Pod Insights American Alchemy CIA Scientist: "George Bush Was Briefed on UFOs" (ft. Eric Davis) About this episode JOIN OUR NEW WHOP (Group Calls With Jesse and more) ➤ https://whop.com/jessemichels/
Eric W. Davis discusses UAPs, focusing on the risks faced by whistleblowers like David Grusch and the Department of Defense's targeting of UAP investigators. Davis highlights the complex information-sharing dynamics among agencies, recounts historical government acknowledgment of UAPs, and addresses misconceptions within the UFO community, notably denying the existence of alien reproduction vehicles (ARVs).
Timestamps:
00:00 - Introduction
04:20 - NDAs & Testifying Before Congress
07:52 - Whistleblowers
09:22 - Briefings in Classified Settings
15:48 - Defense Programs
17:14 - Private Contractors
22:15 - George H. W. Bush
33:10 - Alien Reproduction Vehicles
39:57 - Future of Classified Information
45:08 - Theories of Everything
52:28 - Closing Thoughts
SPOTIFY ➤ https://tinyurl.com/jessemichelsspotify
DISCORD ➤ https://discord.gg/jessemichels
INSTAGRAM (Personal) ➤ https://www.instagram.com/jessemichels
INSTAGRAM (Show) ➤ https://www.instagram.com/jessemichelsofficial
TWITTER ➤ https://twitter.com/AlchemyAmerican
EMAIL/BOOKINGS ➤ [email protected]
Original music: https://open.spotify.com/artist/6LlLRudDi60Uy4jcmOSEs1
#aliens #uap #interview #science #physics
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcript Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.
0:00 Speaker 00 This episode is brought to you by Indeed. You're ready to level up your business, but the pressure to find the right person to make that happen is intense. Indeed sponsored jobs can help carry the load. It boosts your job post to help it reach quality talent fast. Cut through the chaos with Indeed sponsored jobs. Get a $75 sponsored job credit at indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring now? Then this is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs.
0:31 Speaker 01 Low energy, unfocused, foggy? You might be dehydrated. Whether it's hot yoga, over 100 degree weather, or too much sun. Gator Light, with a specialized blend of five electrolytes, was scientifically designed to help move fluids into the body faster for rapid rehydration. Shop now at retailers nationwide. Gator Light: Hydrates Faster Than Water. Is it in you? Symptoms noted are signs of mild to moderate dehydration. Consult a healthcare professional if symptoms persist.
0:59 Speaker 02 If you were asked to appear before Congress under oath, would you willingly do that?
1:06 Speaker 03 The only way I'll testify, actually, the reality is in a classified setting. DoD can come after me. What happened to Dave Grush? Physically harassed at his home and in his vehicles after he filed his whistleblower complaint. It was before he ever testified. All I have was the step that I accumulated and gathered going up through the ASAP and ATIP. And that's how I met Dave Grush. Jay Stratton introduced me to Dave. He was the NRO liaison officer to the UAP TF. So anyway, I met both of them and I gave Dave all my data, all my briefing information, and he took that, ran with it, and he found everything. George Bush, when he was the CIA director, he was given some pretty spectacular information about a major UAP event took place in early 60s. And Bush's eyes lit up and this is what he's told me.
1:51 Speaker 03 He said, "What are you talking about?" The Pentagon liaison officer told him all about it. He said, "Are you kidding me? There's a there there?" Yeah. And he said, "Absolutely." And he said, "Well, I want to see the evidence." And the evidence was in the form of documentation, but the film was the primary thing.
2:10 Jesse Michels? We are thrilled to announce this special episode of American Alchemy, featuring a groundbreaking interview with the legendary Eric Davis. Eric is a renowned scientist, Hal Puthoff's protege, and probably more of an expert in UFO propulsion and exotic physics principles than just about anybody on Earth. He's written a fantastic book called "The Frontiers of Propulsion Science", which is as comprehensive of an overview as you could possibly get when it comes to exotic propulsion and anomalies in topological physics. He's also written all sorts of great research papers on subjects ranging from UAP tracking to quantum teleportation.
2:53 Jesse Michels? This conversation wouldn't have been possible without my technical correspondent, pseudonymously named Jack, or @MissileMan on Twitter. Jack has over 15 years of experience in defense in aerospace and holds a very strong background in mathematics, materials R&D, and physics. For now, he's chosen to remain pseudonymous due to his work in sensitive areas of national security. Jack and I are going to be starting a technical series together on UFO physics. It's going to be an extremely deep dive on how UFOs fly, the exotic principles they employ, and materials they use. But this interview also involves some incredible journalists in the world of UFOs. This interview would not have been possible without them. First off, thank you to Thenver,
3:38 Jesse Michels? the incredible host of Catastrophic Disclosure. I also want to thank his partner on the channel, Katerina, who is a biomedical PhD. She's brilliant, and she's the editor and videographer on the channel. We're also super grateful to James Falk, host of Neon Galactic, a PBS-affiliated podcast and YouTube channel which goes into UAP's consciousness. It's incredibly deep and worth checking out. Rob Jones was also involved here. He's a nuclear engineer and Navy sailor. Go follow him on Twitter for some incredible insights. Finally, I want to give a special shout-out and thank you to UAP Gerb. He is honestly the deepest researcher I've met in the last year when it comes to UAPs. He runs an incre-
4:18 Jesse Michels? incredible channel called UAP Gerb is deeper than just about anybody I know on nuts and bolts UFO research. We're going to drop an interview very soon and hopefully all of you get to see how ridiculously impressive his knowledge is. So if you're going to watch this interview, please subscribe to all of these channels. They're going to come out with variations of this interview with commentary and other remixes and maybe even some footage that we don't include here on their own respective channels. They're doing incredibly important work. Consider subscriptions on those channels the passcode for watching this interview. We need more people covering this topic. The point is there's strength in numbers. We're all on the same team and we need as many high credibility, high quality people covering this as possible.
5:00 Jesse Michels? Without further ado, please enjoy the special episode of American Alchemy with our amazing technical correspondent, Jack and the prince of exotic propulsion himself, Eric W. Davis.
