Speaker 1: Imagine, if you will, walking down the sterile, brightly lit
corridor of a hospital. Okay, the smell of antiseptic is
just sharp in the air. The floor tiles gleam with
that unmistakable institutional polish.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that very specific hospital smell exactly, and the only
sound is the rhythmic, reassuring hum of a heart monitor
echoing from an open door at the very end of
the hall, sitting a spooky scene here.
Speaker 1: Well, you walk towards that room, right, and your footsteps
feel strangely heavy. You don't know why you're here, but
something just draws you in.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: You step through the doorway and your breath completely leaves
your lungs.
Speaker 2: What's in the room.
Speaker 1: Sitting there on the edge of the hospital bed, is you,
Oh wow, a perfect, living, breathing duplicate.
Speaker 2: That is terrifying.
Speaker 1: Right, and we're not talking about a twin here. We
were talking about a flawless physical copy, a clone. A clone.
Now imagine that this duplicate isn't just an empty vessel.
It holds every single one of your memories, every single one,
the exact sensation of your first kiss, the paralyzing grip
of your absolute worst.
Speaker 2: Fear, the lyrics to your favorite song, yeah, and.
Speaker 1: The specific way you tap your foot when you hear it. Everything.
But when you look deeply into this gimplicate's eyes, something
is fundamentally missing.
Speaker 2: Like the lights are on, but nobody's home exactly.
Speaker 1: There's a void where the spark should be.
Speaker 2: Is a human That is a deeply unsettling scenario, it
really is. But it's actually the perfect philosophical wedge for
what we're talking about today, which is why I wanted
to start there, because it forces us to isolate the
variables of human identity. Are we strictly the sum of
our synaptic maps in biological hardware, or is there an
animating force like a soul right in essence, a ghost
in the machine that simply cannot be synthesized in a laboratory.
Speaker 1: And that terrifying boundary pushing question is the entire foundation
of our mission today. Welcome to Thrilling Threads.
Speaker 2: Glad to be here for this one.
Speaker 1: I am so incredibly eager to get into this because
we are unraveling a set of claims that are controversial,
utterly bizarre, and frankly, they blur the line between science
fiction and suppressed science.
Speaker 2: Fact, they really do.
Speaker 1: We are looking at the life and the very loud
claims of a man named George Green. George Green, according
to the source material, Green was an alleged former finance
guy for the big boys.
Speaker 2: The big boys meaning the global elite.
Speaker 1: Exactly. He claimed to have rubbed shoulders with the true
architects of global power. And his central most explosive thesis.
Speaker 2: This is the part that gets people that.
Speaker 1: Human cloning hasn't just been a reality for a few years,
but that it has been actively, covertly happening since nineteen
thirty eight.
Speaker 2: We need to pause right there and contextualize.
Speaker 1: That date nineteen thirty eight.
Speaker 2: Because nineteen thirty eight is a staggering claim.
Speaker 1: It's pre World War two exactly.
Speaker 2: We are talking about an era prior to the Manhattan Project.
We are talking about a time before the structure of
DNA was even discovered by Watson, Krick and Franklin in
the nineteen fifties. Right to claim that we had the
biological blueprint and the technological capability for manufacturing human beings
at that point in history, it defies every established timeline
of scientific advancement.
Speaker 1: It sounds completely unhinged on the surface. But to you
listening right now, I invite you to keep an open
but highly critical mind as we weave through.
Speaker 2: This Open but critical is the key.
Speaker 1: We're going to present the information exactly as it's been
sourced from Green and other adjacent whistleblowers, without taking any political.
Speaker 2: Sides, no sides, just the data.
Speaker 1: We're simply looking at the biological and moral hurdles. So
let's start with the man himself, who is George Green.
Speaker 2: The sources indicate he wasn't just some random theorist on
the fringe.
Speaker 1: No, not at all.
Speaker 2: He claims to have run with presidents, dictators, and the
world's elite, explicitly stating that his information comes directly from
intelligence agencies.
Speaker 1: He named names the CIA, the FBI, and various foreign governments.
Speaker 2: Which immediately brings up the archetype of the whistleblower or
props the insider.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the guy who knows too much.
Speaker 2: When someone steps forward with information of this magnitude, they
are placing themselves in a highly precarious psychological and physical position.
