybody, and welcome to another episode of Hard Truth Podcast. Today,
Speaker 1: my guest is Professor Simon Holland. He is a science filmmaker.
Speaker 1: We are going to talk about SETI, aliens, drones and orbs.
Speaker 1: Get ready, I'm ready, Simon. Welcome to the show.
Speaker 2: Ashton. It's really nice to have to be back, and
Speaker 2: I follow you with great interest. Thanks for having me on.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of things going on. What isn't in
Speaker 2: our sky right now, whether it's orbs or drones or
Speaker 2: we're being attacked by bad actors, who knows, it's certainly
Speaker 2: a serious situation.
Speaker 1: Well that's what I want to talk to you about
Speaker 1: right off the bat. So if people have been living
Speaker 1: under a rock, there's been some kind of grown invasion
Speaker 1: on the East coast in New Jersey for like the
Speaker 1: last month, and everybody's wondering what it is. So let
Speaker 1: me ask you, what do you think's going on? What
Speaker 1: have you seen?
Speaker 2: Well? I live in Europe and the drone invasion and
Speaker 2: is here too, which is kind of interesting folks. In fact,
Speaker 2: long before it was in New Jersey, it was over
Speaker 2: specific NATO Minister of Defense RIF bases here in Eastern
Speaker 2: in eastern England, not here, I live in France, but
Speaker 2: that was deeply worrying because the bases had no idea
Speaker 2: how to react. They sent F fifteen's, which aren't exactly
Speaker 2: even the most modern plane, because that's what they had
Speaker 2: to counter these unknown threats, which probably were drones. And
Speaker 2: I had a long chat with ExM od Nick Pope,
Speaker 2: who's well known, and we both came to the conclusion
Speaker 2: that it was probably Briton's worst encounter with things coming
Speaker 2: into a British airspace, you know, since you know, since
Speaker 2: the Cold War, you know, when.
Speaker 1: Well, why wouldn't they shoot these things down? Right?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 1: Is that why you assume that it must be us?
Speaker 1: It seems so weird that these things will be over
Speaker 1: a military basis. And I've heard this a lot, you know,
Speaker 1: how what's your explanation for that?
Speaker 2: I I was that would be my first reaction, you know,
Speaker 2: I mean literally, you know, a shotgun or even they've
Speaker 2: been using birds of prey can take down a drone.
Speaker 2: What Nick Pope said, and I think I agree with
Speaker 2: Nick on this very much, is they were the drones
Speaker 2: or whatever they are, are an unconventional threat and the
Speaker 2: military tend to live in the past, so they countered
Speaker 2: a DGI hobby drone or something bigger, we don't know,
Speaker 2: with an f f N fifteen, it's an inappropriate reaction.
Speaker 2: They needed denial of flight EMP devices, which they have,
Speaker 2: but supposedly they didn't have them on the perimeter of
Speaker 2: the bases that had this encounter, and they were fighting
Speaker 2: yesterday's war. And I think that is an enormous clue
Speaker 2: for the British airspace violation and I'm quite mad about
Speaker 2: it because not only were these drones seen over native bases,
Speaker 2: they were also seen over British mod bases. But really weirdly,
Speaker 2: and I think a big clue in nastily, they were
Speaker 2: seen over the marriage quarters of the RIF flight crew,
Speaker 2: in a base that used to be an airport which
Speaker 2: was now housing for their wives and children, and the
Speaker 2: same kind of drones were seen over there, and I
Speaker 2: really think there was a big message being sent. I
Speaker 2: think the timing was more than a coincidence that the
Speaker 2: United Kingdom had just allowed storm Shadow cruise missiles into
Speaker 2: the Ukraine, which have the capability of going into Russia.
Speaker 2: Although this is not very well known, I happen to
Speaker 2: know this. The storm Shadow cruise missiles were restricted in
Speaker 2: their use by the Ukrainians to only go into the
Speaker 2: Ukrainian national borders, but of course that includes areas of
Speaker 2: the Ukraine that have been occupied, so it still could
Speaker 2: be seen by Russia as they are being flown into
Speaker 2: Russian controlled you know, land territory. But the drone incursions
Speaker 2: in the UK, I think we're a sign to Britain
Speaker 2: to you know, we have unconventional weapons, you are vulnerable,
Speaker 2: and that's how I sought. But then who is doing it? Yeah,
Speaker 2: and how is that pulled off? Because they certainly didn't
Speaker 2: fly nearly three thousand, you know, from Moscow to Lake
Speaker 2: and Heath. They were smallesh drones. In this case, I
Speaker 2: think the New Jersey ones, we will discuss what they
Speaker 2: what they might be. But in the British case, they
Speaker 2: were definitely drones. People saw them, there's photographs of them.
Speaker 2: You know, they're quad copter small astrah.
Speaker 1: So they were quad copter. I was gonna ask about
Speaker 1: the morphology of what these things.
Speaker 2: No, the British ones were definitely, I mean there were
Speaker 2: some and we should go on to this about a
Speaker 2: slightly uh not very informed opinion that people who didn't
Speaker 2: know what they were with kind of slightly out of focused,
Speaker 2: fuzzy camera phones filming single point light sources in the
Speaker 2: sky and not understanding. But there's definite footage. In the
Speaker 2: British case, they are not particularly big. They were card
Speaker 2: cop to drones. Now, viewers out there, you're all shouting, yeah,
Speaker 2: but there were weird stuff. Well, there might have been
Speaker 2: weird stuff, but I think in the British case, not
Speaker 2: necessarily in the American case, but in the British case,
Speaker 2: they seemed to be quite off the shelf, droney things.
Speaker 2: And one of the things again that Nick Pope and
Speaker 2: I discussed we're old enough to remember they used to
Speaker 2: be a phrase useful idiots, and that in the Cold War,
Speaker 2: people who align themselves say with Marxism today, which was
Speaker 2: a newspaper in an organization in Britain, or CND Civil
Speaker 2: Nuclear Defense or specific nationalists say from Scotland, my home country,
Speaker 2: would often hand over what they thought was not secrets.
Speaker 2: They would hand over information like the movements of US
Speaker 2: submarines at Holy Loch to Marxism today or CND headquarters.
Speaker 2: But in fact, sadly they were compromised and getting funded
Speaker 2: by Russia, and they were in fact handing over you know,
Speaker 2: useful material to Roscoe, and Moscow gave them in Russian.
Speaker 2: Excuse my lack of Russian. They called them in Russian
Speaker 2: useful idiots. And it's quite possible that that that the
Speaker 2: same idea of using people for cash, Go fly your
Speaker 2: drone at Lake and Eth, I'll give you a thousand pounds,
Speaker 2: or coercion a Eastern European immigrant into the UK. We
Speaker 2: know who your mum is kind of thing. Go fly
Speaker 2: drone over Lake and Ties was a much better explanation
Speaker 2: than them flying all over you know, Germany and the
Speaker 2: North Sea and ending up in eastern England, which wouldn't
Speaker 2: be practical.
Speaker 1: So you think that the European drone encourageon is political
Speaker 1: in nature that I think the.
Speaker 2: Timing was was very very evident evidence of that. It
Speaker 2: was following the storm Shadow announcement by British MD. And
Speaker 2: I think also the drone idea, the concept of drones
Speaker 2: as unconventional warfare was a kind of as I said
Speaker 2: my film, it was putting the Willie up Britain because
Speaker 2: you know, I think that it was unconventional and whoever
Speaker 2: did it, whoever it might be, I can't actually say,
Speaker 2: but whoever did it, and it was probably humans were
Speaker 2: sending a message. I mean the drones were only there
Speaker 2: at night. I mean, you know et would be there
Speaker 2: during the day. I mean it's only at night. They
Speaker 2: were illuminated some of them. Somebody I know who's got
Speaker 2: angry astronaut went out there. He drove up. He's American,
Speaker 2: but he was living in London and he drove up
Speaker 2: to Lake and Heath and he saw one go over
Speaker 2: his head and he said, it has almost had a
Speaker 2: more led hanging underneath it. Now, the reason they wanted
Speaker 2: it to be seen was because it was sending a message.
Speaker 2: These are definitely trying to get the point across that
Speaker 2: they're flying around perimeter fences to make a point. And
Speaker 2: I think I think it's related to the American things,
Speaker 2: but I think there's something more going on in the
Speaker 2: United States which we should discuss.
Speaker 1: And you mentioned the use of drone warfare, which I
Speaker 1: think Elon must mentioned recently and it terrifies me, especially
Speaker 1: if you include ai On to it. Have you seen
Speaker 1: the videos out of the Ukraine where you're like suicide
Speaker 1: drones flying into people and blowing them up, and things
Speaker 1: like that. That's alarming to me, and it makes me wonder.
Speaker 1: I don't know about that particular incident, but at least
Speaker 1: with the one going on in the United States right now,
Speaker 1: Like how can you leave these up? Like these things
Speaker 1: could have bombs on them, warheads on them, They could
Speaker 1: fly into people and blow them up. I mean that
Speaker 1: would the message.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, I mean what they did in Britain was
Speaker 2: just fly around the damn perimeter fen and you know
Speaker 2: the reaction was send up the F fifteen. Well that's rubbish.
Speaker 2: I mean an F fifteen's minimum air speces, as you
Speaker 2: would know, is like maybe one hundred knots, you know,
Speaker 2: and the drones like twenty feet above the ground going
Speaker 2: at ten miles an hour. Yeah, de fence, you know,
Speaker 2: with a bomb. And yeah no, I did a film
Speaker 2: and I just did, like you, I researched some Ukrainian
Speaker 2: drone footation. I had to be really careful, you know,
Speaker 2: to choose what I actually could show, because yeah, no,
Speaker 2: they Ukraine are very successful and Russia are also using
Speaker 2: them in the Ukrainian conflict very successfully. I mean you
Speaker 2: can literally with a three D printer make your own
Speaker 2: drone and drop something nasty onto your enemy and that
Speaker 2: could happen.
Speaker 1: So what do you think's going on in the United
Speaker 1: States version? What have you seen? Have you seen anything
Speaker 1: that's compelling to you from a video presided for me
Speaker 1: just throwing it out there. Most of what I've seen
Speaker 1: looks like airplanes or or misidentified objects. I've will seen
Speaker 1: a couple of videos that seem to show some magnification
Speaker 1: of something that maybe might have some kind of feel
Speaker 1: life from my fuel around it, but it could also
Speaker 1: just be a blurry like out of focused star.