5:12 Speaker 02 The Bigelow Aerospace guys, the Autop guys, the A-Tip guys, y'all have been at the forefront of really starting the public discourse on all of this stuff. And Dr. Jim Lukaskey, he mentioned, if he were asked to testify before Congress, that he would actually lie before Congress instead of, you know, speaking against his NDAs and to honor his NDAs and the things he's, you know, wants to protect. And so I know that's a bit controversial because at this point, Lou Elizondo has testified, we interviewed him last week and
5:49 Speaker 03 and they did so under oath. Yeah. So Jim didn't say what happens if he takes the oath of, if he takes an oath, because if he takes an oath, lying to Congress in a testimony is perjury, then he can go to jail for that. And you saw what happened to
6:05 Speaker 05 to the NDA.
6:06 Speaker 03 Actually, the NDA will prevent him from giving testimony.
6:10 Speaker 05 Oh, but he chooses to.
6:12 Speaker 03 Yeah, but however, if they issue him a subpoena to appear before Congress, then he's going to have to work with the DOD staff to figure out how to, how he's going to do it. Now here's how Dave Grush did it. Dave Grush was able to give, was approved by the Department of Defense. I don't remember what the acronym means anymore. It's T-O-P-S-R. So Dobbs approved his public testimony and approved what he could say publicly. The rest of what he couldn't say publicly, he said in a classified hearing. So he had a classified hearing on his whistleblower complaint. Jim would have to do the same thing, and Jim should know that. And I worked with him on the OSAP, so I know him. So he, I don't know why he was said have to lie before Congress.
6:57 Speaker 03 He knows if you're going to take an oath before the committee, lying is perjury and you're in trouble. And the NDA issue can be worked out with Dobbs. However, there are times when they don't administer an oath. But you don't want to lie because that'll be a public reputation damage on you.
7:14 Speaker 05 Right.
7:14 Speaker 03 If even though you didn't take an oath, but you lied before Congress, you lied.
7:19 Speaker 02 I know for you, it's kind of a weird state right now because your alleged memo has been entered into congressional record. And so my question is simply this, if you were asked to appear before Congress under oath, would you willingly do that? Would you testify?
7:36 Speaker 03 I would have to get advice from a lawyer first.
7:39 Speaker 05 Very smart answer.
7:41 Speaker 03 I'd have to get an advice from a lawyer who has a background in that particular issue. Because DOD can come after me and I see could come after me. They could permit me from getting a job again by, by making sure that I don't get my security clearance passed.
7:53 Speaker 05 Right.
7:53 Speaker 03 And what happened to Dave Grush after he filed his whistleblower complaint? It was before he ever testified.
7:59 Speaker 02 Right.
7:59 Speaker 03 What happened to Dave Grush is he got harassed and intimidated, both him and his wife. He got harassed by, by someone in the National Reconnaissance Office. And then he got physically harassed at his home and in his vehicles by people unknown. And then somebody leaked a PTSD episode he had because remember he's a war veteran. And he was in the combat field and he suffered PTSD and was going through a crisis with his wife. When somebody decides they're going to illegally go into his private medical files, violate the HIPAA law and release that to the news media so that they can, so that they can attack his character.
8:39 Speaker 05 And there are a lot more lawyers at this point on your side, on, you know, the UAP Disclosure Fund. And a number of other organizations have spun up to offer pro bono legal support to whistleblowers and people being harassed. Do you feel any better than, do you feel like it's safer now than it was when Dave came out?
8:56 Speaker 03 Possibly, I think so. I just have to have a lawyer tell me, look at the situation, look at the circumstances under which. Admiral Wilson gave me information and then, and then find out if that's something I should do at, at the level of congressional hearing.
9:11 Speaker 05 That was ironic, hang on.
9:12 Speaker 03 Yes. I briefed the Senate Select Committee of Intelligence Staff and the Senate Armed Services Committee Staff in classified settings. What happened is I briefed the first group in 2019, then later now we're in 2022, and another group comes out to Huntsville. Instead of me going to DC, they're coming out to see me in Huntsville.
9:30 Speaker 05 Yeah.
9:32 Speaker 03 And I'm briefing them. So it's a new group of people. And after one phone call with Representative Mike Gallagher, Republican Representative, what, of the, of his district in Wyoming. So I had a short phone call with them, maybe about 20, 25 minutes. And then I had an interview just last month with the two senior staff on the Subcommittee that just recently held the House hearings.
9:57 Speaker 05 Yeah.
9:57 Speaker 03 That Lou Elizondo appeared at.
9:59 Speaker 05 Yeah, we were there.
10:00 Speaker 03 So they asked me a lot of questions. They, they were short on time, so we had a half hour conversation and there really should have been a follow-up interview because there were more open questions left to be answered that they didn't have time. They never followed up and I never got an invite to, to testify.
10:15 Speaker 05 Okay.
10:15 Speaker 03 So there, but I had made it known that the only way I'll testify, actually, the, the reality is in a, in a classified setting.
10:23 Speaker 05 Well, yeah, I would imagine there's not much slam dunk testimony that can be given in the unclassified thing.
10:27 Speaker 03 Right. Well, I'll tell you this, they didn't give the classified testimony, right? He gave them everything. He gave them the names and locations and programs and people. All I had was the stuff that I accumulated and gathered going up through the OSAP and AATF. And what happened during the UAP ETF was what Jay Stratt was doing then. So I had left that area and then I had a little bit of stuff going on when I worked for the Aerospace Corporation. And that's how I met Dave Brus.
10:56 Speaker 05 Right.
10:56 Speaker 03 Jay Stratton introduced me to Dave and his government customer, who I won't name. He was a GS-15 at the time, and Dave worked for him. And he got promoted later to SCS-1.
11:09 Speaker 05 This anonymous individual.
11:10 Speaker 03 This is the one that Dave worked with at the NRO.
11:12 Speaker 05 Sure.
11:13 Speaker 03 And so I briefed them. So they basically invited me through the Aerospace Corporation app because aerospace is the FFRDC that supports NRO. And so they have a contract and they flew me out to where they were located in Colorado Springs. And I gave them both briefing, not just them. This included the aerospace personnel that were supporting the NRO office. The NRO was a tenant organization in the aerospace campus there. So we have one building now, it's two.
11:41 Speaker 03 And in that one building, they have skips building entire floors and then office suites that are built inside of skips that that enclose the office suites. So this program that Dave and his government customer worked at was one of those office suites in a skip. So he's got a lot of, so that GS-15 has a lot of, has a number of aerospace employees supporting his program. Okay. And Dave was doing some aspect of that on the security side as one of Jay Stratton's contributors to the UAPTF because he was the NRO liaison officer to the UAPTF. So anyway, I met both of them and I gave Dave all my data, all my briefing information, and he took that, ran with it, and he found everything.