According to a report by Aquarian media, George Green passed
away in twenty nineteen, reportedly of natural causes. Reportedly right reportedly,
but his death leaves his ultimate truth ambiguous. It forces
us to ask what it means to carry knowledge that
is so forbidden, so paradigm shifting that it inherently isolates
you from the consensus reality of the rest of humanity.
Speaker 1: I think the isolation is the heaviest burden. You're walking
around with a secret that makes everyone think you're crazy, exactly,
and George Green is the only one who has born
that kind of weight, which brings us to a really
brilliant parallel or sources draw to the legendary science fiction
author Philip K. Dick.
Speaker 2: Ah Philip K. Dick, a fascinating figure.
Speaker 1: Consumed any sci fi media in the last forty years.
You are swimming in his wake. Absolutely, but his real
life was arguably stranger than his fiction. He stated publicly
and vehemently that the CIA and the FBI were actively watching.
Speaker 2: Him, that they broke into his house.
Speaker 1: Yes, destroyed his property, and stole his private papers.
Speaker 2: I think it's crucial to look at how Philip K.
Dick articulated his reality, because he didn't just claim he
was being harassed by government suits.
Speaker 1: He went much deeper.
Speaker 2: He developed an incredibly complex, overarching cosmological theory to explain
his experiences. He genuinely believed that a variable was changed.
Speaker 1: In our past, a variable.
Speaker 2: He described it as a literal reprogramming of reality, where
an alternative world branched off and became.
Speaker 1: Actualized, like a literal alternate timeline.
Speaker 2: He called this overarching intelligence Vealus vast active living intelligence
system Veyaloss.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: He even gave a famous speech at a sci fi
convention in in Metz, France in nineteen seventy seven.
Speaker 1: I read about this. He stood in front of an
audience of his fans and.
Speaker 2: Calmly told them that we were living in a computer
programmed reality.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that the only clue we have to this
is when some variable has changed and an alteration in
our reality occurs.
Speaker 2: It's wild to think about.
Speaker 1: People in the audience thought he was doing a bit,
They thought it was performance art, but he was completely
in earnest.
Speaker 2: He was deadly serious.
Speaker 1: We are talking about the concept of alternate timelines, the multiverse,
and simulation theory decades before the Internet or advanced AI.
Speaker 2: Existed, let alone before the Matrix popularized the idea.
Speaker 1: Exactly, the Matrix wouldn't exist without these concepts.
Speaker 2: And When we analyzed Philip K. Dick's supposed paranoia, we
have to recognize the Cassandra complex at play.
Speaker 1: The idea of seeing the future, but nobody believes you precisely.
Speaker 2: Many of his deepest fears foreshadowed actual societal shifts. He
was writing about mass surveillance, corporate overreach, and the blurring
line between human and long before Silicon Valley made those
concepts our daily reality.
Speaker 1: The boundary between genius intuition and clinical paranoia is famously thin,
very thin.
Speaker 2: When a highly creative individual or an alleged insider like Green,
perceives a pattern, they construct a narrative around it.
Speaker 1: Sometimes it's a metaphor.
Speaker 2: Other times they are picking up on faint signals of
truths that the general public is unequipped to hear.
Speaker 1: The timing of Philipiydeck's death is the ultimate mic drop
on that exact point. Really, it is uncanny. He passed
away suddenly right before the theatrical premiere of Blade Runner.
Right before and Blade Runner, which is based on his
novel Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep is the seminal
work on synthetic humans, biological duplicates, and what it fundamentally
means to be real.
Speaker 2: It asks the exact same question we asked in our
hospital scenario at the beginning of the show.
Speaker 1: Exactly the irony of him dying right before his synthetic
human theories hit the global mainstream. You couldn't write a
more haunting end.
Speaker 2: You really couldn't. It forces you to navigate a world
that rejects your foundational reality, and that is the perfect
psychological primer for diving into George Green's specific biological claims.
Speaker 1: Because the logistics are just out there.
Speaker 2: Because the logistics he describes require us to completely suspend
our conventional understanding of historical scientific timelines.
Speaker 1: Well, let's lay out those logistics exactly as the sources
present them. Green claims that eight different countries have been
manufacturing cloned human beings since nineteen thirty eight. Eight countries,
and he provides a chillingly specific methodology. He says, you
take two somatic cells from a physical body. Okay, then
you apply a small electrical charge to those cells, which
causes them to act as if they were a fertilized egg.