Speaker 2: What is your thoughts? I definitely agree, Ashton, I think
Speaker 2: that I haven't seen any definite evidence. Somebody pointed me
Speaker 2: very pointedly, you know, today, to look at at a
Speaker 2: certified pilot's sighting in Oregon with their air traffic control
Speaker 2: interaction where he saw a red light and other pilots
Speaker 2: saw this as well in the sky. I think probably
Speaker 2: quite near Portland, but I'm not sure. And then he
Speaker 2: shot some cockpit footage and I'm sorry to say it
Speaker 2: was it was an out of focus ORB and it
Speaker 2: wasn't an ORB, it was just something out of focus,
Speaker 2: So I couldn't say exactly what it is. But here's
Speaker 2: I don't think I think we're missing the point. I
Speaker 2: think what the drones represent in the United States is
Speaker 2: something much more important. F what the drones are. I
Speaker 2: think that is not the important thing. The important thing
Speaker 2: is that these drones are unknown, and nobody in the
Speaker 2: American government are reacting to it very sensibly, and the
Speaker 2: public reaction to that is fear. And I think it's
Speaker 2: as actually it is an attack, but I think it's
Speaker 2: psychological warfare to an extent. It doesn't matter what these
Speaker 2: objects are. Some will be quad copters being tested, which
Speaker 2: is some will be copycat home DGI drones. Some might
Speaker 2: be unknown, but I doubt it somehow, and a lot
Speaker 2: will be just a lot of drone sightings. Somebody said
Speaker 2: to me, somebody sees the drone over there, and then
Speaker 2: somebody sees the same drone and films it from over there.
Speaker 2: Suddenly you've got two drones. Well you haven't, necessarily they were,
Speaker 2: you know, you've got a perspective on the same light
Speaker 2: in the sky. But we are under attack, or the
Speaker 2: United States is currently and Britain as well is currently
Speaker 2: under attacked. This is psychological. This is having a very
Speaker 2: very strong effect. People are frightened, people are worried people
Speaker 2: are concerned why their government, specifically in Britain as well,
Speaker 2: but very much in the United States. Aren't the FBI
Speaker 2: go on TV and go, I don't know what it is. Well,
Speaker 2: that's a pathetic answer. You know, we have this problem
Speaker 2: and you live in the very state which is the
Speaker 2: key to the answer. You had the wonderful FBI officer
Speaker 2: who called in I know somebody in Minnesota who's doing
Speaker 2: flight training and doesn't want to land, and it was ignored,
Speaker 2: it wasn't passed on, and we all know where that went.
Speaker 2: And I think I'm seeing as a non American, I'm
Speaker 2: seeing a disconnect between agencies. You know, where is Homeland
Speaker 2: Security that was set up post nine to eleven to
Speaker 2: actually cut the crap and actually go to the FAA.
Speaker 2: Look at New York's track on. You know, they have
Speaker 2: radar that could track these damn things from take off
Speaker 2: the landing. You know, go to all the agencies that
Speaker 2: you've got and come to some conclusion. But by going
Speaker 2: on CNN and TV and all the news stations and
Speaker 2: having clips saying I have no idea, we don't think
Speaker 2: it's anything we could worry about. Is just causing mass panic,
Speaker 2: and I think whoever's doing it, if it is organized,
Speaker 2: is going it's working chaps.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't believe for a second that they don't
Speaker 1: know exactly what these things are. Now. I do know
Speaker 1: the government is inefficient and that these organizations may not
Speaker 1: community to one another. I don't really think that the
Speaker 1: FBI Homeland Security by themselves would have any inside information
Speaker 1: they would need, like satellite footage or some of the
Speaker 1: other advanced they Yeah, and that's the thing is so
Speaker 1: it seems like, you know, so I would be looking
Speaker 1: at the NRO, the NSA, the NNGA, these people that
Speaker 1: have that they know what's going on. The question then
Speaker 1: is why are they not relaying that information to the
Speaker 1: local authorities so that the information can be disseminated to
Speaker 1: the public. And to your point, it does seem kind
Speaker 1: of like a psychological operation where you know, people are
Speaker 1: freaking out. There's mass hysteria going on right now in
Speaker 1: the United States. I would even go so far as
Speaker 1: to say it's mass formation psychosis once again, where people
Speaker 1: now have this idea in their head that there are
Speaker 1: these things flying around in the sky. And like you said,
Speaker 1: out that a great point, and maybe it doesn't even
Speaker 1: matter what they are, you know, is that there's something
Speaker 1: up there. And now every single person's going out there
Speaker 1: at night and they're filming stuff and they're seeing a
Speaker 1: lot of normal stuff and they're misattributed it just we
Speaker 1: get this cycle where it just gets crazier and crazier.
Speaker 1: And now you've got major influencers that never talk about
Speaker 1: the UFO topic and what have you all in on it?
Speaker 2: So do you think you absolutely nailed there? I mean,
Speaker 2: that's exactly how as an outsider not living in the US,
Speaker 2: as I'm seeing it, the effect of whatever the f
Speaker 2: these are is tremendous. It actually is an attack. Is
Speaker 2: it internal, is it external? Is it just hysterical reaction?
Speaker 2: But it's it's definitely causing a lot of chaos and
Speaker 2: people need it needs to be sorted out pretty damn quick.
Speaker 1: Do you think it could be related to the recent
Speaker 1: United States election with Donald Trump switching over? Any thoughts
Speaker 1: on that?
Speaker 2: Sure? I I it seems like a possibility. I mean,
Speaker 2: you know, if you're going to cause real disruption before
Speaker 2: the democratic takeover by Donald Trump because he was elected,
Speaker 2: you could easily cause an awful lot of disarray to
Speaker 2: an incumbent, you know, a person who's about to take
Speaker 2: that office by having a hell of a hell of
Speaker 2: a flap in your country, which you could then you know,
Speaker 2: fix by methods which might be quite draconian. And yeah, no,
Speaker 2: I mean I think, I mean, if I had to
Speaker 2: put money on it, I think that's actually more likely
Speaker 2: than it's the Ruskies or the Chinese or the Uranian Mothership.
Speaker 2: I think they're all quite hysterical. But that's part of
Speaker 2: the hysteria. And the other thing I'd like to say,
Speaker 2: I mean, this is very controversial viewers. Is I think
Speaker 2: we're actually seeing us, the so called UFO community, if
Speaker 2: that's what we are. I don't know, being slightly used
Speaker 2: in this because I don't think we or our community
Speaker 2: of people who are invested or are interested in the
Speaker 2: abnormal paranormal, are reacting very well. I think we are
Speaker 2: actually being a bit hysterical, and I think that's part
Speaker 2: of it. Maybe this is a plot. You know, non
Speaker 2: critical thinkers who want to believe one thing or another,
Speaker 2: who are very set in their ways, manipulate the buckers,
Speaker 2: you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is where I would throw some criticism and
Speaker 1: shade on the UFO community, where buying into the massive stereia.
Speaker 1: Here is how you get yourself discredited as well, because
Speaker 1: you know, I think everybody's really desperate for alien disclosure
Speaker 1: UFO disclosure in general, and if it turns out to
Speaker 1: be a mockery, then this is why people don't take
Speaker 1: you seriou, especially if you're just filming like airplanes in
Speaker 1: the sky and saying that, oh, the UFOs are morphing
Speaker 1: into airplanes because you know, like that kind of stuff,
Speaker 1: you know, people, I mean, it's.
Speaker 2: Just it's just full of that. I mean, it's just
Speaker 2: message a message. They're copying us, They're you know, is
Speaker 2: telling me there are time travelers. You know, they're meta
Speaker 2: materials of you know, your igala's telling me all this stuff.
Speaker 2: You know, you're probably reading the same emails and you know,
Speaker 2: and I'm going now still, I mean, let's be slightly
Speaker 2: more objective about this. And at the same time, we've
Speaker 2: got this hysteria going on, we've got a lot of
Speaker 2: frightened people, and we've got a government that's doing f all.
Speaker 2: I mean, get it together, people, Unless it's intentional, do
Speaker 2: you think.
Speaker 1: So we were kind of but tap dancing around thing,
Speaker 1: which is do you think this is Project Bluebeam, which
Speaker 1: is the fake alien invasion or whatever like, because now
Speaker 1: I'm starting to wonder this thing's been going on for
Speaker 1: so long, and it's so disruptive to all the points
Speaker 1: that you made in the last fifteen minutes. It's like,
Speaker 1: this seems like it's just to freak people out. It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what they are. And the only explanation I
Speaker 1: can come up with who's responsible is my own government,
Speaker 1: something related to America, because if there was anything else,
Speaker 1: we'd be knocking it out of the sky'd be too dangerous.
Speaker 1: So I sit there and I think, yeah, maybe this
Speaker 1: is a Project Bluebeam, but they just can't even pull
Speaker 1: it off. I don't know, what are your thoughts.
Speaker 2: I have a very did you know about me? Donald
Speaker 2: Trump and Project Bluebeam story? Oh god, now's the time
Speaker 2: I know.
Speaker 1: No, I don't know tells the story.
Speaker 2: Okay, So, when I was seriously misquoted about imminent alien contact,
Speaker 2: it was seen by a lobby group part of no
Speaker 2: doubt that Donald Trump organization that I, as a European,
Speaker 2: non American, non voting person, was possibly invoking and alien
Speaker 2: were coming as this as this whatever it's called Blue something. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it was completely rubbish.
Speaker 1: Like he doesn't know what Bluebean is. Everybody, Professor Simon
Speaker 1: is the one who's pushing the project blue.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, that's sorry. I don't even know
Speaker 2: because it's completely rubbish. But it didn't come. I mean,
Speaker 2: somebody spread that as a rumor, and I've got an
Speaker 2: awful lot of comments saying, you know that I was
Speaker 2: pro Kamela. I don't even know who she is.
Speaker 3: I'm British, I live in French and and and I
Speaker 3: was dissing Donald because I was I was evoking the
Speaker 3: you know, the story went.
Speaker 2: When somebody explained it to me, I asked a friend
Speaker 2: in America and who who agreed that I was being
Speaker 2: dissed by people in that camp. And they were saying, oh, yeah,
Speaker 2: it's the old Verner von Braun deathbed message where alien
Speaker 2: invasion will be used as a political influence just before
Speaker 2: a large political event. And I was going, it's me.