12:23 Speaker 03 And then later on, I think maybe a year or two later, yeah, actually almost two years later, somewhere in that period, they finally got to be meeting with Hal Pudoff and he briefed them with his set of information. A lot of what he has overlaps mine, but I have a lot of unique information, both in and outside of the era of the 15 years that I worked with Hal. A lot of it came from NIDS and Hal knew some of that. A lot of it came from AFRL and then a lot of it came through the OSAP with my interactions with the CIA and other agencies and companies and so forth. So Dave, yeah, Dave basically ran with our data, mine and Hal's, and found everything, found 40 witnesses.
13:04 Speaker 03 I I'm not going to say who they are, but I could say that I know two of them.
13:08 Speaker 05 Can you say how many of them are in this building?
13:10 Speaker 03 I'll say I know that at least one, that only one of them is in the building. And the guy who didn't come to the conference because he had a travel conflict for a pre- pre-arranged, I think, family trip or something, if he were here, he'd be the second one. And all the rest of them are not here in the building. And there's more to it than that, but I can't discuss it because then I would identify who the two witnesses.
13:33 Speaker 05 I understand it. So yesterday you made some pretty remarkable statements on kind of finding evidence of legacy programs while working at OSAP. And you mentioned that under Eisenhower, P E A D S is presidential emergency action documents. Kind of used to create waived special access programs free from congressional oversight. I wanted to see during your time investigating legacy programs, did you encounter other kind of unique classification standards like no foreign, no foreign national excluded program material for these programs? Kind of dealing with.
14:02 Speaker 03 Those are kind of. Yeah, those are not new or unusual.
14:07 Speaker 03 There's known SCI compartments, SCI being sensitive compartmentalized information. But there's hidden SCI compartments, and that's what a lot of the American public is not aware of. That's not talked about a lot. And then there's the special access programs, and you've got four types. You've got regular SAPs, just special access program. Then you have a waived special access program, you'll have an unacknowledged one, and you'll have a waived unacknowledged one. And actually, I'm not sure that the two in the middle are separate, really. I think more likely it's waived and unacknowledged at the same time. So that might be just a third category or even just a second category. So Dave and I had a lot of discussions. I went through, when I was at Earl Space, I went through special access program security training.
14:49 Speaker 03 So I could qualify to be. It's not that I wanted to qualify to be a security officer. I just wanted to qualify to to indicate to the company and the government customers that I've gone through that level of training comparable to what security officers for special access programs have. And so that would help my eligibility to get access more than anything. And that didn't happen, I didn't get it, but I did get, I did do the training. So Dave and I talked about that as a consequence. And I said, Dave, it seems like these hidden SCI's. Are no different than SAPs. And so that's when he said, yeah, really, they've been having that argument among the
15:31 Speaker 03 security personnel, security experts throughout the IC and the DOD. They've been having an argument for some significant period of time over really there's a whether there is a real distinction between a hidden SCI and an SAP. Most of the people like Dave and I actually came to the conclusion that SAPs are just the same thing as a hidden SCI.
15:50 Speaker 00 This episode is brought to you by Indeed. You're ready to level up your business, but the pressure to find the right person to make that happen is intense. Indeed sponsored jobs can help carry the load. It boosts your job post to help it reach quality talent fast. Cut through the chaos with Indeed sponsored jobs. Get a $75 sponsored job credit at indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring now? Then this is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs.
16:21 Speaker 06 Low energy, unfocused, foggy? You might be dehydrated. Gatorade Zero powders have been scientifically designed to help improve hydration balance in the body with a clinically proven electrolyte blend and no artificial colors or flavors. Great tasting hydration, no matter where you're going. Shop now online or at retailers nationwide. Gatorade hydrates better than water. Is it in you? Symptoms noted are signs of mild to moderate dehydration. Consult a healthcare professional if symptoms persist.
16:50 Speaker 05 I think something a lot of people don't ask that has kind of captured my attention. During your time investigating legacy programs, did you see much collaboration or compartmentalization between programs that may exist in Navy, Air Force, Army?
17:01 Speaker 03 It's too stovepipe or compartmentalized. You can't open it up to another one unless there is a need to do that. That need to get access is defined on a government forum called the DD 254. And the DD 254 documents who has access and why and what gets accessed. And if you're going to have to get access to another compartmentalized program, then that has to be justified in the DD 254. And usually that's not justified because programs are not, don't really overlap. However, I think it was Bill Sweetman back in the 1980s who did a deep dive in this after Reagan became president. And he did say, he did, he did correctly say.
17:48 Speaker 03 That the compartmentalization of SCI's, but mostly SAP's was really horrible because you end up duplicating programs, doing the same thing. So we're now spending taxpayers' dollars at twice the magnitude, doing the same thing between two programs and they're, they can't communicate that to you. Yeah, they can't elaborate. They can't come to an understanding of say, hey, oh yeah, you exist. Oh, and you exist, but and what you're working on is what we're working on, but we're spending all the government's money this week. Why don't we join forces and maybe cut the budget? But that isn't what happens. You can't do that.
18:21 Speaker 05 You actually sent me the article, the Liberation Times piece that Chris Sharp wrote. He was kind of describing for, I think, the first time, some of the intimate details of the ecosystem of the program, but eponymously. And that was where I heard for the first time that DOE and then, what was it called, Office of CIA Weapons Counterproliferation and Big Center.
18:45 Speaker 03 That's the modern name of WIMPAC, Weapons Intelligence Nuclear Proliferation and Armed Control. I actually got hired by the CIA to be the branch chief scientist of WIMPAC back in late 2003.
18:58 Speaker 05 Wow. Yeah. So, and so they talked about how DOE, that group and a bunch of combat commands all do their own thing to some extent. And there's really not an executive head, you know, adjudicating conflicts or rework, you know, duplicate work, like you're saying. You could have Navy programs and Air Force programs doing the same thing.
19:17 Speaker 03 Keep in mind that that, because the counterproliferation program, right? And WIMPAC are actually multi-agency. They're not just the CIA. They're CIA, NSA, NRO. Because when I got hired, the hiring manager that was going to be my boss, he briefed me on what my job duties were going to be, what organizations were involved, from that I was going to interface with all these organizations. And he wrote down two long lists on a couple of, well, two lists on a couple of columns. They weren't that long, but they were all the agencies that were fused together to run the WIMPAC operation. So WIMPAC will seek resources and personnel from that agency, that agency, this agency,
20:02 Speaker 03 and that agency to accomplish different things.