Speaker 2: It gets much stranger when he details the incubation process.
Speaker 1: Oh the surrogod part right.
Speaker 2: He alleges that because these fertilized cells require a biological
environment to grow, and because human surrogates would be a
massive logistical and security risk.
Speaker 1: They couldn't just have ignant women walking around a top
secret loud exactly.
Speaker 2: He claims they utilized cows and sheep as surrogate food
sources for the initial fourteen weeks of gestation cows and sheep.
According to Green, after those fourteen mons, the fetus develops
its own blood supply and is surgically removed from the
animal surrogate, which.
Speaker 1: Is just a grotesque mental image.
Speaker 2: Then they supposedly use a highly specific pituitary hormone extract
to rapidly accelerate the growth of the biological entity.
Speaker 1: And just to put a bow on the sheer audacity
of the claim, he casually drops the origin of this
technology where it came from. He states it wasn't developed
by human ingenuity at all, but was given to government
entities by the Grays.
Speaker 2: The classic colloquialism for extraterrestrial yeah aliens.
Speaker 1: The purported reason so that the global elite could harvest
spare organs without ever having to worry about DNA rejection,
because the organs would be a perfect tailored genetic match.
Speaker 2: Let's completely set aside the extraterrestrial claims for a moment.
Speaker 1: Fair enough, that's a whole other rabbit hole.
Speaker 2: As an analytical exercise, I want to focus purely on
the biological mechanics he just described.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's break it down.
Speaker 2: Taking a somatic cell, making it act like a fertilized
egg via an electrical charge, and using an interspecies surrogate.
In modern science, this process is known as somatic cell
nuclear transfer or SCNT.
Speaker 1: SCNT.
Speaker 2: It is the highly documented cloning method used to create
Dolly the Sheep in nineteen ninety.
Speaker 1: Six DOLLI the Sheep yeh, which was the.
Speaker 2: First time a mammal was ever successfully cloned from an
adult sematic cell.
Speaker 1: SCNT is such a dense topic, but the correlation here
is what makes my brain hurt. Green is describing a
process that perfectly mirrors SCNT, perfectly, right down to the
small electrical charge. But he claims this was happening in
nineteen thirty eight, decades early mainstream science only achieved and
publicized it nearly sixty years later. How could someone describe
a complex microbiological procedure decades before the public knew the
mechanics of it.
Speaker 2: There are generally two ways to view that discrepancy. What's
the first, The skeptical and frankly more probable viewer, is
that Green simply retrofitted modern scientific knowledge, like the highly
publicized Dolly the Sheep procedure, into his past narratives to
make his older conspiracy claims sound credible.
Speaker 1: He took a ninety six headline and backdated it to
thirty eight to build his mythology exactly.
Speaker 2: The alternative view held by proponents of these whistleblower narratives
is that covert scientific advancements operate on a parallel truck
decades ahead of public academia, funded by limitless black budgets
and unconstrained by public ethics boorts.
Speaker 1: Which naturally leads to the question of why we aren't
seeing human clones walking around everywhere today? If the tech
has been around in any capacity.
Speaker 2: For that long, it's a valid question.
Speaker 1: And I think that's where the distinction between SE ANDT
and modern gene editing comes in, because people hear cloning
and they think of crisper.
Speaker 2: Oh, but they are entirely different.
Speaker 1: Beasts, completely different, They are completely different paradigms of biological manipulation,
How would you differentiate them? For someone trying to grasp
the logistical nightmare of Green's claims.
Speaker 2: Well, how do you usually explain it?
Speaker 1: I always go back to the lego analogy.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's hear it.
Speaker 1: Cloning via SCNT is like trying to perfectly copy a massive,
incredibly intricate Lego castle. But you don't have the instruction.
Speaker 2: Manual, just the finished product.
Speaker 1: You just have a picture of the finished castle, and
you're trying to force a bunch of loose bricks to
magically assemble themselves into that exact shape by jolting the
table with electricity.
Speaker 2: It's a brute force method.
Speaker 1: And is highly unstable. On the other hand, Crisper the
biotechnology making headlines today is like having the exact instruction manual,
turning to page forty two and surgically swapping out a
single red Lego block for a blue one.