Speaker 2: It was like, it wasn't actually me, but I mean,
Speaker 2: so yeah, now I was. And then I read it
Speaker 2: in newspapers and things, so it's like, oh, oh, so
Speaker 2: but is this one really? Is this? Are the drones
Speaker 2: really Bluebeam? I don't know, but Yeah, Ashton, would knowledge
Speaker 2: of we're not alone in the universe or definite confirmation
Speaker 2: of highly strange UAP or ET presence actually have that effect?
Speaker 2: I mean, would would it actually work?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a great question, Simon. I don't think that
Speaker 1: it would anymore. I don't think it works on me.
Speaker 1: I personally don't care about aliens. I think alien can
Speaker 1: come knock on my door and you know, it wouldn't matter.
Speaker 1: I would still be going to work tomorrow. You're like, hey, whatever,
Speaker 1: I like out there summer. It's a big universe. So
Speaker 1: I've never thought we're just alone in the universe. But
Speaker 1: and I think that a lot of people too now
Speaker 1: have just become so disaffected with everything going on, where
Speaker 1: it's like you see the meme out there where it's like, Hi,
Speaker 1: I'm an alien. It's like, aren't you freaked out? And like, nah,
Speaker 1: I got a lot of stuff going on right now.
Speaker 1: You know. It's like, and this is where I think
Speaker 1: the UFO Commune is kind of fallen behind, where it's
Speaker 1: like in the nineties with the X piles and everything,
Speaker 1: aliens were this big revelation where we were opening our
Speaker 1: minds to not being alone in the universe.
Speaker 2: But now I.
Speaker 1: Feel like it's not even that big a thing. It's
Speaker 1: kind of like a speed bump. And so that's why
Speaker 1: I look at this and I go, maybe this is
Speaker 1: Project blue Beam, and maybe it was like it would
Speaker 1: just we've outgrown that and it's not going to have
Speaker 1: the same psychological impact anymore. But let me ask you
Speaker 1: about the SETI thing, because you brought that up. I
Speaker 1: was following that you were making a lot of waves.
Speaker 1: You were in a lot of the newspaper articles about that,
Speaker 1: So what is the background store four? He's not made
Speaker 1: aware of that because we spoke I think right before
Speaker 1: a few months before that went down, and we were
Speaker 1: talking about fast and like communication things like that, and
Speaker 1: I saw that. I was like, oh wow, Professor Simon's
Speaker 1: like going viral now because they're saying that you were
Speaker 1: like this expert and they always kind of like, you know.
Speaker 2: Oh no, I got cold all kinds of things. Yeah, yeah, filmmaker, Yeah.
Speaker 1: So set the record straight, NASA filmmaker. I remember saying
Speaker 1: that set the record straight for us on that, like
Speaker 1: how what kind of information came to you? How credible
Speaker 1: did you deem it?
Speaker 2: And yeah, there's way thank you yeah, Hi, everybody, let's
Speaker 2: set the record straight like that. That's great. No, everything
Speaker 2: that I said was actually true, and I think it's
Speaker 2: very interesting the reaction against it. And I think that's
Speaker 2: the story that people didn't understand. You know, so many
Speaker 2: people today are saying, you said to be here next
Speaker 2: week and it's been a month, and they're still going, No,
Speaker 2: that's the real story. So just give my speel of
Speaker 2: how this whole thing came about. So Drake and Sagan
Speaker 2: set up SETTI, and they decided that they didn't have
Speaker 2: enough money and telescope time to listen to the entire
Speaker 2: radio spectrum of the visible universe the listenable universe. So
Speaker 2: they just thought that when you turn on a radio telescope,
Speaker 2: which I've done many times, you hear hydrogen buzz. It's
Speaker 2: a big buzz which you then filter out to listen
Speaker 2: to the quiet things that you're trying to find in
Speaker 2: the universe. So Drake and Sagan said, as we can't
Speaker 2: listen to everything, we assume that aliens will communicate and
Speaker 2: say hello on the hydrogen waveband because they would know
Speaker 2: that we could hear it. It was a terrible waste
Speaker 2: of time, you know, from nineteen sixties right up into
Speaker 2: the nineties. The only money that they had Causetti is
Speaker 2: a self funded organization with no government money, was to
Speaker 2: listen in the hydrogen band force for aliens going hello.
Speaker 2: And they never heard anybody, nobody ever. They never heard
Speaker 2: a thing. Odd signals were found, like the Wow signal
Speaker 2: outside of the hydrogen band. But by the nineteen nineties
Speaker 2: the technology to record and on a data base on
Speaker 2: a hard drive a wider bandwidth than just the hydrogen
Speaker 2: band got around, and they had some bit more money,
Speaker 2: and they used Green Bank Rejo telescope and they recorded
Speaker 2: wide band everything, not only the hydrogen teeny band but everything.
Speaker 2: But then SETI didn't have any way of processing the signal.
Speaker 2: They wrote an algorithm that could filter to see if
Speaker 2: there was a narrowband signal, if it was a single
Speaker 2: point source, and if it was coming from an exoplanet,
Speaker 2: and those three things they put into a piece of
Speaker 2: software called Seting at Home and you and I and
Speaker 2: millions of people downloaded it as a screen saver. And
Speaker 2: what they did is sent a little chunk of this
Speaker 2: wide signal, which they couldn't process effectively, to everybody at
Speaker 2: home and you filtered it through and to see if
Speaker 2: there was a candidate, and that word candidate I'll mention
Speaker 2: a couple of times. And it was so popular. I
Speaker 2: know people who work for people like Texaco, literally I do.
Speaker 2: Who was the IT person and it was his It
Speaker 2: was up to him to put a screen saver on
Speaker 2: a thousand million PCs all around the world, and he
Speaker 2: chose to set at Home and set it home became
Speaker 2: a victim of its own success, and they didn't want
Speaker 2: to let people down, so they sent they re scanned
Speaker 2: the sky. That's really important, the same scan sent multiple times.
Speaker 2: They actually re scanned the sky and sent it out
Speaker 2: to lots more people and the software was open source
Speaker 2: and a few candidates were found, but not very many,
Speaker 2: but a very smart this is how I heard the story.
Speaker 2: A very smart statistician and mathematician in a large central
Speaker 2: Italian university. I don't want to say his name, Parish
Speaker 2: the open source setty at Home information and found five
Speaker 2: candidates that had were narrow banned coming from an exoplanet
Speaker 2: and had all the characteristics oh single point source. I mean,
Speaker 2: they were definitely they were candidates. So they were called
Speaker 2: C for candidates. Along came Uri Milner and set up
Speaker 2: an organization called Breaks Through Listen with lots of money
Speaker 2: and they bought as much telescope time at Green Bank
Speaker 2: in the Northern Hemisphere and places like Parks in the
Speaker 2: Southern hemisphere Australia. And they immediately went to the five
Speaker 2: candidates and called them b LC breats who were listening
Speaker 2: candidate at one to five and BLC one was the
Speaker 2: first one they looked at because it's the closest to Earth.
Speaker 2: It's in the Alpha century System. It's a planet orbiting
Speaker 2: a star which is four point eight light years away,
Speaker 2: and it's really important that it's four point eight light
Speaker 2: years because it's possible to find a technological signature that's
Speaker 2: one hundred thousand light years away. But that means at
Speaker 2: the speed of light, the information you're getting is one
Speaker 2: hundred thousand years old. And imagine how we've evolved over
Speaker 2: that time. So one that's four point eight years old
Speaker 2: is relevant and you know, and very interesting. So they
Speaker 2: did that one first. Also at the time, back in
Speaker 2: the early two thousands, they they had single telescopes. Green
Speaker 2: Bank is great, Parks is great, and they're trackable dishes,
Speaker 2: sturable dishes, but to we've moved on and that's part
Speaker 2: of my story to much bigger networked arrays. But they
Speaker 2: looked at b LC one break Through Listening Candidate one
Speaker 2: from the SETI information and they found it was a
Speaker 2: single point source, and they found that it was a
Speaker 2: very narrow band of electromagnetic frequency and unfortunately it was
Speaker 2: also very low level LIZ low information zone. So they
Speaker 2: published a paper saying, we can't confirm that it's that
Speaker 2: it is a technological signature. I also have to say
Speaker 2: what that is. So we're not looking anymore for aliens
Speaker 2: going who We're looking for the buzz of an alien
Speaker 2: civilization that might be using electromagnetic frequency to do everyday
Speaker 2: things if they are, and it's a good place to look.
Speaker 2: They're also looking for lasers, they are also looking for
Speaker 2: structures even and they're very very much and have found
Speaker 2: this is very important to know biological signatures by looking
Speaker 2: through the atmosphere of a planet exoplanet that is transiting
Speaker 2: its star and you can now look in the narrow
Speaker 2: slit of its atmosphere and analyze it, and bio signatures
Speaker 2: have been found now over a year ago by a
Speaker 2: group doing a spectral analysis of an exoplanet's atmosphere, not
Speaker 2: the same one as BLC one, but another proof that
Speaker 2: there's some kind of non human life forms out there.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's all we really need. BLC one they
Speaker 2: published saying we can't confirm it, and that's what everybody
Speaker 2: quotes back at me, saying it was interferes But hang on,
Speaker 2: let me explain something. So you've got the let me
Speaker 2: make it all.
Speaker 1: So just to clarify real quick. So you're saying that
Speaker 1: your information is coming from related to BLC one or
Speaker 1: is it separate from BLC one, No, it was.
Speaker 2: It was very much about LC one from my source
Speaker 2: who said that BLC one is a genuine signal.
Speaker 1: That was in twenty nineteen, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, exactly, And well the signal existed beforehand. It
Speaker 2: was a candidate from SETI Rachel listen. I spoke to
Speaker 2: Andrew Simeon doct trans sim who's the principal investigator breakserre
Speaker 2: listening to. I mean, he told me this BLC one
Speaker 2: is still a candidate. And but the unlikeliness of it
Speaker 2: being human interference is this. There's the telescope, and there's
Speaker 2: the there's the the exoplanet, and it's if you turn
Speaker 2: the telescope away, the signal goes. If you point it
Speaker 2: at my finger, it's there. If you turn it away,
Speaker 2: it goes. So it's coming from a single point source
Speaker 2: and it's narrow. Well, what they're saying is there is
Speaker 2: something man made between the telescope and the extra planet
Speaker 2: that's in lockstep with the extra planet, and it's transmitting
Speaker 2: a very strange, non obvious electromagnetic spectrum. Okay, so what's
Speaker 2: between Earth Parks and Alpha century. There isn't anything. I mean,
Speaker 2: so saying it's a human signal, you could immediately say, oh,
Speaker 2: it's a Russian Cosmo satellite. Well there isn't one, and
Speaker 2: it tracks in the same way. It's following the extra planet.