20:04 Speaker 05 I think one WIMPAC member recently mentioned, kind of as a gatekeeper of legacy programs, was Glenn Gaffney. Do you guys remember that from various reporting? Chris Sharp touched on it as well. Did you ever interact with Glenn Gaffney?
20:17 Speaker 03 I didn't have direct interaction with him, but the aerospace defense firm that we were working, we were trying to work with during the OSAP had direct interaction with him as well as he, he was a senior VP. And his exec and the executive VP of the corporation had, they had to have a conversation with Glenn Gaffney.
20:38 Speaker 05 Yeah.
20:38 Speaker 03 And he was very antagonistic about that company releasing to us under the DIA.
20:45 Speaker 05 To NICS, right?
20:46 Speaker 03 To us, no, to, um, to Bigelow Space Advanced Space Studies and Earth Tech.
20:51 Speaker 05 Right.
20:51 Speaker 03 To release to us their collection of crash retrieval materials that they've had since before it got shut down in 89. So he stepped right in the middle of it. First, he was surprised that that company uh, still retained materials that when they were supposed to give it up and return it back in 89.
21:07 Speaker 05 No kidding.
21:09 Speaker 03 And then he, uh, then he said his answer to that whole question about giving a, giving permission for them to share it with us under that classified setting because that was SAP level. We were TSSCI. We were trying to get SAP and Harry Reid was trying to get Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn to give us an SAP. And William Lynn denied his request. And the reason why he denied it is because Harry Reid was using political muscle and you can't do that. It has to go through the security channels and the program management to create a justification and a need
21:44 Speaker 05 Right.
21:44 Speaker 03 to give a program that's already TSSCI a SAP
21:48 Speaker 05 Right.
21:48 Speaker 03 level. Okay. Add on SAP.
21:51 Speaker 05 Politics.
21:51 Speaker 03 Yeah. So he's looking at, I, I can understand what William Lynn is looking at. The Majority Leader of the Senate is telling him, I want you to, you know, I, a very nice letter, the letter's been posted on the internet. So very nice letter saying, well, we have reason that we need to do this, et cetera, et cetera. Lynn didn't buy it because that wasn't an official channel for how you create a SAP. A program that's already TSSI and elevated up to a SAP. There's a whole process, procedure, bureaucracy and red tape that you have to go through. And Harry was using political muscle to bypass all that and, and the executive branch is taught or trained not to do that. Capitol Hill is not their taskmaster. The taskmaster is the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, the head of the executive branch.
22:37 Speaker 03 Now, uh, who was the president at that? It was Bush. So George W. Bush. If Harry Reid had written the letter to Bush or actually met him face to face, which would have been far more effective.
22:51 Speaker 03 I don't know how possible it would have been, but it would have been had a much higher chance that Bush would call down to William Lynn, or he would have maybe his national security advisor, Steven Hadley, call the secretary of defense's office, actually, and maybe the undersecretary of defense for intelligence and security and say, uh, okay, there's this program. I wanted to get a SAP.
23:15 Speaker 05 Sure.
23:15 Speaker 03 And if the president says it's, I want a SAP, they're going to have to stop it.
23:20 Speaker 02 And Lou Elizondo's book, he specifically mentions how, you know, they went to Lockheed Martin to see if they could, you know, get inside this program and have some of this material. And they were pretty much, you know, blocked out by the program manager and of course the red tape.
23:40 Speaker 03 Glenn Gaffney was the director of the, uh, yeah, he was a director. I think his title was deputy director of the CIA, um, over the directorate of science and technology.
23:52 Speaker 05 Hmm.
23:52 Speaker 03 And that's where the UFO or the UAP portfolio was held. So he's the portfolio owner at the time he was there. Though I guess maybe his title's deputy director of science and technology. It, it depends on how they organize it.
24:06 Speaker 05 Yeah.
24:07 Speaker 03 Those days. But anyway, that's what he, he ran, ran that directorate. So he just stepped in the middle and just said, absolutely not. We're not going to do that.
24:15 Speaker 05 I wonder, uh, HW, former director of CIA, do you think it stands to reason that HW might have known more than many other modern presidents by virtue of?
24:24 Speaker 03 Uh, I had conversations with him back in 2003 and, um,
24:31 Speaker 03 What he learned, he was not briefed as a president on this subject. He was briefed as an incoming CIA director. Not surprised. And that's all he had on it. When he became president, he didn't hear about it anymore. When he was, um, when he was a CIA director, he was given some pretty spectacular information. And, um, and he insisted that he, he wanted to see that. This is DOD information. What's funny is that this, that his agency was the portfolio for, for UAPs. So even he wasn't told who in his, in the CIA was running it for him to get briefed by, for him to call on his phone and say, I need you to brief me.
25:13 Speaker 03 He didn't, wasn't told. Instead, it was the Pentagon liaison officer, who had no intention on briefing him about UFOs or UAPs. And instead, he assumed that Bush had already been briefed by his CIA personnel or his, his, uh, leadership. Sure. Who oversee that portfolio. And he accidentally assumed that he started rattling off about a major UAP events. Um, that was, took place in early sixties. And Bush's eyes lit up and this is what he's told me. He said, what are you talking about? So the, the Pentagon liaison officer told him all about it. He said, are you kidding me? There's, there's a there there? Yeah. And he said, absolutely. And he said, well, I want to see the evidence.
25:55 Speaker 03 And the evidence was in the form of, of a, of a film, um, and some documentation, reports or something. But the film was the primary thing. And he was declined. The liaison officer said, no, you don't have a need to know because this is DOD intelligence and we're not going to get it, give it to you. Only if there's an event that happens that requires you to take that information up to the president and the national security. Actually, you go to the national security advisor. He's the clearinghouse for all things UAP. So you go to the national, the president's national security advisor and you say, my agency just had a major event that we collected intelligence on. And it's going to require a presidential.
26:41 Speaker 03 Decision and the national security advisor is going to have to say, okay, here's a number at your agency who you're going to call to get a full briefing on the whole UFO thing. And meanwhile, I will schedule a meeting in the Oval Office with the President. That's how that works. And I think the P documents could possibly emerge from that. If it's a, if it's a historical thing, no, that P that historical that might already be covered by a P. And that's probably why that guy, that briefing officer, liaison officer from the Pentagon accidentally slipped up by wrongly assuming that Bush was already briefed. The fact is, is yes, you can brief the P within the executive branch, but he assumed that Bush had been and he hadn't been. So my guess is, is that since that was not a new event,
27:25 Speaker 03 it was an old historical event, that there'd be no need to brief Bush on the P that was involved. So he would never know. He would just hear about the evidence that that recorded that event happening. And it happened at a military base. And, and so there you go.