Speaker 2: That is a brilliant way to conceptualize its and it
perfectly illustrates why SCNT is so fraught with biological hurdle.
The sources are very clear about the grim realities of
this technology.
Speaker 1: It's not a clean process.
Speaker 2: The success rate for sc and T is remarkably low.
You often have to attempt the procedure hundreds sometimes thousands
of times to get a single viable embryo thousands of times,
and even when an animal is born, they frequently suffer
from severe developmental abnormalities. There is also the critical issue
of telemare degradation.
Speaker 1: Right the protective caps on the chromosomes.
Speaker 2: Yes, they naturally shorten as an organism ages.
Speaker 1: It's essentially the biological clock.
Speaker 2: When you clone an adult cell, you are starting with
DNA that already has shortened telomeres. You are essentially birthing
an organism with an inherently aged cellular structure.
Speaker 1: So the clone is born old.
Speaker 2: Biologically speaking, this often leads to the clone animal experiencing
rapid premature aging and a host of age related diseases
far earlier in their life cycle than normal.
Speaker 1: Which makes Green's claim of creating perfect functional human duplicates
and just state them in a sheep for fourteen weeks
even more incredible. From a purely logistical standpoint. It's a
massive stretch the real world science struggles to keep a
clone sheep healthy in a perfectly controlled environment, let alone
managing cross species immunological rejection.
Speaker 2: The sheep's body would fight it.
Speaker 1: A human fetus in a sheep surrogate would be attacked
by the sheep's immune system almost immediately.
Speaker 2: The immunological barriers are massive, and it's important to delineate
the scientific consensus here. There is a massive distinction between
reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning.
Speaker 1: Let's clarify that for the listener.
Speaker 2: Reproductive cloning is the goal of creating a fully formed
living being. This practice is overwhelmingly restricted by international scientific
organizations across the globe.
Speaker 1: It's banned practically everywhere.
Speaker 2: Therapeutic cloning, however, uses the same basic SCNT technique, but
the embryo is only allowed to develop for a few
days in vitro to harvest stem.
Speaker 1: Cells, just a clump of cells.
Speaker 2: These stem cells can theoretically be used to repair damaged tissues,
which loosely echoes Green's claim about growing.
Speaker 1: Spare parts right the organ harvesting angle, But.
Speaker 2: The scientific consensus remains absolute. There is no verified, peer
reviewed evidence of a successfully cloned human being in existence, and.
Speaker 1: Yet Green pushes right past the biological hurdles of creating
the body and introduces something even more radical software. He
moves from cloning the hardware to downloading the software. He
claims that growing a physical clone for spare parts was
just step one, what was up two? The powers that
be eventually realized they had a much better deal if
they could make these clones functional, walking, talking duplicates of
specific people.
Speaker 2: The logistical leap from growing a biological vessel to instilling
it with a specific consciousness is the grand Canyon of
biological science. How does he allege this was accomplished.
Speaker 1: Through something he calls a sethogram a cethogram according to
the sources, He describes it as being essentially like a
CD or DV. He claims that the entirety of a person,
conscious memory, every thought, every experience, their entire personality can
be copied onto this biological disc and then literally downloaded
into the physical brain of the newly grown clone.
Speaker 2: Like installing an operating system.
Speaker 1: Once that download is complete, you supposedly have an Android
like duplicate. But because it's a copy of a copy,
Green claims the process is imperfect. Glitches the duplicates get glitches.
He says they require occasional tune ups, and that these
tune ups happen at highly secure locations, specifically naming Camp
David and a classified wing of Bethysda Hospital.
Speaker 2: The anecdotal detail about the hospital staff is particularly eerie
the nurses. The sources claim that if you were to
speak to the nurses who work in these classified wings,
they don't refer to these duplicates as patients them. They
call them the others, the others. They acknowledge that these
entities can think, they can act, and they possess the
memories of the original person, but they fundamentally lack a
soul the others.
Speaker 1: It's pure horror. But before we write off the sethogram
as pure Hollywood fantasy, we need to look at the
real science of memory and data.
Speaker 2: Because it's not entirely out of nowhere.
Speaker 1: Because the leap from biological body to biological hard drive
isn't as crazy as it sounds when you look at
what DNA actually is.
Speaker 2: This is where information theory intersects with biology.
Speaker 1: I love this part.