Speaker 2: And that was the end of their report. But what
Speaker 2: happened next is the clincher. What they found with the
Speaker 2: signal is that the signal is Doppler shifted. That means
Speaker 2: they managed to track with Parks for as long as
Speaker 2: the extra planet. Now that's not it, my finger is
Speaker 2: the extra planet. As long as the extra planet orbited,
Speaker 2: they followed it and then it went and then they
Speaker 2: were in Australia and it went around the Earth, and
Speaker 2: then they picked it up again, and in that time
Speaker 2: that they could track it, they found that the electromagnetic
Speaker 2: spectrum from this single point source was either if it
Speaker 2: was like blue or red, shifted or Doppler shifted up
Speaker 2: or down as you can know. And the Doppler shift
Speaker 2: of the signal is the same speed as the rotation
Speaker 2: of the planets. So if it isn't coming from that planet,
Speaker 2: it's coming from something in space that's lined up with
Speaker 2: Australia that's using very strange frequencies that humans don't normally use,
Speaker 2: and it's rotating at the same speed as the planet.
Speaker 2: I mean, the question I, as an investigator, immediately said
Speaker 2: when people said rubbish to me was why are they lying?
Speaker 2: I mean, what is it that they Why are they
Speaker 2: wanting not to say that they found a very good signal,
Speaker 2: because by saying that it could be human interference but
Speaker 2: not having any source, they're covering something up. And so
Speaker 2: I went back to my contact who told me about
Speaker 2: this story originally and said, why are they lying? And
Speaker 2: he said, oh, you need to know who Peter Schenkle is.
Speaker 2: I'd never heard of that name. He is an advisor
Speaker 2: to SETI, and he told SETI whose whose mission statement
Speaker 2: is tell the world, not to tell the world. He
Speaker 2: advised them that if SETI or Brits are listener who
Speaker 2: probably going along with the same protocol, find a weak, unconfirmed,
Speaker 2: but very good candidate they did, don't say anything because
Speaker 2: immediately and I proved this, My viewers proved this. Immediately
Speaker 2: you say, I think you found we found a technological signature.
Speaker 2: Everybody says, what do they look like? What are they saying?
Speaker 2: You're well, stop stop. You know, we found a buzz coming.
Speaker 2: It might be rocks rubbing together, but we found a
Speaker 2: bars of a technological signature. You know, are they blue?
Speaker 2: Is a stupid question, but that's what Schenkor told SETI.
Speaker 2: If you are at least three steps ahead of the
Speaker 2: general public, what will happen is that SETI will be
Speaker 2: thrown out with the bathwater, and they'll get they'll get
Speaker 2: Gypsy rose Lee to answer the stupid questions, and the
Speaker 2: science will be blown away. So, b if you find
Speaker 2: a signal, shut up, you can start telling governments. And
Speaker 2: they have told governments, and they've told the Vatican and
Speaker 2: the British government. I read a report that they've published.
Speaker 2: Have got now an advisory of what how they would exploit,
Speaker 2: which is very typical British. The confirmation of ET and
Speaker 2: their exploitation was building better telescopes. And that's the real story.
Speaker 2: The signal is real, but somebody doesn't want it to
Speaker 2: be published. And then since BLC one and Parks Europe
Speaker 2: and EU Horizon Fund, which is the largest science fund
Speaker 2: the on the planet, you know, a bit like National
Speaker 2: Science Foundation, but even bigger, have done this networked idea.
Speaker 2: We can now network the Square Kilometer Array, a big
Speaker 2: radio telescope in South Africa, and all the lo Far
Speaker 2: and Jadrabank telescopes which are already networked in Europe to
Speaker 2: make an ear the size of our planet. And since
Speaker 2: then an organization called astron who also are keeping quite quiet,
Speaker 2: are finding evidence of technological signatures. We have the tools
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty four to prove that we're not alone
Speaker 2: in the universe. We have the biological signature and we
Speaker 2: have very good confirmation. Personally, as a pundit, I think
Speaker 2: the public should know this, but I now I understand
Speaker 2: why it was immediately blocked and nobody would. I was
Speaker 2: very alone. I was very friendly with people like Jill Tatter,
Speaker 2: who's used to be the head of SETI. I worked
Speaker 2: with Jill and she wouldn't return my phone call and
Speaker 2: the press person from SETI and I'm sure I'm not
Speaker 2: on the break Shore listen Christmas card list anymore.
Speaker 1: Well, so let me jump in here because I have
Speaker 1: a lot of questions. You gave us a lot of
Speaker 1: really good information.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, I asked details. Good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because for me, I think the biggest thing was
Speaker 1: and this isn't something I didn't I didn't realize because
Speaker 1: it's getting misreported in the news that oh, we've got
Speaker 1: some you know, we're we received some message from the aliens.
Speaker 1: Like that's basically how it was being reported. But the
Speaker 1: way you just described it is, no, we're seeing something
Speaker 1: that appears to be a techno signs. You're a buzz, like,
Speaker 1: you know, a buzz that we're seeing out there. That's
Speaker 1: a big difference, but it's also very important. And then,
Speaker 1: like you said, everybody just wants answers out there. To me,
Speaker 1: this is very similar to the detection of seasonal methane
Speaker 1: on Mars, where I could seasonal methane on Mars, which
Speaker 1: is a biosignature. It doesn't mean that there's little, little
Speaker 1: green men on Mars. But it could mean there's bacteria,
Speaker 1: which would be huge, right, and it doesn't get reported
Speaker 1: on it just because I don't know if people just
Speaker 1: don't want to accept it or they they I think
Speaker 1: the standard of evidence for proof is like so high,
Speaker 1: you know, as opposed to like, hey, here's this pretty
Speaker 1: incredible information and this data point that would indicate there
Speaker 1: might be something more going on there. And I think
Speaker 1: James web right now as well, is actually, like you said,
Speaker 1: scanning on what is it for the various chemicals that
Speaker 1: we see when the planet go in front of the
Speaker 1: stars and you can actually get a spectrum analysis there
Speaker 1: and if you see organics or things that are consistent,
Speaker 1: like methane's one of those things that might indicate their
Speaker 1: stuff there. So the big thing, though you said, is
Speaker 1: that this is coming from Alpha you know, Alpha Centauri
Speaker 1: or you know, what are our closest stars that we have.
Speaker 1: If we find some type of techno signature that close,
Speaker 1: that would indicate life's got to be everywhere, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, it's just they be LC one was
Speaker 2: the closest because they had it was it was a
Speaker 2: better signal and it was also not very old. But yeah, right,
Speaker 2: life is going to be everywhere, but it doesn't have
Speaker 2: to be. It doesn't have to be, uh, people in
Speaker 2: flying sauces. I mean, look at our planet. I live
Speaker 2: at a fum. You know, I've just gone out five
Speaker 2: minutes ago and fed my goats. I mean there are
Speaker 2: life forum. They are an intelligent species, but they don't
Speaker 2: drive teslas. I don't hope not. And you know they
Speaker 2: they hang on no, no, no no, But aliens are
Speaker 2: going to be in the chap val A phrase highly strange.
Speaker 2: I mean they're not or in the star Trege phrase
Speaker 2: it's life gym, but not as we know it. I mean,
Speaker 2: I think it's amazing. I think the technological signature is
Speaker 2: really interesting because it implies that that they they are
Speaker 2: using electromagnetic frequencies, which is a bit odd really, because
Speaker 2: we as a planet are moving away from EM. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's em if you start off with kind of radio teleft.
Speaker 2: You know, radio and Marconi were now mainly fiber optic
Speaker 2: and and we're not actually transmitting signals through the ether
Speaker 2: or whatever you know anymore. So it might be a
Speaker 2: bubble of a technological race who uses electromagnetic spectrum. Although
Speaker 2: we still kind of like to use it for things
Speaker 2: like radar and satellite communication. Makes sense. Well, so the
Speaker 2: the other thing that brakes through Listen said to me,
Speaker 2: I'm sorry to interrupt, it's just a really great fact.
Speaker 2: He said that there's James Webb can find spectral technical
Speaker 2: technological signatures. I said, I don't understand. He said, not
Speaker 2: only could you find methane or evidence of respiratory and
Speaker 2: life and other chemicals which are normally associated with creatures.
Speaker 2: You might find fluorocarbines. You might find a chemical in
Speaker 2: their atmosphere which could which isn't a natural molecule, it's
Speaker 2: something that had to be constructed, and that would be
Speaker 2: a technological spectral signature. Sorry.
Speaker 1: Wow, Yeah. And so the alien thing is really interesting
Speaker 1: because I was like you a couple of years ago.
Speaker 1: I thought they're gonna be way different than us, and
Speaker 1: I still think that aliens would be way different that
Speaker 1: we can't really even it's not necessarily going to be
Speaker 1: like humanoids. But then I think there's also the other
Speaker 1: side of the spectrum, which what if they are exactly
Speaker 1: like us, Like what if we are the aliens that
Speaker 1: somebody drops us off here and we've forgotten our history
Speaker 1: or something too like. Honestly, both options seem plausible to me.
Speaker 1: But the point you brought up what I really want
Speaker 1: to dig into is the method of communication, which is okay,
Speaker 1: like the em thing like you that was a great
Speaker 1: point you bring up, is like, isn't it kind of
Speaker 1: weird that we would detect an electromagnetic signature? If we're
Speaker 1: moving away from that And this is the part where
Speaker 1: I think human hubris comes into play, where we think, oh,
Speaker 1: we've advanced everything there is. I remember watching a show
Speaker 1: like over a decade ago where they were going through
Speaker 1: SETI and these signatures, and we hadn't had a lot
Speaker 1: of luck in finding stuff, and somebody comes in points out, well,
Speaker 1: what if we're looking we're not looking for the right thing,
Speaker 1: We're not looking at the right bandwidth, or you know,
Speaker 1: we're not looking for the right message. These aliens or
Speaker 1: whatever they are, are using a different method of communication.