27:43 Speaker 07 And speaking of those Peds, yesterday you also made some super interesting comments on kind of private contracts, specifically, I think you said source contract.
27:50 Speaker 03 All source. Instead of putting out a project up for, for a contract bid.
27:56 Speaker 07 An RFP.
27:57 Speaker 03 Yeah, you have to have to issue either a broad area announcement, which is how Bigelow Space applied to submit a bid for the ASAP contract. So it's either a request for proposals or a broad area announcement. And if you do that, then you're going to severely compromise the security of an SAP. So they don't do that. You don't, you don't invite different companies to see the specs of the program, the outline and the specs and the deliverables expected over the period of performance expected in the RFP or the BAA. Instead, the government agency has the contract guy and the program manager guy and maybe one other authority over all that. They're gonna, they're gonna call up their favorite contractor
28:42 Speaker 03 who, who they know or believe could successfully execute the project. And they'll say, okay, we got, we want to give you a contract. Here's how much money and here's how many years we're going to pay up. And the company's stupid, they'll say no. If the company's smart, they'll say yes. And generally, um, the Beltway Bandits and the, and the legacy aerospace industry are not stupid. They, they want, they need money, so they will always say yes.
29:09 Speaker 07 Would those be authorized contracts then, or have a transfer of authority? Those sole source contracts, would they be traceable?
29:15 Speaker 03 No, uh, usually they set up a freight company to pass the money through.
29:19 Speaker 07 So this, this roster of kind of the big defense contractors for these big projects, would that roster be pretty, pretty thin, only a couple entries there and?
29:26 Speaker 03 I don't know. I do know from the, um, you know, space company that I interacted with quite frequently during the OSAP. They didn't go to the government customer.
29:37 Speaker 03 It wasn't always the CIA, it was Air Force at times. So I think the money is transmitted through a pass-through company, but they know very well who their government customer is. The government customer knows very well who they are and that they have a contract. So I think the fact that the money goes through a hard to audit
29:57 Speaker 03 channel doesn't prevent the two from talking. Because the program does get contract monitoring and contract oversight from the government customer. So they will exert that authority over the, over the.
30:11 Speaker 05 I wanted to ask you about Dave Grush's IRAD fraud allegations. You recall what he talks about in Congress? He alleged that at least one contract, and I believe Elizondo repeated it in his house hearing. The allegation was made that at some point in time, for some duration, a contractor artificially inflated the budget, the, the proposal budget for a black budget program so that they could siphon that money off into IRAD to do an IRAD project. Because frequently you can tax deduct the funding for, right, the profit dollars and move them. And instead of just hoping they overperform, they like, they like doctored the situation so that they definitely overperform. Then the extra money was sort of moved in this.
30:50 Speaker 03 Okay, I don't have any insights on that. Okay. And, um, uh, there are two types of contracts. It's either cost plus, uh, fee or fixed, fixed cost.
31:00 Speaker 07 Right.
31:01 Speaker 03 Fixed firm price, yeah. So those are the only contract vehicles I'm aware of. I'm not aware that there's anything special just because of UAPs, so. It's either cost plus or firm cost, firm fix, fix price.
31:14 Speaker 05 Sure.
31:15 Speaker 03 One of those is how NASA tends to issue contracts like Artemis is way over budget, over schedule, and the Orion heat sheet shield did the same thing to the Orion. Boeing has become a disaster with the CST 100 or the, what was the Star?
31:31 Speaker 05 Starliner.
31:31 Speaker 03 Starliner, yes. So that is under cost plus.
31:36 Speaker 05 Right, right.
31:37 Speaker 03 And that's where the government gets screwed on. So I have no idea what contract vehicles are used for these, for UAPs. It's, it's like now you're down in the weeds and it really doesn't matter.
31:46 Speaker 05 Sure, sure.
31:47 Speaker 02 Uh, speaking of these sort of corporate entities here, um, people are sort of aware that, okay, maybe they have their group to do the work, the engineering to do the material analysis, what, what have you in their programs. But is there any merit to there being, uh, private strike teams who are having their own contested crash recovery, recoveries with the public strike teams?
32:17 Speaker 03 Um, no, I'm not familiar with any. I haven't heard any such thing, even out in the open, uh, or even in the classified venue, I haven't heard.
32:24 Speaker 05 There's, there's a story of apparently, um, a private military contractor, you know, contracted by Lockheed Martin, sent out to recover a crash, the JSOC team sent out to the same crash site, and there apparently being exchange of fire and KKKs. And, you know, clearly this would generate a lot of paper, right?
32:44 Speaker 03 Wow, I'm not familiar with that incident.
32:46 Speaker 07 So all this talk about private contractors, you know, the big Lockheed Martin, what about federally funded research and development centers such as MITRE, RAND, TRIAD, Ofridge, and UARC, University Affiliated Research Centers? Where, where do they fall into this?
32:59 Speaker 00 This episode is brought to you by Indeed. You're ready to level up your business, but the pressure to find the right person to make that happen is intense. Indeed sponsored jobs can help carry the load. It boosts your job post to help it reach quality talent fast. Cut through the chaos with Indeed sponsored jobs. Get a $75 sponsored job credit at indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring now? Then this is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs.
33:29 Speaker 06 Low energy, unfocused, foggy, you might be dehydrated. Gatorade Zero powders have been scientifically designed to help improve hydration balance in the body with a clinically proven electrolyte blend and no artificial colors or flavors. Great tasting hydration, no matter where you're going. Shop now online or at retailers nationwide. Gatorade hydrates better than water. Is it in you? Symptoms noted are signs of mild to moderate dehydration. Consult a healthcare professional if symptoms persist.
33:58 Speaker 03 Only one, and I won't name it, started out as a contractor in 1960s, starting not too long after it was born, and this actually spinoff of TRW. So TRW was the principal investigator for the first roughly, what, almost 30, yeah, practically, what, 29 years. But I know that another company would dispute that. They thought they were a primary, principal contractor. In fact, the principal contractor serves a leadership role that the other companies kind of, they don't know what's going on, but they know who's involved at the, you
34:41 Speaker 03 know, the scuttle, you know, scuttlebutt level. And so they know at the scuttlebutt level through communications with the government customer, who else would be involved? But they don't have direct communications with those other companies because of compartmentalization. So I do know that there'd be a dispute because there was, I mean, the senior VP of the company I interacted with during the OSAP would thought, well, we had the program running and they didn't consider somebody else as the principal investigator. I think that they wouldn't know that. The government customer knows that. So I think that's where the misunderstanding was occurring, is down at the company level.