Speaker 2: We are conditioned to think of our bodies as wetwear, meat,
and bone, but fundamentally biology is an information system driven
by code.
Speaker 1: Biological code.
Speaker 2: DNA uses four chemical bases to form sequences and those
sequences are the explicit instructions for building and maintaining the organism,
and the.
Speaker 1: Storage density of that code is what blows my mind.
The scientific community has already proven that DNA can hold
enormous amounts of data, massive amounts. Researchers have successfully encoded
entire books, high resolution images, and even video files into
synthetic DNA strands.
Speaker 2: They actually put a movie onto DNA, and.
Speaker 1: More importantly, they were able to sequence that DNA later
and read the data back without any loss of information.
Speaker 2: It proves that biology is a programmable platform.
Speaker 1: It's a hard drive.
Speaker 2: If biology naturally operates like a highly efficient hard drive
that continuously replicates trillions of times with astonishing precision. The
concept of a biological medium storing complex information like memories,
esethogram isn't scientifically impossible from a pure physics.
Speaker 1: Standpoint, storage space is there.
Speaker 2: The limitation is our current understanding of how to format, upload,
and interface that data with a living neural network.
Speaker 1: Right, if you can store a four K video on
a strand of synthetic DNA, why couldn't you theoretically store
a synaptic.
Speaker 2: Map In theory, yes, and.
Speaker 1: The sources take this further by diving into epigenetics.
Speaker 2: Epigenetics is fascinating.
Speaker 1: Unlike genetic changes, epigenetic changes don't alter the underlying DNA sequence,
but they change how your body reads that sequence.
Speaker 2: They turn genes on and off.
Speaker 1: Stress, nutrition, and intense trauma leave physical chemical markers on
your DNA.
Speaker 2: Epigenetic inheritance is one of the most revolutionary discoveries of
the last two decades. We now have documented evidence that
the chemical traces of environmental stress can persist over time
and be passed down to subsequent.
Speaker 1: Generations, so trauma is inherited.
Speaker 2: The lived experience of one organism leaves a biological mark
that alters the gene expression of an entirely different later organism.
Speaker 1: Which naturally brings up the highly controversial concept of cellular memory.
Speaker 2: I knew we were heading here.
Speaker 1: There are numerous reports from the field of transplant medicine
where patients receive an organ and suddenly they develop new
preferences or personality traits that perfectly match the deceased donor.
Speaker 2: The classic stories.
Speaker 1: There's the famous anecdote of a woman who received a
heart transplant from a young man who loved chicken nuggets
and beer. Things she previously hated post surgery, She's intensely
craving them.
Speaker 2: It's a compelling story.
Speaker 1: It really forces you to ask where we actually live
in our bodies. Is our identity localized strictly in our
brain or is it distributed throughout the cellular network of
our entire organism.
Speaker 2: I have to push back gently on the cellular memory
anecdotes go ahead. While those stories are incredibly compelling and
ubiquitous in pop culture, they are heavily debated and largely
dismissed within the rigorous scientific community.
Speaker 1: Because it's hard to prove the effects.
Speaker 2: Of massive immunosuppressant drugs, the profound psychological trauma of facing
mortality and the subconscious desire to honor a donor often
manifest as radical personality shifts.
Speaker 1: It's psychological, not biological.
Speaker 2: Neuroscience traditionally maps memory entirely to physical changes within the brain.
When you learn something, neural networks store that information through
synaptic modification.
Speaker 1: The brain physically changes.
Speaker 2: The connections between your neurons physically change shape, and protein
synthesis occurs to solidify that memory. It leaves a tangible
biological footprint in the tissue of the brain. Not the
tissue of the heart.
Speaker 1: But even if we restrict this self entirely to the brain,
it still begs the question. If memory is just a
physical footprint, a specific arrangement of proteins and synapses. Okay,
if you have the technology to perfectly map and replicate
that exact arrangement in a new cloned brain, what happens
do you get the person?
Speaker 2: That is the ultimate philosophical bottleneck, It really is. If
you perfectly map every synapse and recreate it, do you
recreate the consciousness or do you merely create a biological
robot that possesses the memories and therefore thinks it is
the person?
Speaker 1: How would we even know the difference?
Speaker 2: In an age where we can manipulate the biological hardware
with crisper, we have to define what the ghost in
the machine actually is. Green claims the clones are the
others because they lack a soul, But scientifically, how do
we quantify that absence? If the hardware is identical and
the software is identical, what is the missing variable?
Speaker 1: And that profound mystery transitions us perfectly into the final
and definitely the most mind expanding aspect of the source material.
Speaker 2: Are owing deep.
Speaker 1: Now we are going all the way down the rabbit hole.
We're moving from biological cloning to the very fabric of reality.
Speaker 2: Itself, reality as a construct.
Speaker 1: The sources mentioned an incredible anecdote from a man named
John Lair. He claims he attended a lecture, sat in
the audience, and watched a speaker deliver a presentation standard lecture.
Only later did he supposedly find out that the speaker
wasn't a human being at all, but a synthetic hologramlo
and he noted that when you physically touch the skin
of this synthetic being, it felt like plastic.
Speaker 2: As a literal event, the idea of a tactile, plastic
feeling hologram delivering a lecture sounds absurd.
Speaker 1: It sounds like star trek.
Speaker 2: But as a metaphorical prelude to George Green's ultimate overarching theory,
it is fascinating.
Speaker 1: It sets the stage.
Speaker 2: Green doesn't just believe that holograms are a localized synthetic
technology used by intelligence agencies. He posits a much grander
cosmological view.
Speaker 1: That humanity itself, our entire physical reality, is essentially a
hologram made of condensed light.
Speaker 2: Let's unpack that condensed light theory because he builds this
idea step by step, starting with a deeply historical and
biblical connection the Gospels of John. He references the line
in the beginning was the word, but Green interprets this
not as religious dogma, but as a structural metaphor for
the physics of reality.
Speaker 1: He argues that before a word can be spoken, it
must first exist as a thought.
Speaker 2: Therefore, thought is the absolute primary layer of reality. Words
are simply thoughts that have been spoken aloud and given vibration.
Speaker 1: The alignment here with the esoteric interpretations of quantum mechanics
is impossible to ignore.
Speaker 2: It is very striking.
Speaker 1: In quantum physics, we know that physical matter is fundamentally
illusory at the subatomic level.
Speaker 2: It's mostly empty space.
Speaker 1: The atoms that make up your body, the chair you
are sitting on, they are comprised of over ninety nine
point nine percent empty space.
Speaker 2: What gives matter the illusion of solidity are vibrational forces, frequencies,
and electro magnetic bonds.
Speaker 1: The only reason my hand doesn't pass right through my
desk is because the electrons in my hand are repelling
the electrons in.
Speaker 2: The wood, interacting force fields.
Speaker 1: It's just force fields. So when Green says the body
is just a temporary projection shaped by thought and sustained
by vibration, he's basically using the language of mysticism to
describe the standard model of particle physics. He is.
Speaker 2: And we can take that even further by looking at
the observer effect famously demonstrated by the double slit experiment.
Speaker 1: This is one of my favorite experiments.
Speaker 2: For those who might need a refresher on the visualization.
Imagine firing single electrons one by one at a barrier
that has two tiny slits in it.
Speaker 1: Okay, pitture that.
Speaker 2: Behind that barrier is a screen that detects where the
electrons hit. If electrons were solid, little bullets of matter,
you'd expect to see two distinct bands on the backscreen
corresponding to the two slits.
Speaker 1: Right, Like firing paintballs through a stencil, you just see
two lines.
Speaker 2: Of paint exactly, But that isn't what happens. Instead, over time,
the electrons form an interference pattern on the back screen,
a pattern of multiple.
Speaker 1: Bands like ripples in a pond.
Speaker 2: This pattern only occurs when waves interact with each other,
meaning that each individual electron is somehow acting like a wave,
passing through both slits simultaneously and interfering with itself before
hitting the screen as a single particle.
Speaker 1: And here's the part that keeps physicists up at night,
the observation. When scientists placed a detector at the slits
to simply observe which slit the electron actually goes through,
the electron stops acting like a wave.
Speaker 2: It acts like a solid bullet.
Speaker 1: Again, and it only forms two bands on the screen.
Speaker 2: The mere act of observation, the presence of measurement, forces
the quantum system to collapse from a wave of infinite
probability into a fixed state of localized reality.
Speaker 1: Looking at it literally changes what it is.
Speaker 2: This implies a deeply profound, almost unsettling connection between consciousness
and the physical world. It suggests that reality does not
exist in a localized, definite state until it is observed.
Speaker 1: So if reality is just a vibrating probability wave waiting
for an observer to collapse it into a hologram of
condensed light, what is the observer?
Speaker 2: What is doing the looking?
Speaker 1: What animates this whole projection? According to Green, it's the soul.
And here is where my absolute favorite historical myth enters
the conversation. Green claims that the soul has a physical
weight of exactly twenty two grams twenty two grams, and
that it fundamentally connects to hydrogen, the most abundant element
in the universe. We have to dissect the twenty two
grams legend because it is legendary in the truest sense
of the word.
Speaker 2: It stems from a very real, very flawed experiment conducted
in nineteen oh seven by a physician named doctor Duncan McDougall.
Speaker 1: McDougall. Yes.
Speaker 2: It is a classic example of early twentieth century fringe science.
Attempting to empirically measure the spiritual.
Speaker 1: He constructed a specialized, incredibly sensitive industrial scale that could
hold an entire bed scale. He placed six terminal patients
on this bed right before their passing and meticulously monitor
their weight before, during, and after the exact moment of death.
Speaker 2: And what did he find.
Speaker 1: He claimed that in the very first patient there was
an immediate, unaccounted for drop in weight of exactly three quarters.
Speaker 2: Of announce which is roughly twenty one point three grams.
Speaker 1: Usually rounded up to twenty one or twenty two grams
in pop culture.
Speaker 2: And we must be rigorous in pointing out that the
scientific community thoroughly dismantled his findings almost immediately it toured apart.
His sample size of six was statistically insignificant. Two of
the tests had to be discarded entirely due to technical difficulties.
Speaker 3: The equipment was just not reliable, His equipment was prone
to mechanical error, and he entirely failed to properly account
for the sudden loss of air in the lungs, the
rapid evaporation of bodily fluids, and post mortem sweat.
Speaker 1: But what I find so deeply fascinating is not the
flawed methodology of the experiment, but the cultural endurance of
the result.
Speaker 2: Or one away.
Speaker 1: This century old myth continually resurfaces. It is embedded in
modern conspiracy theories and acclaimed films in the collective consciousness.
Speaker 2: Because we want it to be true.
Speaker 1: We so desperately want to believe that our essence, our soul,
is a tangible thing that can be weighed, measured, and proven.
Speaker 2: It speaks to our deep seated existential anxiety. We want
empirical validation of our spirituality. Exactly, and Green ties this
spiritual weight to the physical body through the concept of
energy lines in kinesiology.
Speaker 1: This part is wild.
Speaker 2: The sources describe a demonstration Green performs on an interviewer
named Carrie. He uses a form of applied kinesiology, which
is the study of body movement and muscle testing.
Speaker 1: He has her hold her arm out straight parallel to
the ground, and initially she's strong, she can easily resist
him pushing down on her wrist.
Speaker 2: Very basic muscle tests.
Speaker 1: But then he claims to cut her energy line. He
doesn't physically strike her, He just performs a sweeping motion
over her body that he claims this her holographic frequency.
Speaker 2: A swipe of the hand, and suddenly.
Speaker 1: She loses all physical arm strength.
Speaker 2: Her arm just drops.
Speaker 1: He goes on to claim that this physical manifestation can
be dramatically weakened not just by his energy cuts, but
by environmental factors like harsh fluorescent lighting, or even by
holding a negative thought.
Speaker 2: Applied kinesiology of the sort is widely regarded as pseudoscientific
within mainstream medicine. It's controversial the physical weakness is almost
entirely attributed to the ideomotor effect, unconscious involuntary physical movements
caused by the subject's expectations, combined with the practitioners subtly
changing the angle or leverage of their push suggestion. However,
if we discard the theatrical energy cutting and look at
the underlying claim that thought and environment dictate physical strength,
the psychosomatic realities he is touching upon are entirely factual.
Speaker 1: Has so connect those dots for.
Speaker 2: Us, consider the well documented placebo and nocebo effects. A patient'senuine,
deep seated belief that a harmless sugar pill is a
powerful medication can trigger real, measurable biological healing, altering their brain,
chemistry and immune response.
Speaker 1: The placebo effect is incredibly strong.
Speaker 2: Conversely, the nocebo effect demonstrates that if a patient believes
a harmless substance or environment will cause them pain or illness,
their body will physically manifest those negative symptoms.
Speaker 1: They basically think themselves.
Speaker 2: Sick, their thought collapses the probability wave of their biology
into a state of illness.
Speaker 1: So our belief systems, our thoughts, and our environments genuinely
alter our physical biology.
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: If you are sitting in an office with harsh, flickering
fluorescent lights all day, it absolutely affects your cortisol levels,
your eye strain, your circadian rhythm, or your overall energy.
You feel exhausted, you physically feel drained. So whether you
choose to describe it as disrupting a condensed light hologram
or triggering a psychosomatic stress response, the end result is
exactly the same.
Speaker 2: The biological vessel is being controlled by the environment and
the mind.
Speaker 1: It demonstrates that the boundaries between thought, environment, and physical
matter are much more porous that we typically experience in
our day to day lives.
Speaker 2: We are not closed biological systems. We are constantly interacting
with and being actively shaped by the energetic and chemical
information in our environment.
Speaker 1: Wow, we have covered an astronomical amount of ground today.
Speaker 2: It's been quite the journey.
Speaker 1: Let's take a moment to summarize this incredible journey we've
taken on thrilling threads. We started with the cinematic terror
of meeting a soulless biological duplicate of yourself. The others,
we explored the deeply controversial claims of Georgia Green, a
man who alleges human cloning has been happening in the
Shadows since nineteen thirty eight.
Speaker 2: Decades before the science was public.
Speaker 1: We look at the tragic prophetic paranoia of Philip K.
Dick and the profound psychological burden of carrying forbidden knowledge.
Speaker 2: And simulation theory.
Speaker 1: From there, we grounded these wild claims in the concrete,
verifiable science of somatic cell nuclear trains, answer the Dolly
the Sheet method, and we examined the logistical nightmares of
using animal surrogates, the immunological rejection. We dove into the
mind blowing reality of epigenetics and the fact that DNA
is literally a microscopic hard drive capable of storing vast amounts.
Speaker 2: Of data, the cethogram concept.
Speaker 1: Finally, we zoomed all the way out to the quantum
mechanics of holographic realities, the wave function collapse of the
observer effect, and the centri old desire to weigh the
human soul.
Speaker 2: It is a vast, intricate, and deeply challenging.
Speaker 1: Web of information, it really is.
Speaker 2: And I'd like to offer one final insight for the
listener to truly chew on. As you process the sheer
scale of what we've discussed, realize that it almost doesn't
matter whether George Green's specific claims about nineteen thirty eight.
Extraterrestrials or cethograms or literal historical truths or profound elaborate metaphors.
Speaker 1: Why is that?
Speaker 2: Because the verifiable modern science of synthetic biology proves something
equally staggering. Life is a programmable platform that is heavy.
Right now, as you listen to my voice, your cells
are actively executing complex biological code, and that code is
not spatic. It is being actively rewritten right this very second,
by your environment, by your stress levels, by the food
you ate today, and potentially by the very thoughts you
were having about this.
Speaker 1: Conversation changing as we speak.
Speaker 2: You are not just a static physical object. You are
a walking, breathing, dynamically reprogramming biological supercomputer.
Speaker 1: That is beautifully terrifying. And it brings me to my
final question for you, the listener. I really want you
to think about this, because the science is accelerating faster
than our philosophy it always does. Let's say the technology
existed tomorrow, perfectly safe and commercially available, you could walk
into a clinic and perfectly back up your memories, your
entire consciousness onto a biological drive, a real life sethogram.
Speaker 2: Would you do it?
Speaker 1: Would you would you back yourself up just in case,
and more importantly, when they eventually boot that drive up
and download it into a fresh cloned body. Would that
backup truly fundamentally be you or just a copy? Or
would it just be another a perfect simulation missing its
twenty two grams of essence? Where do you stand on this?
What is the defining line of human identity? Leave a
comment below and let us know what you think, because
this is a debate we absolutely need to have before
the science fiction becomes our daily reality.
Speaker 2: Couldn't agree more.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining us on this mind
bending episode of Thrilling Threads. We hope we kept you
on the edge of your seat. Stay curious, stay questioning,
and we will see you next time.