Speaker 1: And the thing that I've researched in the last year
Speaker 1: that has really blown me away is gravity waves. You
Speaker 1: were mentioning the thing about the ether before, which you know,
Speaker 1: if people google hal Pudoff's patent, you're gonna find out
Speaker 1: he's got something called communication system, and in it it
Speaker 1: is a communication method with no electromagnetic signature and instead
Speaker 1: it uses force free Correct me if I'm wrong here,
Speaker 1: or people can fact check me. But it's like force
Speaker 1: free communication, beaming it basically through the ether, right, And
Speaker 1: to me, that is a it's a scaler U communication system,
Speaker 1: or I would call it a gravity communication system. I
Speaker 1: think that in order to not ruffle people's feathers, they
Speaker 1: call it like a quantum communication system.
Speaker 2: Oh, the badly misused word.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it's exactly. But that's how they get the
Speaker 1: people to not like say, oh, this is pseudoscience basically,
Speaker 1: but what do you think about that idea? And could
Speaker 1: something like that because Robert M. L. Baker was a
Speaker 1: Lockheed Martin engineer and he wrote over a dozen papers
Speaker 1: on high frequency gravitational waves and using them for communication
Speaker 1: as one of the methods that they could be used for.
Speaker 1: And I think, oh, well, doesn't that make way more sense?
Speaker 1: Is that they're using something that we are not using
Speaker 1: right now conventionally, that we aren't even looking for out there,
Speaker 1: and that if we have a high frequency gravitational wave detector,
Speaker 1: maybe we start seeing these things everywhere out in the universe.
Speaker 1: And I'm curious your thoughts on that. And then the
Speaker 1: other thing I'm curious is on is do you think
Speaker 1: that something like that could actually communicate faster than the
Speaker 1: speed of light? Uh?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it does. Oh that's a big statement. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: that's I hadn't considered gravity waves. But very interestingly, Ashton
Speaker 2: that a number of new lego instruments have been built. Certainly,
Speaker 2: gravity waves are being looked at and investigated by all
Speaker 2: over the world right now. The sensitivity of the original
Speaker 2: system has been incredibly increased. I was thinking of doing
Speaker 2: a film about it, so I was researching it. But
Speaker 2: there's now gravity wave detectives all over the world, certainly
Speaker 2: in China and in Europe, as well as the one
Speaker 2: out in probably Oregon. I think it is the original one.
Speaker 2: I think it's near Hartford.
Speaker 1: And but.
Speaker 2: How put off so onto something as well. He's an
Speaker 2: interesting person to follow. But I got told about this
Speaker 2: guy called Gunter Nimitz, right, So, Gunter is a now
Speaker 2: in his late eighties nineties. He isn't available on social media.
Speaker 2: He is a retired very senior physicist at Cologne University
Speaker 2: and he experimented the early two thousands with what he
Speaker 2: called quantum tunnel communication. And what he'd discovered with an
Speaker 2: experiment which is reproducible in your bedroom, and he did
Speaker 2: it with undergraduate students in a laboratory, is he can
Speaker 2: send a microwave source. But it interestingly, it doesn't have
Speaker 2: to be microwaves. It could be any it could be light,
Speaker 2: but anything he can send. But in his case it
Speaker 2: was my caroreerve through a device and then have an
Speaker 2: air gap of a few meters to a receiver. And
Speaker 2: what he discovered is that he knows the time the
Speaker 2: signal would take from the source to the receiver, and
Speaker 2: of course it would transit that time and there would
Speaker 2: be a distinct speed of light communication. But he found
Speaker 2: that by putting it into this this tunnel transmitter, that
Speaker 2: when it exited the tunnel transmitter, it entered the tunnel
Speaker 2: receiver instantaneously. The gap between the transmitter and the receiver
Speaker 2: was non existent. And as he moved them further apart,
Speaker 2: the signal I mean there was a slight delay of
Speaker 2: it going in and the slight delay of it coming out,
Speaker 2: but the bit between which could be a meter or
Speaker 2: could be one hundred million light years. That's its point
Speaker 2: was instantaneous. When the signal transited space. It was like
Speaker 2: somebody told me this. The person who told me this,
Speaker 2: It's like you're pushing on a rod. You push this
Speaker 2: end and the other end is moving. There is a
Speaker 2: direct connection. It isn't a wave, it's not an energy
Speaker 2: with a time base. It is just a connection. And
Speaker 2: that connection makes a lot of sense. I'm gonna have
Speaker 2: to use the word quantum in the quantum world or
Speaker 2: the sub atomic world, where we have a world which
Speaker 2: is not like the far field world that we live in,
Speaker 2: but we have a world where everything is We know
Speaker 2: that everything is connected. So is it connected in a
Speaker 2: way where you can put a signal in and receive
Speaker 2: it out without a delay. And he demonstrates this. He
Speaker 2: immediately gave that idea to a group that I'm associated
Speaker 2: with or know of in Europe as a receiver on
Speaker 2: radio telescopes. He said, put one on the radio telescope.
Speaker 2: Sorry he's not Scottish, but put one on our radio
Speaker 2: telescope and see if Thellans are using my form of
Speaker 2: instant communication, because they would be really smart if they did.
Speaker 2: And so strapped on the side of a whole bunch
Speaker 2: and I know where they are. And I'm not saying
Speaker 2: readie telescopes just a part of a network in Europe
Speaker 2: are gunter Nimitz's receivers.
Speaker 1: And really yeah you know that for a fact.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can read the funding for it, I mean.
Speaker 2: And there was a there was a conference in Colone
Speaker 2: where the radio telescope administrators from EU went to see
Speaker 2: the demonstration. They were very skeptical. The head of SETI
Speaker 2: from the US was there and he had a conniption.
Speaker 2: Supposedly he absolutely hated it and stormed out and is
Speaker 2: dissing what guntern Imits is doing. But some people there,
Speaker 2: he's a very famous person, John Michael Goodyear had him
Speaker 2: on and he's really full of himself. But one of
Speaker 2: the people there, I can't remember his name. One of
Speaker 2: the people there at the meeting is my contact, and
Speaker 2: he said, we're interested. Can you make one and we'll
Speaker 2: strap it nicely on one of our European telescopes. And
Speaker 2: what have they heard?
Speaker 1: They're not saying, So do you have reason to believe
Speaker 1: that something any type of communication there's been some success
Speaker 1: with that.
Speaker 2: I have no reason to believe that. No. All I
Speaker 2: know is that they it's another tool which they are using. Obviously,
Speaker 2: my contact, who's very excited and was part of the
Speaker 2: project to putting these retrofitting these telescopes with this device, said,
Speaker 2: if we ever did find a signal, and I'm not
Speaker 2: at liberty to say anything more, it would then open
Speaker 2: the opportunity to speak back. But then we talked of
Speaker 2: the phone in a long time about the difficulty of communication.
Speaker 2: I mean, how do you communicate with somebody who has
Speaker 2: no references to you? So the actual technology, technological signa
Speaker 2: way of communicating might be crackable, but then how do
Speaker 2: you take it to the next level if we ever find,
Speaker 2: if we ever heard a signal that was using this,
Speaker 2: but it would be it would make so much sense.
Speaker 2: That's an advanced race and maybe we humans are slowly
Speaker 2: getting into that level.
Speaker 1: Yeah, would let me ask a couple quick questions, real quick,
Speaker 1: you don't mind, because first of all, what you just
Speaker 1: say right there is huge, is that how do we
Speaker 1: even communicate? You know, It's like, Okay, it's one thing
Speaker 1: to say that we get a signature, but like it's
Speaker 1: not like they're speaking English to us, you know, like
Speaker 1: are we gonna speak in Morse code or almost like
Speaker 1: the movie contacts. You know, it's like, what are they
Speaker 1: gonna send us, like prime numbers or what are they
Speaker 1: gonna do?
Speaker 2: Yeah, prime numbers, even that would be impossible. I mean
Speaker 2: I think the movie Arrival was better at that. I mean,
Speaker 2: you know, I think I think we don't have the
Speaker 2: ability to talk to squids, so you know, and they
Speaker 2: you know, we eat them unfortunately. But I mean they're
Speaker 2: very highly evolved and very highly intelligent, being on this planet,
Speaker 2: our Earth, for longer than humans, and we can't bloody
Speaker 2: talk to them. How pathetic is that? So how are
Speaker 2: we going to talk to the aliens? And you know,
Speaker 2: and as you say, do they talk? Do they? Is
Speaker 2: there a concept of of color? I mean, we are
Speaker 2: so human in the way that we our tiny spectrum them,
Speaker 2: that we our eyes see and our ears can hear,
Speaker 2: and our feeling in touch and our gravity. You know,
Speaker 2: we're people of Earth. So we can't even assume that
Speaker 2: they would know what a ball is. You know, if
Speaker 2: you speak to a child in a different language, you
Speaker 2: could show them a ball and they would immediately know
Speaker 2: it was round and they could bounce it or play
Speaker 2: with it, even if they didn't know the language to
Speaker 2: talk to you in, you know, from a foreign country,
Speaker 2: but an alien might not even know what a round
Speaker 2: thing is. You know, it would be very It would
Speaker 2: be incredibly challenging and fantastic. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The part that really also is like people don't realize
Speaker 1: why would we think aliens would have the same concept
Speaker 1: of time that we do as well? That might they
Speaker 1: might even have the same concept as time. Like it's
Speaker 1: like the movie Lord of the Rings with the nts,
Speaker 1: the tree people or whatever they like, their concept of
Speaker 1: time is different, moves much slower than our concept of time.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine how difficult it would be to communicate
Speaker 1: with a species where our concepts of time are different?
Speaker 1: Or like in the movie Arrival where they like somehow
Speaker 1: kind of see the future in the past all the Yeah,
Speaker 1: exactly like a circle.
Speaker 2: I know.
Speaker 1: This is where like, I think the UFO community specifically
Speaker 1: really needs to update some of their narratives because a
Speaker 1: lot of it's like, oh, all the aliens are telepathic.
Speaker 1: It's like, okay, well, I mean maybe, but you know,
Speaker 1: I think the bigger issue is like, do they even
Speaker 1: have the same concepts of morality, consciousness?
Speaker 2: Time?
Speaker 1: These things? Right, Like, those are huge differences that could
Speaker 1: make it very difficult to have any type of formal communication, right.