35:24 Speaker 03 So yeah, the only FFRDC I know of is the one that spun off of TRW. My recollection from the senior vice president of the other company is that they kind of left that whole line of work at some point. Just because I think they did all they could do. And so they got out of it somewhere, maybe 10 or a little more years after they got started on it. So probably in the early seventies is when they left it. And then we had the other legacy firms that were involved. So there were four overall.
35:57 Speaker 07 That would make sense because a lot of the FFRDCs that were started kind of were born out of the early sixties, late fifties and kind of fulfill their purpose within 10 years and then moved on to other projects. Like RAND, for example, started off as Project RAND.
36:10 Speaker 02 And just speaking of what you know and what you don't know. One of the things you kind of definitively said during your talk up there was that there are no ARVs. Or alien production vehicles. And so I think that's really a kind of a bombshell because there's so many theories out there like, oh, this incident or that incident.
36:31 Speaker 03 Well, I know.
36:32 Speaker 02 ARV. But, you know, I can sort of take the word for it.
36:38 Speaker 02 Because we barely scratched the surface of how they even.
36:41 Speaker 03 Yeah.
36:41 Speaker 05 So I have some questions about this. So like, do you think anything's happened recently, maybe like in the last like 10 years? That's real new, like advancement, like progress?
36:50 Speaker 03 I'm not aware of it because I'm out of it now.
36:51 Speaker 05 Sure.
36:52 Speaker 03 I've been out of it since the ASAP. ATIP ended, so.
36:55 Speaker 05 Yeah.
36:55 Speaker 03 So I'm not right into it.
36:59 Speaker 03 At the level I was for the ASAP and ASAP, ATIP purposes. I don't know. All I do know is I was given a firm, hey, in 1989, the CIA shut it all down because nobody, us, and we know the other companies that we had been found out from our customer, didn't make any progress after several decades of investing in it. There was no progress made. And so I said, so what's the story about Northrop Grumman having an ARV? Or somebody out at Area 51 having an ARV? And he said, oh, that's all myth. He said, the people that have been putting out there don't know what the hell they're talking about. And they don't know why, unless they're just another Bob Lazar type. They're just gonna, they're long on the tooth and they're gonna tell a story.
37:42 Speaker 05 Yeah. Is there any chance that was disinformation or that was passage material?
37:45 Speaker 03 No, actually it wasn't disinformation. It was even Bob Lazar's information. Is disinformation. It's because they they believe their own bullshit.
37:53 Speaker 05 I mean that they were telling you that there's no ARVs. We've made no.
37:56 Speaker 03 Oh, no, that's not disinformation. That's coming straight on a classified level.
38:00 Speaker 05 Sure.
38:01 Speaker 03 With me having the need to know, and they don't have a need to give me disinformation. We're on a program and we're going to give them contract money to work with us. And they're not going to sit there and bullshit with us. We're going to give them money.
38:12 Speaker 05 I don't think so. It's way too 5D chess. Right? Yeah, I guess.
38:15 Speaker 07 When you're when you're saying ARV, do you mean like a one to one recreation of a UAP in an HIV vehicle? Or do you think there's aircraft systems that have kind of leveraged technologies?
38:23 Speaker 03 Hmm, definitely no aircraft systems that have leveraged anything. And there's been no one to one reproduction. A lot of that fell into the psyche of the UFO community because of Bob Lazar. And then Brad Sorensen and Mark McCandless. So.
38:41 Speaker 03 I don't know where they're coming from. And then other people kind of came out of the woodwork saying the same thing. But no proof. I mean, there's been photographs, but those photographs, I haven't analyzed them. I don't remember Bruce McAbey looked at them. I know Bruce McAbey had only said, they definitely looked like hokes to him. But I don't think he ever issued a report on them because he's got lots of reports on UAPs that he has done photo and film and video analysis of.
39:08 Speaker 07 Have you ever spoken to the Brad Sorensen and McCandless?
39:11 Speaker 03 No, Howard has. Well, Hoppa has.
39:13 Speaker 05 Yeah. Yeah. Well, what do you think about adversarial governments having, you know, functional vehicles that they've?
39:19 Speaker 03 They. Okay, if they do, then basically, why are we still a country? You know, why haven't we been conquered? The tech. And especially if it's an adversarial government with the resources, because there are adversarial governments that don't have the resources. That'd be North Korea, Iran, and probably a few others. But the big ones would be China and Russia.
39:39 Speaker 05 Yeah.
39:39 Speaker 03 And.
39:40 Speaker 05 Well, suppose it's still.
39:42 Speaker 03 Yeah, right now, they're still playing with conventional propulsion, like hypersonic missiles, supersonic missiles, subsonic missiles, multiple munitions, multiple warheads,
39:55 Speaker 03 et cetera, et cetera. Nobody's, nobody's got an ARV type crap zipping over Ukraine. And Ukraine certainly hasn't been reporting any such things of that nature.
40:05 Speaker 05 Right.
40:06 Speaker 03 And they would have. They would have screamed bloody murder and taken it straight to the President of the United States, the CIA, the Department of State would have said, here's our photographs. And here's our recordings of it.
40:19 Speaker 03 And this is this and look, there's a so there's a Russian symbol on it, you know?
40:23 Speaker 05 Yeah, yeah.
40:24 Speaker 03 And so, no, that hasn't happened. I mean, if it was for real, we would see a dramatic change in the balance of power.
40:31 Speaker 05 Yeah.
40:31 Speaker 03 The United States, the our intelligence agency would probably have known about it before Ukraine would have gotten hit in such a hypothetical story or scenario. And that just hasn't happened. So they haven't been successful. I can't believe they're any more successful than we've.
40:47 Speaker 05 Well, you do agree with Dr. Fis contention that they have programs, they have wreckage, they have technology that they're.
40:52 Speaker 03 Um, yeah, I China is like a closed door. I know through how put up that they have at least one, and I think he might have gotten that officially through some work he did with the DIA where he did go to China for them, but not for that reason.
41:04 Speaker 05 Sure.
41:05 Speaker 03 And he's probably learned something over there.
41:06 Speaker 05 Sure.
41:07 Speaker 03 Uh, I think there's other sources that have said similar. Uh, probably Dave Grush has more information on that than even I thought to ask him about. Uh, but Russia is one that had some crash retrievals, and that's been released when the Soviet Union fell. KGB opened up the files, George Knapp went there, other people went there, found the thread three documents. And I had independent, um, and I can't get into this because it's still super classified. But through the ASAP program, I had a connection in with a three letter agency that collected, um, not from the KGB open records, they collected it from their own asset and the
41:45 Speaker 03 asset was was filtering out actual legitimate documents, photos, reports, technical and operational and executive summary type. There's enough evidence that I saw in classified setting that convinced me that they have at least one.
42:04 Speaker 05 For quite some time.
42:04 Speaker 03 One crash retrieval. Yeah.
42:06 Speaker 05 Yeah.
42:07 Speaker 03 But I can't say that it would go back to the 40s, 50s, or 60s, or 70s. I know.
42:11 Speaker 05 Yeah.
42:11 Speaker 03 I was at the end of the 80s was the one I was exposed to.
42:13 Speaker 05 Okay, alright.
42:14 Speaker 03 So they have had something and they got hardware, but I don't see that they've been any successful with it, you know?
42:21 Speaker 07 Are there, um, any other breadcrumbs that you gave to Dave Grush that might be useful to us from kind of like a?
42:28 Speaker 05 Open source intelligence perspective that we could start to follow and kind of pick up and
42:32 Speaker 03 Oh, boys, this is really super. It's classified still. The breadcrumbs I gave him are proprietary to NIDS and BASS, Big Earth Space, Advanced Space Studies, and classified to the DIA and another three-letter agency, maybe two. I need to wait for a couple of people at the corporate level to die of old age. And when they do that, I won't have trouble with lawyers.
42:55 Speaker 05 Right.
42:55 Speaker 03 And then I'll come out with a book. Now, the classified stuff in that, I don't know what I'm gonna do with that. That's classified for life.
43:01 Speaker 05 Yeah.
43:02 Speaker 03 Yeah. So they could declassify it up to 25 years, but I've had so much derivative classification training that I found out that the rules for declassification are, do include the ability to maintain classification up to even 75 years.
43:20 Speaker 05 So BASS has to maintain that classification for 75 years. Wow.
43:24 Speaker 03 So if you sincerely can justify that you can't declassify after 25 years, 75 seems to be the maximum.
43:32 Speaker 05 How did your perspective change on what viable approaches were to break through propulsion physics from when you started it to when you end, when you finished the project? What did you initially think was interesting that you threw away? And then what sort of came to the forefront?
43:45 Speaker 03 Well, what got thrown away is those concepts that don't meet the criteria for novel disruptive innovation or testable or theoretically well-defined concepts. People come to you, or came to us and others, with all kinds of inventions and ideas, like the Searle effect, the Dean drive, those kind of things, torsion, spacetime torsion. And torsion, for your viewers, is basically just a defect or a crack or fissure in the spacetime continuum. And Einstein looked at that, and it looked like the issue of, well, if you're gonna, if you're gonna have a path of a particle undergoing motion through spacetime, and it's gonna encounter
44:30 Speaker 03 this, what's the gravitational or spacetime curvature manifestations of coming into that crack, going around it, what is it do to you? You go around it, or can you go across it? What are the, what are the physics uh consequences of doing that from within general relativity? So Einstein looked at all that and he was trying to find out if torsion might give you a prescription to describe elementary particle spin. And he found out that was not the case. So he also found out that torsion does not produce testable predictions that we have observed. And it actually produces or predicts inconsistent results.
45:13 Speaker 03 And so he ended up tossing away torsion, saying, you know, it's a great theoretical
45:20 Speaker 03 concept to look at, but it doesn't hold water because it makes the general relativistic field equations inconsistent. So it loses its self-consistency. It'll make wrong predictions of phenomenon already observed. And it's just not refined enough. There's just something missing from it. And it cannot definitely be used to describe particle spin, whether it be macroscopic particles or quantum particles. It just didn't reach that threshold. So Riemer-Macher actually did an experiment. And I'm not going to get into it because I don't remember enough of it anymore. And he did an experiment that was specifically designed to test whether torsion existed in spacetime.
46:04 Speaker 03 And it was a well thought out apparatus, very well designed. They did it at General Electric. So they had a staff of physicists and engineers to help do the prediction on what such an instrument would be like and how it would function and how you would design it and build it. So they, they, they did it just like Kip Thorne and the big giant team that formed LIGO did when they got started looking at gravitational wave detectors in the 1970s. And he got an old result. Basically, he couldn't find any sign of any spacetime torsion. And so at least at that level, it was thorough enough type of experiment. It's just like what Gary Nolan said, it was data. And then the
46:48 Speaker 03 To form the evidence and then you interpret it in the context of the hypothesis. And then you form your conclusion and the conclusion was we don't see space time torsion. So it must not exist, at least at that level. That doesn't close the door on torsion because there could be other experiments. Somebody can think of.
47:06 Speaker 05 Some other formalism.
47:07 Speaker 03 Yeah, yeah, that's right. But unfortunately, we haven't seen that happen yet. And and the interesting thing is, is that, like I said, if you go back to general relativity and Einstein's messing with that. When he was developing the the general theory of relativity and its 16 field equations. It starts out as 256 field equations, but due to symmetry properties, you can knock them down to 16. And I think a couple more will bring it down to 10. So 10 field equations. And it just basically gets you inconsistent results and that's a problem. So it's telling you already that you're not going to get right answers by incorporating torsion. And that's a problem because that means, you know, you're you're trying to develop a physics that produces a testable prediction.
47:51 Speaker 03 That when you observe them, you're not going to just observe new predictions. You want to observe old predictions just to make sure the theory is still correct. Because it's got to predict the old stuff that have been observed, old phenomenon. And it didn't do that. It just gave you wrong answers all the way around.
48:07 Speaker 05 Yeah. Now, when you talk about like the nth order differential equations associated with GR. And you get 256 equations that that only simplify due to symmetries. What is your perspective on the approach to like mathematical beauty in physics? I mean, do you do you insist or do you have a do you have a notion that the the theory of everything or the gut will turn out to be elegant? Or do you sort of think it might be clumsy and clunky and, you know, 19,000 equations? I mean, do you have any perspective on that?
48:36 Speaker 03 With regard to what a unified field theory?