Speaker 2: Totally, totally, totally agree. I couldn't. I mean, yeah, I've
Speaker 2: done films about what I call time base, and all
Speaker 2: you have to do is f with the time base,
Speaker 2: and suddenly we've had this in science fiction, you know,
Speaker 2: fiction where something is moving so fast that you don't
Speaker 2: see it because because we can't scan it, and it
Speaker 2: appears like a buzz. Episodes of Star Trek and things
Speaker 2: where the thing was moving so fast they couldn't see
Speaker 2: it until they got into their time base, or things
Speaker 2: that move so incredibly slowly that we think it's a rock,
Speaker 2: but in fact the rock is moving, but we it
Speaker 2: moves over ten thousand years. So yeah, no, you're right.
Speaker 2: And then in the subatomic world, the concept of time
Speaker 2: is very different. One of the things that have been
Speaker 2: fascinating me in a film that I just published today
Speaker 2: is about remote viewing and how by tapping into probably
Speaker 2: how our brain has a quantum aspect to how it works.
Speaker 2: You know, we are fundamentally quantum inside our atoms, but
Speaker 2: we're far field you know, beings. But we have a
Speaker 2: connection to a spiritual connection, to the to a timeless
Speaker 2: connected universe, we call it God, we call it religion.
Speaker 2: But one of the explanations of remote viewing is are
Speaker 2: these microtubule ideas that we have in our brain, which
Speaker 2: are physical objects in our brain that Dr Roger Penrose
Speaker 2: is talking about and the caesiologist to talking about. It's
Speaker 2: fantastic and it's possible that remote viewing people who have
Speaker 2: that way of looking into the near future as we
Speaker 2: all do, but some of them are better at it
Speaker 2: than us, could tap into a timeless realm. So time
Speaker 2: doesn't the future, the present, and the past doesn't exist.
Speaker 2: So speaking to Russell Tarak and how put off about
Speaker 2: remote viewing literally yesterday Ashton, it seems to me that
Speaker 2: the way that remote viewing works was very much tapping
Speaker 2: into some type of timeless realm, and that the remote viewers,
Speaker 2: through an emotional connection in the future, it had to
Speaker 2: be an emotional connection, could recall the future in the past.
Speaker 2: So that's how they made it work. It wasn't It
Speaker 2: wasn't looking at an underground secret laboratory in Russia at
Speaker 2: a distance. It was about saying your.
Speaker 1: Time, it's retro causality, right, retro causality, it's a and
Speaker 1: there's an experiment that actually supports the notion of retro causality,
Speaker 1: called the delayed choice quantum eraser, where they exactly I
Speaker 1: looked at that experiment and I saw people trying to
Speaker 1: debunk in what have you? And my interpretation was that
Speaker 1: it's clearly sending information from the future to the present,
Speaker 1: which is you know, time travel. And now to me,
Speaker 1: it's just a matter of what can you do with that?
Speaker 1: And I think it's directly I thought all these concepts
Speaker 1: you've beenalk about for the last five minutes, I think
Speaker 1: I related Gunter Nimitz and maaster and light device. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you look at that and the idea of quantum tunneling,
Speaker 1: it's like it's jumping the gap between these regions. And
Speaker 1: how do you explain that, you know, I think the
Speaker 1: only way to explain it is the same way that
Speaker 1: you explain remote viewing. And it's quantum entanglement, right, it's
Speaker 1: quantum entanglement that all points in space and time must
Speaker 1: have some connection, right exactly a distance. So do you
Speaker 1: think that there's.
Speaker 2: An a gravity? Yeah?
Speaker 1: So do you think that there is like then like
Speaker 1: an ether or whatever of like you know, what has
Speaker 1: been talked about since the time of Tesla is that
Speaker 1: how what is your views on how to rationalize how
Speaker 1: that could be possible.
Speaker 2: I think that's such a great question because I think
Speaker 2: I think we as scientists and science and investigators, and
Speaker 2: I think what physics does is look at the observable
Speaker 2: effects of the universe and name it. And I think
Speaker 2: the term ether describes was ahead of its time. And
Speaker 2: I think that as we discover the near field and
Speaker 2: far field and sub atomic world is a is a
Speaker 2: giant connected universe which is timeless, gravity less, and spaceless,
Speaker 2: it suddenly is closer to the name ether that we
Speaker 2: coined in the nineteenth century. And in fact, although that
Speaker 2: name was dropped and we started talking about transmission by
Speaker 2: radio over through our kind of big, big field space,
Speaker 2: I think as we discovered quantum physics in the nineteen twenties,
Speaker 2: that term should come back because I think there is
Speaker 2: an ether. I think the ether is inside us all.
Speaker 2: I think it's internal to our atomic structure. And I
Speaker 2: think as people as beings or objects, and I don't
Speaker 2: think humans are unique. I think humans we have a
Speaker 2: consciousness because we're conscious of the ether, or we're conscious
Speaker 2: of the quantum state. Now I think that anything that
Speaker 2: is forefield, which is big stuff, might be aware or
Speaker 2: could well have a system that is aware of a
Speaker 2: larger connectivity. Birds example, are very high end quantum brains.
Speaker 2: They can do calculations of navigation and direction finding and
Speaker 2: other things. And in mythology, birds are seen as this
Speaker 2: higher life forum than humans because they have they possibly
Speaker 2: have a way of being much more connected to our
Speaker 2: connected quantum ether.
Speaker 1: Interesting, it's just my opinion.
Speaker 2: No, it's not my opinion, and people are doing the research.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I to me, if there is an ether
Speaker 1: and maybe like energy is coming from this and things
Speaker 1: all points in space and time are really connected, then
Speaker 1: to me, it really does broach the idea, well, where's
Speaker 1: consciousness coming from? Is it coming from this ether? Is
Speaker 1: there direct connection that we have to it?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: This is why I think the people that throw out
Speaker 1: how Pudoff's research in the seventies because they go, oh,
Speaker 1: remote viewings, psychic blah blah blah. Like I think that's
Speaker 1: a little bit naive to do that, because that the
Speaker 1: basis to that is that we think we understand everything
Speaker 1: there is, but we have all these experiments like the
Speaker 1: guns or nimens experiment that seem to counter indicate or
Speaker 1: counteract or contradict our understanding. And I looked in the
Speaker 1: Gunter nimts and in two thousand and five I think
Speaker 1: he was he was supposed to do some type of
Speaker 1: demonstration and he just never showed up. And it wasn't
Speaker 1: until I think twenty nineteen that two I don't know
Speaker 1: if they were students recreated the experiment and people have
Speaker 1: tested it and some people say, well, the distance is
Speaker 1: so short that would basically be instantaneous, but we have
Speaker 1: detectors that can detect even you know, short distances like that,
Speaker 1: even at the speed of light, and they tested it
Speaker 1: and it was way too fast to be explained away
Speaker 1: as some sort of anomaly in the measurement apparatus. So
Speaker 1: what I think recently you did some kind of deep
Speaker 1: dive as well. Did you come to a similar conclusion
Speaker 1: that you know that that was actually his experiments it
Speaker 1: is was legit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I did, And I know somebody who was at
Speaker 2: the conference where gun turn limits turned up. He didn't
Speaker 2: want to go on stage that day, and he actually
Speaker 2: sent postgraduate students. He desperately wanted to communicate with European
Speaker 2: Readie telescope people, and the story that he didn't turn
Speaker 2: up is not true, and that is just literally not true.
Speaker 2: People did meet him that day, but he either it's
Speaker 2: badly reported or he didn't go on stage, or there's
Speaker 2: some confusion over that. And that was it was very
Speaker 2: much used against him. And it supposedly the bloke I
Speaker 2: know knows Guntu quite well and he was there, he
Speaker 2: just wasn't very public supposedly or I don't know really
Speaker 2: what happened. And through the postgraduate students that Cologne did
Speaker 2: demonstrate it. And the the one thing that Gunta Nimmitz
Speaker 2: really peed off the science community by saying faster than
Speaker 2: the speed of light FTL, and that really pissed people
Speaker 2: off because so much science is anchored on Einsteinian physics
Speaker 2: that the speed of light is a barrier and he
Speaker 2: was really wrong in saying that, and what he should
Speaker 2: have said, and what I'm going to say now is
Speaker 2: mind boggling. Okay, okay, So faster than the speed of
Speaker 2: light isn't possible in a framework of relativity of relativity.
Speaker 2: I mean, you can you can actually possibly go faster
Speaker 2: than you can appear to be going faster than the
Speaker 2: speed of light in a relative sense. No, I'm talking shite.
Speaker 2: Let me say a different way. What guntern Limits did
Speaker 2: with his with his with his quantum communication, and that
Speaker 2: word is also misused, is he found that it wasn't
Speaker 2: faster than the speed of light. It's instantaneous. There is
Speaker 2: no speed. That's what he should have said. That's what
Speaker 2: my contact said. As soon as he said FDL, he
Speaker 2: got laughed at because it still implies a speed. But
Speaker 2: in fact what he found was it enters an exit simultaneously.
Speaker 2: He described it like I said, like pushing on the
Speaker 2: end of a rod. Or I used a demonstration which
Speaker 2: obviously isn't the same, but it's a good demonstration of
Speaker 2: those Newton's balls where you pull one out and it
Speaker 2: hits and the one at the end flies out and it
Speaker 2: goes like that. Now there is a shock wave of
Speaker 2: gravity on Earth making that happen, and it's just very
Speaker 2: fast and we don't see it. But it's a good
Speaker 2: analogy to what good To actually is demonstrating you put
Speaker 2: the signal in and it comes out the other end
Speaker 2: at the same time. There isn't a weekly bit in
Speaker 2: the middle quantum entanglement.
Speaker 1: That's the only explanation I can come up with for.
Speaker 2: That connectivity entanglement, Yeah, quantum entanglement, two good words. But
Speaker 2: we you know, science and physicists is continually redefining how
Speaker 2: we describe what we're observing. And as you said, what
Speaker 2: Russell targ and how put Off we're doing through it
Speaker 2: with SRI and remote viewing was an application of quantum entanglement.
Speaker 2: But at the time, you know they were doing it
Speaker 2: as an application for the CIA, I mean because it
Speaker 2: was a way of exploiting a looking into the future,
Speaker 2: never looking remotely, but remotely into the future. And so
Speaker 2: at the time, is that fully understood of what this
Speaker 2: how it really worked. I don't think it was. I think,
Speaker 2: well put Offs pretty smart, so touric, but I think
Speaker 2: only now are we understanding the quantum mechanics of the
Speaker 2: near field that they exploited. And I think that's what
Speaker 2: you I everybody who's ever had an anesthetic is it
Speaker 2: is being demonstrated. Anestesiology is a way of dampening consciousness.
Speaker 2: And the thing that the way that anesthetics work are
Speaker 2: really strange, and there's a link between how our brain
Speaker 2: works under anesthesia and how what structures in our brain
Speaker 2: might be in touch with the near field quantum world.
Speaker 2: Now if we when we unpick that mystery and it's
Speaker 2: going on right now, we've unlocked a way of communication,
Speaker 2: time travel, traveling faster than we want instantaneously maybe, and
Speaker 2: incredible distance communication. And I think in twenty twenty four
Speaker 2: we are living in an interesting time. We definitely have
Speaker 2: confirmation of ET although SETI and Brits are listening to
Speaker 2: other groups are shy of saying it because they don't
Speaker 2: want to be ridiculed. That's what I hear, and I
Speaker 2: think that we're also there's large investments right now into ether,
Speaker 2: quantum communication and time time manipulation.
Speaker 1: Wow. Yeh, that's really interesting and I want to kind
Speaker 1: of change gears a little bit. But that that was
Speaker 1: an awesome discussion and I'm really happy to hear it.
Speaker 1: I'm happy to hear the thing about gun or Nimits
Speaker 1: because I just read Wikipedia that said that he didn't
Speaker 1: show up, and that goes a show you probably shouldn't
Speaker 1: read believe Wikipedia. Sure, but one last question on that
Speaker 1: from and I want to talk about one last topic.
Speaker 1: Why do you think he hasn't been more outspoken? I mean,
Speaker 1: it's twenty twenty four, Like that's such a breakthrough thing,
Speaker 1: and I think it was like two thousand and five,
Speaker 1: as almost twenty years ago.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a good question. I don't know. I've reached
Speaker 2: out to him and his family, and he's late eighties,
Speaker 2: early nineties and doesn't want to talk about it. I
Speaker 2: think the universe. Oh, if you go to Cologne and
Speaker 2: you go to his physics department, there's people there who
Speaker 2: will talk about it. In German, we feel free to
Speaker 2: go and talk to them. That there is in that
Speaker 2: university in the hallway. Is the good tournament's original kit?
Speaker 2: Really very Yeah, they're very proud of it. This is
Speaker 2: you know, we are still Heathens. We still ignore people
Speaker 2: who talk French or German. I mean, get a life,
Speaker 2: people use Google Translate. I mean, honestly, I mean so
Speaker 2: much science has been limited over the years by language.
Speaker 2: And I think that there's quite a good reason that
Speaker 2: I can't actually tell you about what the outcome of
Speaker 2: putting the nimits receivers on the telescopes. And I think
Speaker 2: that is also connected with with SETI and Britz are listen,
Speaker 2: not wanting to spill the beans quite yet. Although I
Speaker 2: think we're a in a stage politically where humans are ready.
Speaker 2: I think you with these drones. I think, if it's et,
Speaker 2: if we definitely confirm u AP are real, we know
Speaker 2: you are p are real all over the world. I
Speaker 2: think we are now smart enough not to be war
Speaker 2: of the world's panicked. And I think we should start
Speaker 2: hearing these things, and I think people should be open
Speaker 2: to the idea.
Speaker 1: Well, so let me ask you this, what is your
Speaker 1: favorite non human intelligence hypothesis? Presumably you're familiar with all
Speaker 1: different options. I'll throw a few out there. Some people
Speaker 1: said stuff like future humans, demons, angels. Of course, extraterrestrials
Speaker 1: is an option. Ultraterrestrials. You know, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: different options out there AI things like that. What is
Speaker 1: your favorite theory?
Speaker 2: Well, I've got quite a few, really, I mean, I
Speaker 2: think I'm open to all of them. I'm not particularly closed.
Speaker 2: I mean I start thinking that even you know, as
Speaker 2: you say, demons and angels and things, might be a
Speaker 2: way of interpreting things that people you know, to put
Speaker 2: them in more human terms. I think there's life in
Speaker 2: our universe. It's so unlikely that there isn't salient life
Speaker 2: out there or biological life of some type or very
Speaker 2: different life. I think that it is quite unlikely that
Speaker 2: living extraterrestrials necessarily need to visit planets Earth in our atmosphere.
Speaker 2: I think it's quite likely more likely that they would
Speaker 2: send if they're interested in US, and I think we
Speaker 2: might be vaguely interesting that they would send a mechanical
Speaker 2: probe that would circle the Sun for power, communicate between
Speaker 2: stars to make a network, or beyond the rings of
Speaker 2: Saturn or the Moon, or maybe a couple of objects
Speaker 2: have been put in the ocean. Why not drop a
Speaker 2: couple in the Pacific. But they're not flying around. But
Speaker 2: what are you ap? I mean, uap are real? There's
Speaker 2: country's you know. I'm always shouting this, you know. The
Speaker 2: Britain officially said u ap are real in two thousand
Speaker 2: with a Condact report, and for and Brazil have said
Speaker 2: the same. It's only the US are still debating it.
Speaker 2: You know, get a life. Although on the other hand,
Speaker 2: it's the US who came up with the six observables,
Speaker 2: five observables and the sixth of human injury, which is interesting,
Speaker 2: and those observables were were coined by US defense contractors,
Speaker 2: so they know U apr real. It's just that it's
Speaker 2: not quite reached Washington yet. And the public in Britain,
Speaker 2: everybody knows you apr real. I mean in France you
Speaker 2: can go. I can literally tell my local police officer
Speaker 2: and he would file a report with the French government
Speaker 2: that would go on a database and they're not going,
Speaker 2: you're mad, you know, you saw something crazy? You know,
Speaker 2: they would just say, yeah, where do you see it? Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's and they would assess it and they would look
Speaker 2: at other sightings. So oh yeah, we there's things in
Speaker 2: the sky, there's things visiting us. I think it's unlikely
Speaker 2: to be living creatures. I think it's more likely to
Speaker 2: be either multi dimensional things that can go very fast.
Speaker 2: I think I think, oh do you know the whole
Speaker 2: blue shift?
Speaker 1: Yeah? How put Off mentioned that in a video I
Speaker 1: was watching that. Yes, way, I think it's like the
Speaker 1: way they're manipulating like space time causes a blue shift
Speaker 1: effect which can push you, like the magnetic waves into
Speaker 1: the visible frequency range, or it can push it to
Speaker 1: the ultra violet where it might give you burns. Is
Speaker 1: that where you're getting at.
Speaker 2: Or higher into even more dangerous frictions? Is Yes, that
Speaker 2: very that very talk that you gave, which is very interesting.
Speaker 2: It turns out that what he's saying isn't speculative. If
Speaker 2: you do a warp drive, the frequencies counter intuitively blue
Speaker 2: shifts when an object is departing rather than red shift,
Speaker 2: which you would expect when it was going away. And
Speaker 2: there's definite huh evidence of people who have been injured
Speaker 2: by frequencies that have suddenly gone up. I mean, sunburn
Speaker 2: is a classic thing. I mean, we saw that in movies,
Speaker 2: but movies often have very good science advisors. And some
Speaker 2: of the injuries at Rendalstrom Forest were from high frequencies,
Speaker 2: and those high frequencies could easily been produced by something
Speaker 2: departing and going out of the visible spectrum into the
Speaker 2: UV or even beyond that to the point where they
Speaker 2: become you know, ionizing frequencies.
Speaker 1: And so yeah, yeah, that takes me to the last
Speaker 1: kind of topic that I wanted to talk to you about,
Speaker 1: which is more people related to help you off. I
Speaker 1: don't know how everybody out there's relayed him, but he
Speaker 1: also worked with the guy at SRI named Ken Shoulders
Speaker 1: in the late in the late eighties. Ken Shoulders discovered
Speaker 1: exotic vacuum objects, which he said were balls of plasma
Speaker 1: that were self organizing into a sphere and self sustaining,
Speaker 1: and he called them exotic vacuum objects because he thought
Speaker 1: they were cohering energy directly from the vacuum. And then
Speaker 1: another guy named Eric W. Davis, who is actually hal
Speaker 1: Pudoff's number two guide chief science officer at EarthTech right now,
Speaker 1: wrote a paper in two thousand and four called Ball
Speaker 1: Lightning Study, which was something I had never understood, but
Speaker 1: when you read it, you realize he's talking about balls
Speaker 1: of plasma and ways you can use them to extract energy.
Speaker 1: Now I look at this whole drone situation that we
Speaker 1: were talking about at the beginning of the interview, and
Speaker 1: I kind of wonder, like, are we using the word
Speaker 1: drone in to be kind of a little bit misleading,
Speaker 1: Because now if I piece things together, I go, well,
Speaker 1: we've got this guy Ken Shoulders who said we can
Speaker 1: make these balls of plasma. You've got Eric Davis going
Speaker 1: and explaining how we can stabilize them using for enny.
Speaker 1: And then you've got how putoff was a communication pattern
Speaker 1: that is like a gravity communication pat device that can
Speaker 1: go through plasma. It says right in the abstract goes
Speaker 1: through plasma. I go, huh, could we make a plasma
Speaker 1: drone that we could just float around out there? What
Speaker 1: are your thoughts on that? And then the other question
Speaker 1: is great, do you think plasma, if it is like
Speaker 1: this thing that can float freely and doesn't break apart,
Speaker 1: do you think something like that could be conscious? Could
Speaker 1: it be a life form?
Speaker 2: Ah? Yes, plasma is conscious. Plasma, the fourth stage of
Speaker 2: matter is the most common state of matter in our universe.
Speaker 2: The results of many UAP studies, and I think Havy
Speaker 2: Lobe and the content and report certainly will the content
Speaker 2: report confirmed it. And I think eventually AFI will have
Speaker 2: observatories that will observe plasma because that's what people see.
Speaker 2: But what plasma and is plasma a conscious being? Well,
Speaker 2: I heard that plasma has will do a lot of
Speaker 2: people who've come across ball lightning, which is a natural
Speaker 2: form of plasma that is formed by high energy electrostatic
Speaker 2: forces here on Earth. I found that if you approach
Speaker 2: a natural form of ball lightning, it will take evasive action. Now,
Speaker 2: the evasive action protocol is a form of higher consciousness.
Speaker 2: So does plasma have a way of tapping into the
Speaker 2: quantum world where everything is connected. It seems that it
Speaker 2: could be. I can't think that we as humans are
Speaker 2: the only conscious beings. I think plasma itself seems to
Speaker 2: demonstrate in the way that we see it moving and
Speaker 2: taking you know, you go up. Pilots have come to
Speaker 2: have approached plasma things and they seem to move away,
Speaker 2: not through gravity or way or wind or any thing,
Speaker 2: but I mean, actually it seems to take avasive action.
Speaker 2: The interesting thing about plasma which really fascinates me is
Speaker 2: what is plasma and how does plasma stay in an
Speaker 2: ionized state in our atmosphere? And I think the most
Speaker 2: interesting thing about plasma, and it is my plasma demonstration,
Speaker 2: is the center of a ball of plasma is just
Speaker 2: deionized normal say atmosphere in our atmosphere, and it's desperate
Speaker 2: to re join and not be ionized and get backed
Speaker 2: into its stable forum. But there's so much energy in
Speaker 2: the ball of plasma that when it changes back near
Speaker 2: the edges the periphery of the energy field, it has
Speaker 2: to throw away the energy in the electrons to rejoin
Speaker 2: the protons, and that is light. So plasma has this
Speaker 2: luminosity around its circumference of a sphere, and that light,
Speaker 2: of course, can be manipulated by the different types of
Speaker 2: plasma you ulbeke, so you can make different things to
Speaker 2: different color. And I think plasma is very, very studied
Speaker 2: and very interesting. I think the other thing about plasma is,
Speaker 2: imagine a laser pointer. You can direct a plasma weapon
Speaker 2: there and there, and so some of the effects that
Speaker 2: we've seen from UAPs that seem to do fast or
Speaker 2: very fast maneuvering could be in fact a plasma effect.
Speaker 1: The bubble explanation you gave there is almost exactly what
Speaker 1: Ken's Shoulders would describe is a permitivity transition where you're
Speaker 1: making a bubble in spacetime, and that's why they don't escape,
Speaker 1: that's why it stays coherent. And it actually, you know,
Speaker 1: it will give off light as well exactly, but it
Speaker 1: may not look exactly like a light bulb because of
Speaker 1: it may like I think that there was a yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: there's the UFO hearing where they mentioned too that somewhat
Speaker 1: people were noticing these balls of energy had almost like
Speaker 1: a dull light to them, like a roiling of the sun.
Speaker 1: I think was how it was described. It kind of
Speaker 1: made me think about that where it's like maybe it's
Speaker 1: a luminous thing, but not exactly luminous like we would
Speaker 1: see you with like a light bulb. And it was
Speaker 1: Jacket Champion nineteen ninety two paper Force Free Time Harmonic
Speaker 1: Plasmoids as well that said that you can manipulate the
Speaker 1: pointing vector and what this will do is basically keep
Speaker 1: it self contained so that there is an energy radiating outward,
Speaker 1: which I just thought was amazing because between Eric Davis,
Speaker 1: Jacknet Champion and these papers are Air Force research Lab papers.
Speaker 1: This is like, you know, random scientists that are out there.
Speaker 1: So the government was taking it seriously. And the last
Speaker 1: thing I'll say on it before I get feedback is
Speaker 1: that I was reading this book by Lynn McTaggart and
Speaker 1: she mentions ken shoulders and help putoff working on these
Speaker 1: balls of plasma, and she says that the governments actually
Speaker 1: gave it one of the highest priorities for research. One
Speaker 1: year it was like the third highest priority, next to
Speaker 1: like D two bombers and things like that, and then
Speaker 1: the next year they upgraded it to the second highest
Speaker 1: priority of all the research things, which is essentially trying
Speaker 1: to figure out how these balls of plasma worked and
Speaker 1: if we could extract energy from them, pretty incredible.
Speaker 2: And that's precisely what the physics community, through the Defense
Speaker 2: Department in Europe have been doing ever since the mot
Speaker 2: Content report actually recognized that plasma ionized effects could could
Speaker 2: be the source of UAP. The report goes on to say,
Speaker 2: we need to open up vast areas of research into
Speaker 2: utilizing plasma effects. The other amazing thing about plasma is
Speaker 2: because you've stripped apart normal atoms and you've now got
Speaker 2: a negatively charged and a positively charged piece of the
Speaker 2: sub atomic particle which is stripped apart, it's magnetic, so
Speaker 2: you can then manipulate it with magnetism, so you can
Speaker 2: steer it like a beam in a cathedral TV. You
Speaker 2: can do lots of things with plasma. You can change
Speaker 2: its shape, you can draw it, you can draw lines
Speaker 2: with it, you can send it in volumetric space, and
Speaker 2: you can also change its color. And certainly we've seen
Speaker 2: applications of that for countermeasures for aircraft, the concept of
Speaker 2: the loyal wingman or the ghost plane. So now you
Speaker 2: can project a fleet of of aircraft only one is
Speaker 2: real and you've got these these appear totally solid other aircraft,
Speaker 2: which could be very good. They also have the heat
Speaker 2: signature and the radar signature of your real aircraft, so
Speaker 2: they can be a countermeasure to air to air or
Speaker 2: surface to air missiles. And the technology to make that
Speaker 2: happen was all to do came very much out of
Speaker 2: the plasma research and very very much. You're gonna like
Speaker 2: this session, and there's no way you can do that
Speaker 2: unless you have an incredible power source to actually produce
Speaker 2: an ionized plasma effects. Because plasma in our atmosphere, you know,
Speaker 2: it loses its power very quickly, so you need to
Speaker 2: have some very strong condensed power power sources. What the
Speaker 2: power you you just go or what the power source
Speaker 2: is for that and how they built it, and you
Speaker 2: unlock a lot of secrets.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's my favorite question to ask, is what is
Speaker 1: the power source for this UFO flying around in the sky?
Speaker 1: How's that thing floating?
Speaker 2: For you?
Speaker 1: Just that question, Yeah, that's a question everybody should be
Speaker 1: asking out there. That's the one that breaks through all
Speaker 1: the misinformation what have you, because it's such an important
Speaker 1: question for us to understand how the physics of these
Speaker 1: things is working out there and to your point, and.
Speaker 2: It is physics. That's the other thing I'd like to say. Sorry,
Speaker 2: I'm really shouting. Oh so so many people say, you know,
Speaker 2: it breaks the laws of fucking physics. No it doesn't,
Speaker 2: it doesn't. These are these are known physics that are
Speaker 2: being exploited in interesting ways and it doesn't break any laws.
Speaker 2: And as you say, we need a power source, you know,
Speaker 2: find the effing power source. How do you condense that
Speaker 2: much energy into something small enough to be deployable in
Speaker 2: a pod under an airplane, or or or as a
Speaker 2: em weapon on the in the field, in a container
Speaker 2: or on the back of a truck. Yeah, no, look
Speaker 2: into power sources, folks.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And Salvatar pais actually on interview he did with
Speaker 1: Tim Ventura specifically said you should be thinking in the
Speaker 1: terms of cold plasmas, and how do we make cold plasma?
Speaker 1: He goes, uh, femtosecond Ato second lasers and you go
Speaker 1: and realize. Oh. In twenty twenty three, the Nobel Prize
Speaker 1: winner in physics was for Ato second lasers. This is
Speaker 1: important because the faster your pulsive laser, the higher the energy.
Speaker 1: So you could imagine that you could use something like
Speaker 1: that to strip the electrons off of your molecules and
Speaker 1: then do what you were talking about, separate it out,
Speaker 1: and plasma can achieve energy densities that are far superior
Speaker 1: to any.
Speaker 2: Retain them and keep them. They can be they can
Speaker 2: be a battery as well.
Speaker 1: I mean so yeah, it's basically a floating battery that's
Speaker 1: going around. They're very highly And this is where you know,
Speaker 1: we don't need to get into this in this conversation,
Speaker 1: but maybe we can do a follow up some time.
Speaker 1: Is that you start to wonder when you think about
Speaker 1: these huge charge densities in these plasmas, you go, well,
Speaker 1: how close are we getting here to like unlimited energy
Speaker 1: access right like this? What is that power source? If
Speaker 1: there is an external input like ether, for example, then
Speaker 1: that would be far superior to solar power or wind
Speaker 1: power because it's ours there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, no, I completely agree, And I think the
Speaker 2: other if you the biggest what's the yeah, good question,
Speaker 2: what's the biggest department in the Pentagon. I'll just tell
Speaker 2: you the biggest department in the Pentagon is the people
Speaker 2: who organize the fuel to go and fight wars. You know,
Speaker 2: if they have to plan five years ahead to put
Speaker 2: in super tankers and pipelines to put you know, gasoline
Speaker 2: for humvies. But imagine if you could have a deployable
Speaker 2: in a foreign country that you're fighting a war that
Speaker 2: doesn't use fossil fuel. And that's amazingly being developed right
Speaker 2: now is the wireless transmission of power. And it's not
Speaker 2: what you think. It's much more exotic, and you know,
Speaker 2: it needs to be secure. It can't be hacked, it
Speaker 2: can't be switched off. And there's an awful lot of
Speaker 2: research into that.
Speaker 1: Wow. Yeah, and I think people should also wonder why
Speaker 1: is that the Department of Energy in the United States
Speaker 1: is the top dog when it comes to the UFO phenomenon.
Speaker 1: That's pretty odd, right, because it all comes back to
Speaker 1: what you said, the energy. To me, that's the real
Speaker 1: crown jewel of the UFO phenomenon, although Aliens is of
Speaker 1: course intriguing, but the energy source, exotic energy source to
Speaker 1: change everything on this planet. So, Professor Simon, this has
Speaker 1: been an awesome conversation. Go ahead and tell people where
Speaker 1: they can find you.
Speaker 2: Oh, just on YouTube. You just type my name in
Speaker 2: Simon Holland, Professor Simon, whatever you want to call me.
Speaker 2: And I continue I have a whole bunch of new subscribers,
Speaker 2: up to one hundred and thirty six thousands because they
Speaker 2: all hate me, which is great because you're watching my videos. No, no, no,
Speaker 2: I love it. I'm really enjoying it. It's been an
Speaker 2: honor and a pleasure. And I really enjoy talking to
Speaker 2: you Ashton anyway about things. We're on various same groups
Speaker 2: and I know you and I keep up with what's
Speaker 2: going on. So good. That was a very good conversation today.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you, and have a great day. Guys. Follow
Speaker 1: Professor Simon Holland on YouTube. I'll put a link in
Speaker 1: the description. Appreciate you guys. Have a great day.