48:40 Speaker 03 I don't think I don't think it's. Yeah, no, I don't. I'm in the camp of physicists. That we already know, and a lot of other physicists know, that Einstein proved that gravity is not a fundamental force of nature. It emerges from the fabric of spacetime when it's distorted or curved or bent. And Sakharov, he believed that the metric elasticity of space, described by the spacetime metric, which is just a very simple equation, actually. And he said that should come from the quantum vacuum fluctuations. Because he sees the quantum vacuum fluctuations as being the seed of all existence. And he was right. Basically, that started from Richard Feynman, when he got the Nobel Prize for the quantum electrodynamics
49:23 Speaker 03 theory. And then later on, when that got unified with the weak nuclear force, it became the electroweak theory. Separately, we have quantum chromodynamic theory, which describes the theory overseeing the strong nuclear force, which basically emerges from quark or quantum chromodynamics, or the interaction between quarks and gluons, gluons being the photons of the strong nuclear force. They have, instead of, yeah, they don't have a mass, they move at the speed of light, they have a spin one, just like a photon does. But unlike a photon, they have three color charges, or it can have a combination of those color, actually, they have two color charges. So they have a combination of color charges, which are a symmetry property of the theory. They're not, they're not an electro charge,
50:08 Speaker 03 really. They actually have no electro charge.
50:10 Speaker 05 Generally can't be separated, is that right? You can't get color charged particles in terms of pulling them apart, having a color.
50:17 Speaker 03 You can, but inside the hadrons, you can. But when you have high energy collisions, like what happened at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Lab, for a brief instant, or just an instant, long enough that you can measure it, you can pull the quarks out of the hadrons, they'll be mixed in with the gluons, and you will actually produce quark-gluon plasmas. And the plasmas will exist as an entity. I don't want to say a soliton, but as an entity on its own, and it's outside of the elementary particle from which it was created. The collider is colliding heavy atoms, usually uranium.
50:56 Speaker 03 Lead, iron, even even protons, yeah, at ninety nine point nine nine nine six percent the speed of light. And so there's enough energy centered mass energy in there in the relativistic rest frame that you can literally blow those hadrons apart. A hadron is basically two classes, mesons and baryons. And of the baryons, there's protons and neutrons. So basically, you're looking at the heavy nuclei of these ions. So you stripped electrons off, and you're going to have these super heavy uranium or iron or lead. Oh, gold and silver are another ones. And even as light as a single proton for hydrogen atom nucleus. And they smash these things together. And you're
51:37 Speaker 03 liberating literally the quarks right out of those protons. And then the heavier atoms out of all the protons and neutrons, they get bashed into each other at really high energy. And so that's an example of when that happens. So QCD theory is not complementary or compatible with electro weak theory. They cannot be unified. We have they was a dream. That was a projection and extrapolation and has not come to fruition. Likewise, gravity is not a force of nature. It emerges from spacetime phenomenon, the spacetime manifold, or the continuum, or however you want to describe it. And it's a coupling constant measures the strength of the interaction force between particles. So for the quantum electrodynamics, that's the electromagnetic fine structure,
52:19 Speaker 03 fine structure constant. Then for electro weight theory, well, now that's blended in with the weak nuclear force, weak force is responsible for the decay of quarks in high energy quarks, so low energy quarks, radioactive decay is another one, where atoms transmute decay away and elementary particles are emitted, or even alpha particles, which are helium nucleus are emitted. So that's what the weak force. So it turns out they're both two sides of the same coin of the same unified force. Well, its coupling constant is actually the electromagnetic fine structure constant divided by 100 times the proton mass squared. So it's scaled to the proton mass. So then when you're talking about gravity, gravity's coupling constant, it has the first two I mentioned
53:03 Speaker 03 have no dimensions. The coupling constant in general Is is the universal gravitational constant times of eight pi divided by the speed of light to the fourth power. You know what the units of that are? One over force, one over Newtons. That's right. And that's a coupling constant to convert the dimensional units of the stress energy tensor, which is the source of spacetime curvature. That's in units of joules per cubic meter or energy density or pressure because an equivalent is Newtons per square meter. Okay, so those have to be converted using that one over Newton factor from the coupling constant into units of one over meter squared. That's how you measure spacetime curvature on the left side of the field equation that has the Ricci curvature tensor and the Ricci scalar
53:47 Speaker 03 multiplied by the metric tensor and one half. And they take this difference between the two. For that reason, we know we really can't unify those those two forces. It's really electroweak and quantum chromodynamics. We can't unify it to spacetime curvature model. And that's why and everybody's still attacking quantum superstring is kind of died away because it can't make useful predictions, but how or testable predictions. However, it's been very successful in mathematics and geometry and topology. They have predicted a lot of new things in those areas, but they're still hacking away at trying to get it to work as a quantum gravity theory. Same thing with quantum loop gravity. And gosh, Roger Penrose had the most sexy
54:31 Speaker 03 version of quantum gravity that I fell in love with when I was in graduate school and it came out. It was twister theory. So he replaced the whole concept with a whole new instead of a four dimensional spacetime point of x, y, z and a t or or different coordinate system, but you'll always have a time in there. And instead, he was looking at energy momentum as a four vector to describe an event in spacetime. So we wanted to build an edifice of an algebra that handled that, then a geometry that that algebra builds up. And from that, he was hoping to get a unified picture of the forces of nature and gravity. And it was beautiful. Again, like superstring theory, great, beautiful mathematical results came out geometrical. Oh, my gosh, this thing is a this thing is an exercise of the most advanced.
55:16 Speaker 03 Version of complex math. You've seen complex math when you were in aerospace engineering. So it just didn't go anywhere.
55:22 Speaker 05 Yeah, it just didn't give you anything useful.
55:24 Speaker 03 Yeah. So basically, we can't see a unified field theory coming out of that.
55:28 Speaker 05 Well, Dr. Davis, thank you so much for sitting down with us. It's been incredibly revelatory. And we're so glad you came this year to give a talk at Seoul. We hope we see you back.
55:35 Speaker 03 Oh, yeah. Thank you very much.
55:36 Speaker 05 Yeah, absolutely.
55:37 Speaker 03 See you, Jack.
55:38 Speaker 05 You've been a treat. Thank you, sir. Won't wait another 14 years this.
Previous Navy Fighter Pilots Witness UFO Mid Flight (Ft. Ryan Graves) Next CIA Contractor: "Obama Received An Alien Prophecy" (ft. Bob McGwire) Page updated November 5, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated
