#334 - Dark Matter Expert: New Evidence UFOs Have Been Here For 1 Million Years | Matthew Szydagis

Watch every episode ad-free & uncensored on Patreon: https://patreon.com/dannyjones Matthew Szydagis is a professor at the University at Albany Department of Physics, pursuing experimental particle astrophysics, in particular the direct laboratory detection of dark matter. Matthew has been a member of UAPx, helping to seek answers regarding the true nature of UFO's from a scientific perspective. SPONSORS https://rag-bone.com - Use code DANNY for 20% off site wide. https://cornbreadhemp.com/danny - Use code DANNY for 30% off. https://headspace.com/dannyjones - Get Headspace FREE for 60 days. https://whiterabbitenergy.com/?ref=DJP - Use code DJP for 20% off EPISODE LINKS https://www.uapexpedition.org FOLLOW DANNY JONES https://www.instagram.com/dannyjones https://twitter.com/jonesdanny OUTLINE 00:00 - World's largest dark matter experiment 10:57 - Quantum Mechanics and the Brain 19:06 - How will dark matter change the world? 23:02 - Big bang theory debunked 32:06 - It's getting harder for science to be wrong 41:58 - Why Elon froze dark matter funding 47:32 - New planet discovered & the cosmic pie chart 55:19 - Why anti-gravity research went dark 01:10:35 - The moon landing conspiracy & simulation hypothesis 01:19:45 - Hunting UFOs with radiation detection 01:29:21 - Evidence UFOs have been here for 1.1 million years 01:38:37 - Ancient discoveries that predate technology 01:45:08 - 6 times psuedo-science turned out to be correct 01:55:54 - Other species of hominids 02:02:25 - Why we don't have footage of a UFO crash yet 02:09:27 - UFOs are immune to nuclear weapons 02:16:43 - Proof the Tic Tac UFO is not man-made 02:18:19 - Proof Sean Kirkpatrick lied under oath 02:26:58 - Evidence the Bob Lazar story is fake 02:35:47 - Eric Davis holds the secrets to UFO phenomenon 02:39:53 - New study on Roswell UFO crash material Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Hey Spotify listeners! When you travel with American Airlines, you'll enjoy comfort and convenience at every altitude. Before takeoff, unwind in the Admirals Club Lounge with curated self-serve offerings of hearty bites and refreshments. In-flight, stay connected with high-speed Wi-Fi. Sponsored by AT&T. Your journey is designed to feel easy from the moment you check in to the moment you arrive. No matter where you're going, American gets you there. Book now at aa.com.

• 0:26Speaker 01

  For decades, a shadowy organization called the Lemonade has kept lemon on top and lime in the shadows. Look around: lemon-forward sodas, even lemon-forward songs. We ran the tracks, slowed them down, reversed them, and squeezed out the truth.

• 0:46Speaker 01

  That's lemon propaganda right there. But now, 7-Up is fighting back with their new Lime Lemon Soda. Join the 7-Uprising: Flip the Sip.

• 1:03Speaker 02

  So what type of physics do you do? Well, so my mainstream effort is the search for dark matter. Okay. So I work on the LZ Dark Matter Experiment, which is deployed underground in South Dakota. It's the world's largest and best dark matter experiment. So I'm an astroparticle physicist. Okay, can you explain what that dark matter experiment is and how it works? Sure, so I should probably start by explaining what dark matter itself is. So it's a hypothetical form of matter that we are very, very sure exists because we have indirect evidence, observational evidence from astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology, primarily through gravity. So we know there's more matter than we can see, and we know it's not made of the same particles, constituents as ordinary matter.

• 1:48Speaker 02

  And so, one of the ways to look for dark matter is you actually create particle detectors. You deploy them deep underground because the idea is dark matter would pass through the Earth unimpeded, like neutrinos and similar particles, and interact with your detector. So in the LZ detector, we use a gigantic... Bucket, basically, or it's a thermos, actually, the formal term is cryostat, of liquid xenon. So xenon's a very good element because it produces light when external particles interact with it. And so you get flashes of light whenever you have external particles, external radiation interact with the xenon. So we have this deployed about almost a mile underground in South Dakota.

• 2:30Speaker 02

  Wow. Are there any images of this we can see? Like that gives you like a good, how how big is it? Absolutely. So it's a, it's 10, it's 10 ton scale liquid xenon detector. It's about, I'm a scientist, so I use meters. So just multiply by three for feet, or just pretend I'm saying yards. So it's like one and a half meters. Is this similar to yards or meters and yards? Yeah, yeah, extremely similar. So it's one and a half meters tall by one and a half meters wide, roughly. But that's inside of a, of a water tank and several other layers of shielding. Because we want to be sure if we have a detection that it's dark matter, not something else. So it has a lot of layers of shielding. So actually, we've got some images coming up right now. So you can see the diagram from Smithsonian there. There's a, there's a diagram of how it works right there. So a particle comes in, produces a

• 3:13Speaker 02

  flash of light, as well as loosens some electrons off of the atom. So we actually get two signals. First, a flash of light, a primary flash of light in the liquid, and then a secondary flash of light up top from the, from the electrons that got ripped out. So the time between the two signals gives us the depth of the event, and the hit pattern of the light gives us the radial position. So we have three dimensional position reconstruction of any incoming particles that interact with the detector. And what does this tell you specifically about dark matter? Well, we're looking for something extra beyond the ordinary particles that are going to constantly interact, like just gamma rays and just betas and radiation from the

• 3:55Speaker 02

  environment. So we're looking for something extra that is going to be above the constant noise of the regular, you know, old school particles we know and love. So here's a picture of the actual experiment. It's actually made of, it's white because it's made of Teflon, because Teflon actually reflects ultraviolet light. And so that helps bounce the light into the photo sensors at the top and the bottom. So we're hoping that a particle of dark matter comes in, bumps into an atom of xenon, and makes a flash of light that we can detect reproducibly.

• 4:26Danny Jones?

  How many particles of dark matter have you seen?

• 4:28Speaker 02

  None.

• 4:29Danny Jones?

  None yet.

• 4:29Speaker 02

  No, so when I say we're the world's best dark matter experiment, it's because we've measured zero better than anybody else. So we actually, you know, you would, you would hear about it from the mainstream media if we had actually made a discovery.

• 4:40Danny Jones?

  Cause we've been- This would be a front page material, huh?

• 4:42Speaker 02

  Potentially, just like the gravitational waves discovery was with LIGO a few years ago. So it would be a big deal.

• 4:47Danny Jones?

  So dark matter is just a theory?

• 4:49Speaker 02

  Um, that word is misused. So in science, theory means fact. So the phrase "just a theory" is one of those things that like raises like my skin, because there's no such thing. So a theory in science means incontrovertible fact.

• 5:07Danny Jones?

  Theory?

• 5:08Speaker 02

  Yes. When other people, when non-scientists use the word "theory", they mean hypothesis.

• 5:15Danny Jones?

  Ah.

• 5:16Speaker 02

  So dark matter is a very well-established theory in the sense that even though we don't have direct evidence, we have so many mountains of observational evidence that very few people doubt that there's something there.

• 5:31Danny Jones?

  Got it. So for now, it's just a hypothesis?

• 5:34Speaker 02

  Yeah, well, it's kind of in a gray area towards theory because it's got so much indirect evidence in its favor. So it's sort of like, people will refer to it as a dark matter theory. I prefer hypothesis because we don't have conclusive observation in the lab yet.

• 5:50Danny Jones?

  And isn't it, isn't it, don't we also have another hypothesis that dark matter has mass to it?

• 5:57Speaker 02

  Oh, no, that's, that's guaranteed.

• 5:58Danny Jones?

  Oh, that's guaranteed that it has mass.

• 5:59Speaker 02

  That's not separate. It has to have mass, because otherwise it can't produce gravity.

• 6:02Danny Jones?

  And that was because when we'd observed galaxies, we noticed that the center of the galaxy has the same spin rate as the rim of the galaxy, meaning that there's like mass flattening the spin rate? Is that close?

• 6:12Speaker 02

  Not quite, not quite. So at, at high radius, there's a flattening when there should be a dropping off. So for example, take Jupiter Saturn, Neptune is gonna be orbiting the sun more slowly than the earth. Okay, that's just a natural consequence of the law of gravity. Yes. However, what we see in galaxies is that the farther out you go, we didn't see that drop off. And that's been attempted to be explained without dark matter, without additional mass. There are theories of modified gravity, but the vast majority really don't work. Because they can't explain why, for example, you have galaxies, apparently, that we've discovered over the last several years that seem to be hundred percent, almost hundred percent dark matter and zero percent.

• 6:55Speaker 02

  So that really implies that dark matter is stuff and you can have more stuff and less stuff.

• 7:00Danny Jones?

  So the farther out you get into the galaxy, the stuff is spinning at the same speed as the stuff that's close to the galaxy.

• 7:07Speaker 02

  Yeah, instead of dropping off, which would be natural.

• 7:10Danny Jones?

  Right, right.

• 7:11Speaker 02

  Yeah, so it builds up, so there are slow speeds at the center, then it builds up because you've got more mass essentially underneath you effectively. And so the speed builds up, but it, there should be a peak and then a drop off. But we don't see that expected drop off that's predicted from both Newtonian mechanics as well as relativity.

• 7:30Danny Jones?

  And dark matter is just like theoretically all around us and it's just the invisible stuff that we don't see because it's electromagnetically indetectable, right? Like, so dark matter would be all around us right now?

• 7:40Speaker 02

  That's right, that's right. It's in this room. Well, that, it also depends on the number density. We don't know what the number density is. So dark matter, individual dark matter particles might be very rare. We think we know the average energy density, but we don't know like how many dark matter particles are there per unit volume necessarily.

• 7:57Danny Jones?

  Hmm.

• 7:58Speaker 02

  You can only guess that.

• 7:59Danny Jones?

  What are your thoughts on the John Wheeler it from bit stuff?

• 8:04Speaker 02

  You mean how everything is?

• 8:06Danny Jones?

  Is like ones and zeros and like the dark matter is like computation, like a computational, you know, cloud of ones and zeros. Like atom, like the idea is everything is a, is a yes or no, right? If you, if you like boil everything down, atoms and protons and neutrons down to everything, it could be, it could be binary bits, right? Is that basically what it from bit is?

• 8:27Speaker 02

  Uh, yeah, but I completely disagree because with quantum mechanics, you have something in between zero and one. That's the whole point behind qubits and quantum computers is that you have more than just zero and one now for the first time.

• 8:39Danny Jones?

  Ah.

• 8:39Speaker 02

  And so I, I, I think that it's interesting speculation and philosophy, but also I'm an experimental physicist. I don't like, I want to know what, what testable prediction can an idea make? If an idea doesn't have a testable prediction, then it's not a scientific theory.

• 8:59Speaker 02

  John Wheeler did a lot of excellent science, outstanding. But he also did a lot of philosophizing, kind of, you know, metaphysics, nothing wrong with that. But if you don't have a testable prediction, I don't, I'm agnostic towards something, I don't know what to think about.

• 9:14Danny Jones?

  Yeah, I don't know how you would test that. And so you're saying quantum, quantum computing would render that irrelevant or render that?

• 9:23Speaker 02

  Well, he'd probably disagree because he'd say, well, it's still bits all the way down. But the thing is with quantum computing, you have the ability to have indeterminate states. It is true that once you make a measurement, everything is still spin up or spin down zero or one. But you also have the indeterminate states that exist prior to measurements, you know, Schrodinger's cat and all that stuff. So, so that's why I'm not really comfortable with that oversimplistic assessment. I would say that everything is zeros and ones because I think we're ignoring what fractions, you know? We're ignoring, you know, rational irrational numbers, you know, pi is irrational number, it's not zero or one. So I just think that's kind of an oversimplification and the world is a lot more nuanced.

• 10:06Speaker 02

  A lot, a lot of supposed theories of everything really like grossly oversimplify the world into one sentence and miss a lot of the nuances, hard to explain with some of the like simplistic ideas.

• 10:17Danny Jones?

  Yeah, it seems like in this realm of research, there's not many things that, that line up well. There's like, there's not many ideas that explain other things, right? Like, like physics doesn't explain consciousness. Like there's, I don't, I don't, I don't see how you can get from like protons and neutrons to consciousness, you know? Like I could see how we could get from something like binary bits. If like you say, we live, we live in some sort of computation, then I would understand consciousness perfectly. Like it's a computer, right? But. There's just some things that just don't make sense to me and that like the it's it's

• 10:56Danny Jones?

  just we try to in science and in physics and in cos- in cosmology and all these different lanes of of research. It's like we always try to find a consensus and a good way to fit this peg into this hole. But like oftentimes it just doesn't work. You know what I'm saying? Like like

• 11:17Speaker 02

  When it doesn't work, though, that's when major new discoveries are made.

• 11:20Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 11:20Speaker 02

  But yeah, consciousness, that's not really physics. Maybe it will be in the end, but I mean that, you know, we've got neurology, we've got biology. Although I often joke, this really annoys my doc biology friends and so is biology is just applied chemistry, chemistry is applied physics. But then a mathematician can come and tell them, this is an ex K C D comic, ma- physics is applied math. So it's really

• 11:42Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 11:43Speaker 02

  So the physics is the, I would say, is the bottom of science is the foundation. However, math, which is not a science, it's a tool, but math is an even deeper foundation than that. So if that makes sense. I I'm actually a big um, big proponent of the Luke Lucas Penrose argument, the Lucas Penrose argument that humans are not machines and they claim to be able to prove that using Gödel's incompleteness theorem. And so I'm a big proponent of that.

• 12:06Danny Jones?

  Humans are not machines?

• 12:07Speaker 02

  Yeah, that the human consciousness cannot be explained as a classical computer. Are you familiar with the Lucas Penrose argument?

• 12:16Danny Jones?

  I'm not familiar with it.

• 12:17Speaker 02

  So this is the idea that it's a very deep idea in philosophy that it's an argument made by uh, Roger Penrose.

• 12:23Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 12:24Speaker 02

  And Lucas, I don't remember his first name unfortunately at the moment, but they made this argument using, you're familiar with Gödel's incompleteness theorem?

• 12:30Danny Jones?

  Nope.

• 12:31Speaker 02

  Okay, so basically, um, you can, it's possible to show that there are true statements that cannot be provable from your assumptions. But since a human being can know that, but a machine cannot know that, therefore, humans are not machines. It's come, I'm grossly oversimplifying it, you know, I'm kind of summarizing it.

• 12:49Danny Jones?

  Can you say it again?

• 12:50Speaker 02

  Yeah, so basically, a human being

• 12:51Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 12:52Speaker 02

  Is capable of seeing a statement. That they know to be true, but cannot be proven from a set of mathematical axioms or assumptions.

• 13:03Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 13:04Speaker 02

  But a computer can't do that. Therefore, the argument goes, computers, and therefore, humans are not computers. At least classical computers, a human brain, or a human mind, if you will. There's another way to look at the argument, which is that as technology improves, biology, neurology, we learn more about the human brain. What if there comes a time where we know everything about the human brain? Everything there is still, we're using functional MRI, everything, we're talking centuries from now, millennia from now.

• 13:34Danny Jones?

  Sure.

• 13:34Speaker 02

  But now that we know that, now we can hack ourselves. Now we can change our own programming, because we know the whole, the whole, the whole program.

• 13:41Danny Jones?

  Sure.

• 13:42Speaker 02

  And because we can think that thought, because I just spoke that thought, according to the Lucas Penrose argument, that proves that I'm not a machine, or that my mind is not equivalent to a classical computer. Now, obviously, a lot of people have pushed back against this, and don't agree with the argument, and try to poke holes in it. So it's been going back and forth, and back and forth. But I'm, I'm a pretty big proponent of this argument, that humans cannot be reduced to just a classical computer.

• 14:09Danny Jones?

  Yeah, no, I don't think you have to reduce us, I, I don't understand really what that even means, like, reducing us to a classical computer.

• 14:17Speaker 02

  Basically.

• 14:18Danny Jones?

  What even is a cla- like, a classical computer? What do you mean by that?

• 14:20Speaker 02

  I'm, I'm saying, basically, let's, let's not think of it from, from a computing perspective, let's switch to a more biological perspective. Another way of putting it is, you know, we're just, um, there's no free will. Everything is just chemical processes, it's basically mushy and wet, but it's the equivalent of silicon chips in a computer. But it's just biology, it's just the biological equipment, just a mushy equivalent of what we do with silicon computer chips. There's no free will, we just, you know, we react to our environments, every action a human being takes is predetermined from chemical processes, biological processes in the brain. So that's sort of the reductionist, um, approach of explaining what consciousness is, or what

• 15:05Speaker 02

  sentience is.

• 15:07Danny Jones?

  Right, right.

• 15:08Speaker 02

  Does that make more sense now?

• 15:09Danny Jones?

  Yeah, that does make sense. And I would agree with you there, that that's not what it is.

• 15:13Speaker 02

  Yeah, I vehemently, I disagree with that, but of course, you know, somebody who believes that would say, of course you do, of course you do, because I was pre-programmed to have that disagreement right now.

• 15:25Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 15:25Speaker 02

  Biologically, I'm conditioned to have that, that belief.

• 15:28Danny Jones?

  I've got to tell you, I am totally obsessed with Rag & Bone infused denim. And thankfully, they happen to sponsor this episode. Their denim feels like it was made for me. Slim where I want it, and relaxed where I need a little extra give. But this ain't your typical old school denim. The first time I tried on a pair of their Infused jeans, I was blown away. They felt broken in right away. The stretch was where it counts, and the structure where you don't want limp denim. I could actually move in them. Honestly, I forgot I was even wearing jeans. You can see it in the stitching, the weight, and the way they hold their shape long after you slip them on. You know how other jeans are? They look awesome, but they fall apart. Or the ones that last are stiff. Not here. With Rag & Bone Infused, you finally get both.

• 16:10Danny Jones?

  The look hits hard, too. Infused uses a proprietary eight-step over dye and finishing process, so every wash has that rich dimensional color that gets better over time. I got mine in a deep indigo black wash. I get asked about them all the time. Rag & Bone has been obsessing over denim craftsmanship for 20 years. Their Infused collection is built to last season after season, soften and settle with wear and lived-in feel. If you want jeans that grow with you instead of wearing you out, Infused is where it's at. It's time to upgrade your denim with Rag & Bone. And for a limited time, our listeners are getting 20% off their entire order

• 16:46Danny Jones?

  with code DANIE at rag-bone.com. That's 20% off at rag-bone.com with the promo code DANIE, spelled D-A-N-N-Y. When they ask you where you heard about them, please support the show and let them know we sent you. It's linked down below. Now, back to the show. Yes, yes, it's just that when it comes to this stuff, that there are, there are so many unique experiments that have been done that just are unexplainable, right? Like, there's, like, the, like, the double slit experiment, or the, like, the Schrodinger's cat, and all these things that, you know...

• 17:27Danny Jones?

  They uh, I don't understand how to explain them like in in the term in terms of physics or like, you know, where do we go from there, you know?

• 17:37Speaker 02

  We don't need to understand something to use it. Nobody knows what time is. Can you define time for me? There is no definition of time and yet we manipulate it. So for example, we use relativistic corrections for GPS satellites in order to account for the fact that time is uh, is is shifting because of speed and gravity. We know this, yet we don't even know what time is. We don't know what energy is, but we manipulate it. So just because we don't understand in a way that can be explained to everybody. We use quantum mechanics on a daily basis. Our computers, our phones wouldn't work without it. And yet, nobody can explain to the satisfaction of to non-scientists at least,

• 18:22Speaker 02

  like, how can something be both a wave and a particle same time? But what's interesting, it doesn't matter. With no explanation, we can still take the mathematical consequences of what we know to be true, follow through with that, and we still have physics and engineering and technology without understanding the foundation, which is very interesting.

• 18:40Danny Jones?

  Yeah, yeah, we can, we can flip the switch and not have to know how exactly how it works.

• 18:44Speaker 02

  Exactly.

• 18:45Danny Jones?

  We're willing to get the light by flipping the switch without, we don't have to really understand exactly how all the electricity works.

• 18:51Speaker 02

  Exactly.

• 18:51Danny Jones?

  All the little circuits.

• 18:52Speaker 02

  Exactly. Before the invention of calculus, for thousands of years, you could cross a room in violation of Zeno's paradox. Are you familiar with Zeno's, Zeno's paradoxes?

• 19:02Danny Jones?

  No.

• 19:02Speaker 02

  The ancient Greeks. So he said, you cannot cross a room. It's impossible. I'll do it right in front of you, right? So it's just, we laugh nowadays, modern people laugh.

• 19:11Danny Jones?

  He said what? You cannot cross a room?

• 19:13Speaker 02

  Because let's say I'm crossing a room. If I cross half of the room, I still need to go half of the room, right? But now if I cross half of that distance, I still have another half to go. And what he shows is that it's an infinite series. But that's because they didn't have the tools of calculus to show that infinite a sum of an infinite number of numbers can sum to a finite number. But the thing is, for thousands of years before we understood that, that didn't stop us from crossing rooms.

• 19:44Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 19:44Speaker 02

  Right, do you see what I mean? So even before you understand something, you can still manipulate it. You can use it. Human beings were able to create fire?

• 19:53Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 19:54Speaker 02

  Without understanding what fire is.

• 19:56Danny Jones?

  Sure.

• 19:56Speaker 02

  For thousands of years, for hundreds of thousands of years.

• 19:59Danny Jones?

  Right, exactly. So what would that do? What do you think would change if we were able to use that little machine that was in there?

• 20:07Speaker 02

  And find dark matter.

• 20:08Danny Jones?

  Find some dark matter.

• 20:08Speaker 02

  Yeah, excellent question.

• 20:09Danny Jones?

  How would you be able to apply that?

• 20:11Speaker 02

  Nothing. Nothing. It has absolutely no practical applications whatsoever. Period. It's the equivalent of the Higgs boson. What has the Higgs boson done in your life today? The God particle or whatever name you might be more familiar with, discovered 2012, looking for decades. What has it done in your life lately?

• 20:31Danny Jones?

  Uh, I mean, I've enjoyed some fun documentaries on it.

• 20:34Speaker 02

  On the particle fever maybe or some of the other documentaries, yeah. Nothing. Now, I'm gonna follow that up, though. When electricity was discovered, what was it good for?

• 20:45Danny Jones?

  All kinds of stuff, light bulbs.

• 20:46Speaker 02

  Nothing. No, no, no, no. I'm saying when it was first discovered. It was good for absolutely nothing. Well, it's not like one thing because it was, it took decades, it took centuries of experimentation by different people. It's Faraday, it's Maxwell. Yeah, so basically what I'm trying to tell you is, here's, here's a story. I don't know if it's true. There's a story that physicists tell that a man asked, um, Faraday, one of the, you know, we've got Faraday's law of induction, one of the most important scientists working in the 19th century, figuring out what electricity and magnetism are. Allegedly, someone asked him what electricity is good for. And he said, "I don't know, but one day you'll be taxing it."

• 21:32Speaker 02

  And so like our electricity runs our lives, but let's go back to the 1840s. Electricity was worthless. It was a game for scientists and engineers to just screw around in the lab. It had no practical applications. So basically, my point about dark matter is, we, I can't answer your question what the practical applications are because nobody knows. No one has the imagination to know what the application could be. Three centuries from now, dark matter could be so integral, part of our lives, like electricity is, or the internet. There's no way to know. I'll give you another example. Anti-matter, another great example. What's that? So anti-matter is when you have, so for every single particle of matter,

• 22:16Speaker 02

  there's a particle of the opposite electric charge, same mass, but opposite electric charge. So there's like proton, there's antiproton, electron, antielectron. But there's another thing that's very important. So when matter and antimatter come together, they annihilate into gamma rays, into radiation, into energy. So like a tiny little bit of antimatter would be, I mean, this was the, I think the plot of Angels and Demons, would be better than a nuclear weapon, way better, like way more efficient. So when antimatter was first discovered in the 1930s, I mean, it was theor- hypothesized before that. But when we first found antimatter in the lab, who would have dreamt that 40, 50, 60 years later, we were using it to diagnose cancer?

• 23:00Speaker 02

  In PET scans, the P in PET scan stands for positron. That's an antielectron. In a PET scan, you're injected with a small, very safe, very small, safe amount of antimatter in order to diagnose where the cancerous tumors, because the cancerous tumors will gobble up more of the antimatter emitting sugar. And who would have dreamt of that? Anti-matter was useless when it was first hypothesized. Useless was discovered. It didn't even have a practical application for at least, I think, four decades, maybe five. And so it's the same thing with dark matter. Previously, I've hypothesized, maybe dark matter could be useful as a fuel for interstellar travel in some way. Because it's everywhere. Why would you want to take your fuel with you?

• 23:43Speaker 02

  Why not use something that's everywhere? Like, I have, I don't know how it would work. I have no idea. There would have to be some kind of reaction, or you'd suck it in, chuck it out the back. Like, I'm not sure how it would be useful, but I, there's just an idea I've thrown out there in the past.

• 23:57Danny Jones?

  Yeah, that's interesting. Have you have you seen um this new discovery of this cosmic microwave background radiation? Where they think it's from a super early galaxy, the radiation from like suns of super early galaxies?

• 24:12Speaker 02

  You must be mixing up a few things because the cosmic microwave background was discovered in the 1960s. So that's very old news.

• 24:17Danny Jones?

  And then No, yes, but what I'm saying is this this new discovery of early uh early massive universes.

• 24:24Speaker 02

  Oh, you're talking about the reionization time, I think. So basically

• 24:27Danny Jones?

  They're saying that that the majority, it could be anywhere between, I think, 1.4 to like 100% of the cosmic background radiation could be from stars from these super early massive universes that they found.

• 24:38Speaker 02

  I have not heard of this.

• 24:39Danny Jones?

  With the James Webb Telescope.

• 24:40Speaker 02

  I have not heard of this.

• 24:41Danny Jones?

  Steve, see if you can find this.

• 24:42Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 24:42Danny Jones?

  It's pretty insane because this kind of like blows up the whole Big Bang Theory. Or like pushes it back, like it like throws off the dates of everything.

• 24:50Speaker 02

  Well, that's fine, but here's the thing, the Big Bang Theory, remember, theory means fact and science, it has overwhelming mountains of evidence. So nothing can overthrow the Big Bang Theory, period. I'm gonna say that right now.

• 25:00Danny Jones?

  Well, maybe not overthrow it, but it significantly throws you

• 25:03Speaker 02

  Yeah, no, we have to change it.

• 25:04Danny Jones?

  Squirrely as fuck.

• 25:05Speaker 02

  No, so what we need to do is, for example, the date could be wrong. So let me clarify what I mean, because we're gonna get all these angry

• 25:10Danny Jones?

  This would mean these, so these galaxies that they found in this uh new study with the James Webb Telescope, they say that they were probably developed, they probably came into existence around 300 to 400 million years after the Big Bang.

• 25:22Speaker 02

  I know what you're talking about now.

• 25:23Danny Jones?

  So it's like, so it's like the typical galaxies take way longer.

• 25:26Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah, no, so I know what you're talking about. So this, this I heard of before already, this has been just quote unquote, discovered and rediscovered the past two, three years, actually. So there have been hints here and there, and James Webb is just the latest piece of evidence of it.

• 25:38Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 25:38Speaker 02

  So basically, what it boils down to

• 25:40Danny Jones?

  Steve, so you can find anything on this? I think I sent you links.

• 25:42Speaker 02

  So what it boils down to is galaxies can can come together much faster than we thought. So that's what it boils down to.

• 25:51Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 25:51Speaker 02

  However, it does not disprove that the universe um uh that the that the that the uh that the the, oh, this is oh, no, this is not what I'm, this, okay, this is something else.

• 26:04Danny Jones?

  New paper shows the cosmic microwave background radiation can be explained entirely by energy recently discovered early mature galaxies.

• 26:10Speaker 02

  This is a crackpot paper.

• 26:11Danny Jones?

  It's crackpot?

• 26:12Speaker 02

  Yeah, this is nonsense. The cosmic microwave background was created 379,000 years after the Big Bang. We've already established that, we've studied it for decades. Like, this is nonsense. Like

• 26:22Danny Jones?

  Well, there, is this, can you zoom in a little bit, Steve?

• 26:27Speaker 02

  Yeah, where's the link to the scientific paper?

• 26:29Danny Jones?

  Uh, but now that EMG, scroll down, it'll probably be down there.

• 26:31Speaker 02

  Where's the link?

• 26:32Danny Jones?

  Let's see, let's see if we can find it. Scroll down. Keep going. Boop, boop, boop, boop. Steve, there you go. Click on it.

• 26:39Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 26:40Danny Jones?

  Bam. "The Impact of Early Massive Galaxy Formation on the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" by Ido...

• 26:46Speaker 02

  And what journal is this published in?

• 26:47Danny Jones?

  Oh, no. What journal is it published in? Does it say?

• 26:51Speaker 02

  Anyway, I'm not a cosmologist.

• 26:52Danny Jones?

  Find out, Steve.

• 26:53Speaker 02

  So, this could go off the...

• 26:54Danny Jones?

  Okay. Um...

• 26:58Speaker 02

  Yeah, this, this happens every few years.

• 27:00Danny Jones?

  So, the cosm... Right, right.

• 27:01Speaker 02

  Someone claims to overthrow the Big Bang Theory, and then it's disproven in five minutes, and then everybody goes back to work. Like, this, this, I've seen this for the past 20 years, every couple of months, so... Yeah, this is not new.

• 27:11Danny Jones?

  You've seen this how often?

• 27:12Speaker 02

  Every few months, there'll be some guy who publishes some paper, or two p- or a pair of people like here, that claims they've got some new cosmological model, and it's always wrong, because they always miss something obvious. Yeah, this is... Yeah, I'm not familiar with this.

• 27:24Danny Jones?

  Not interested in this?

• 27:25Speaker 02

  Nah, not really. I see this every few months. Yeah, this is nonsense. I mean, the cosmic microwave background is like a perfect match.

• 27:33Danny Jones?

  Was it published... Steve, what journal was this published in? I'm still looking.

• 27:37Speaker 02

  But even if, so, I would, I'm gonna lay down, I would lay down some cash right now. This hasn't been published in any journal, it's only on the archive. Because this is, uh, this is, look, you can't wake up tomorrow, and we can't undo something we already know. So, let me explain. There's a lot we still don't know about the universe. But the little bit that we know, we know very, very well. So, like, for example, we can't wake up tomorrow, and like, "Oh, Einstein is wrong." Surefire way to tell a crackpot paper physicist is it starts with "Einstein was wrong, therefore blah, blah, blah." No, it's too late! Because if Einstein was wrong, your GPS wouldn't work. Your phone wouldn't work. Your computer wouldn't work, like... We know that our theories are incomplete, but they're not wrong. There's a difference between wrong and incomplete.

• 28:20Speaker 02

  So, the Big Bang Theory is incomplete! There's so much we still don't know about the beginning of the universe. But these papers that claim 100% wrong, I immediately know it's nonsense.

• 28:29Danny Jones?

  Well, that paper is, I don't think they're claiming it's 100% wrong.

• 28:31Speaker 02

  They are, they are. It's said on the Twitter.

• 28:34Danny Jones?

  It's said, it's said on the Twitter, that they think the C... CMB could, uh, the, the, the early massive galaxies could equate for between one and like a hundred percent. So they don't know. It could be any amount, any, a certain percentage of it.

• 28:46Speaker 02

  But then how can they explain that the CMB matches the dark matter and dark energy ratio? That it has all these other cross checks that have been done with the supernova studies with the Baryon.

• 28:54Danny Jones?

  Well, we don't know because we didn't read the whole thing.

• 28:56Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 28:57Danny Jones?

  But what does this say, Steve?

• 28:58Speaker 04

  Uh, it was published in Nuclear Physics B.

• 29:01Speaker 02

  Nuclear Physics, that's not a cosmology journal.

• 29:04Danny Jones?

  Oh.

• 29:04Speaker 02

  So how are they saying anything about cosmology? That would be the equivalent of, for example.

• 29:08Danny Jones?

  You're gatekeeping.

• 29:09Speaker 02

  Uh, I'm not gatekeeping.

• 29:11Danny Jones?

  You sound like you are.

• 29:11Speaker 02

  No, because they can publish in a cosmology journal and they can get peer review there. No, gatekeeping is when you don't allow someone to get even peer reviewed. This should be peer reviewed.

• 29:20Danny Jones?

  You're discrediting it because you don't think it's in a qualitative journal.

• 29:23Speaker 02

  No, no, no.

• 29:23Danny Jones?

  We haven't even read the whole thing.

• 29:25Speaker 02

  No, but here's the thing. I'm discrediting it because we already know what we know about the cosmic microwave background. It's too late for it to be that level of wrong. It can be one percent wrong. Absolutely. Hundred percent wrong. You said between one and a hundred percent.

• 29:37Danny Jones?

  You said, but between, between one and a hundred is not possible?

• 29:41Speaker 02

  One hundred is not. One, absolutely. Sure. One percent. Absolutely.

• 29:45Danny Jones?

  So, so you, so between one and a hundred is absolutely possible. If you go back to that tweet.

• 29:48Speaker 02

  Yeah, but that's a very bold claim.

• 29:50Danny Jones?

  Go back to the bottom of the tweet, Steve.

• 29:51Speaker 02

  Yeah, but that's a very bold claim.

• 29:52Danny Jones?

  Go back to the bottom of the tweet.

• 29:53Speaker 02

  But look, if you, look, if you go by every single new paper and every single tweet that comes out, you would have 20 different conflicting views of the universe that can't all be right.

• 30:04Danny Jones?

  Hmm.

• 30:04Speaker 02

  So that's another way of looking at it.

• 30:06Danny Jones?

  Well, you also have people who have dedicated their lives to studying for the microwave background.

• 30:10Speaker 02

  Exactly.

• 30:10Danny Jones?

  And so you're going to piss a lot of people off and there's going to be a lot of bias and so.

• 30:13Speaker 02

  No, no, it's not about pissing people off.

• 30:15Danny Jones?

  Well, I mean, this is just normal human, this is just, uh, human nature of this is going to happen. You're going to have comp, competition. You're going to have egos that are hurt. And you're going to have people that disagree with this because for.

• 30:26Speaker 02

  Hurt the egos of people who are dead.

• 30:28Danny Jones?

  There's a lot of people that are alive that have spent decades doing this.

• 30:32Speaker 02

  I know, but, and, and they've spent decades, um.

• 30:35Danny Jones?

  What are you looking at, Steve? What is this?

• 30:37Speaker 04

  So the tweet, okay. So, so this tweet happened in June 30th, right?

• 30:41Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 30:42Speaker 04

  But it's referencing a paper that was published in May.

• 30:45Danny Jones?

  Okay. So a month later.

• 30:49Danny Jones?

  Oh, right. Yes.

• 30:50Speaker 02

  Yeah, but I'm not a cosmologist.

• 30:52Danny Jones?

  So scroll up, scroll up. Let's read this. Let's see this. So zoom in.

• 30:55Speaker 02

  This has nothing to do with what I do.

• 31:00Danny Jones?

  The new findings are accept are if if the findings are accepted and there's no reason not to accept them.

• 31:06Speaker 02

  Exactly. See, that sentence, that's a key crackpot red alarm sentence. No real scientist says that. Like, if I if I found if I found evidence of aliens or dark matter, I would never say, and there's no reason not to accept them. That's ego and that's hubris.

• 31:21Danny Jones?

  This is just somebody on Twitter, basically like recycling it for somebody. This is not the scientist. This is just some Twitter guy. This is some.

• 31:30Speaker 02

  I didn't know that. You didn't say that.

• 31:31Danny Jones?

  This is some guy trying to summarize it for Twitter.

• 31:33Speaker 02

  Oh.

• 31:34Danny Jones?

  Okay, so so here's what the implications are.

• 31:37Speaker 02

  Okay, okay. I think I know what's happening then. Okay, okay. The paper's probably fine. This happens all the time. This is some random person on Twitter exaggerating and over sensationalizing a scientific claim. It would be the equivalent of somebody taking me and Kevin's UAPX paper where we went out and looked for aliens and putting out a tweet and saying that I found the proof that aliens exist. It's it's it's an exaggeration of what's in the real scientific paper.

• 32:07Danny Jones?

  That's possible. That's possible.

• 32:08Speaker 02

  I mean, I see this all the time, all the time.

• 32:11Danny Jones?

  So they're saying cosmic inflation loses observational justification.

• 32:15Speaker 02

  That's fine.

• 32:16Danny Jones?

  CMB power spectrum loses predictive relevance, dark energy inferred from cosmic microwave background may be mischaracterized.

• 32:25Speaker 02

  CMB power spectrum loses predictive relevance. That's really, really improbable. And it has nothing to do with egos, has nothing to do with the fact that people spend decades on it. It's because that's been cross-checked so many different ways so many times already. So like about half of these things on the list are not news to me. Like, yeah, of course, that's wrong and needs fixing. We already knew that. And half of the list are things that are almost impossible to be wrong because there's too many mountains of evidence going back decades. It's not about hubris, not about ego. Truth is not by majority, not at all. Numerous times, numerous times in human history, we've been very wrong about our view of the universe.

• 33:10Speaker 02

  That's getting harder now.

• 33:12Danny Jones?

  If you're like me, you could probably benefit from a little extra peace of mind. And that's where Cornbread Hemp's CBD gummies come in clutch. Sometimes I don't want to be blitzed, and Cornbread's gummies are like a backdoor to relief without the mental effects. I take one of these 750mg CBD gummies whenever I'm feeling stressed or I can't sleep and I just wait for the calmness to wash over my body. Cornbread Hemp uses the best part of the hemp plant, the flower, for the purest potent CBD. They curate effects that specifically help with stress and discomfort, and I find the result to be remarkably effective. They also have formulas for sleeplessness, too. There's no fillers or junk, just full-spectrum goodness. They've made CBD their specialty.

• 33:56Danny Jones?

  My favorite is the berry flavor, but they have several flavors, including capsules if you don't want the sugar. Their products are third-party tested and USDA organic to ensure safety and purity. If you encounter as much stress as I do, then you should try Cornbread's CBD, and you can thank me later. And for a limited time, they're offering you, lucky listeners, 30% off your first order. Don't miss out on this. Just go to cornbreadhemp.com/danny and use my code DANNY at checkout. That's cornbreadhemp.com/danny and use that code DANNY to get 30% off your first order. And thank you to Cornbread Hemp for sponsoring this episode.

• 34:38Speaker 02

  Do you know why that's getting harder? Ancient people, I mentioned Zeno, who was an ancient Greek philosopher earlier, ancient people could just do armchair philosophy and science. They didn't have telescopes, they didn't have microscopes, they have anything. So as science progresses, it's getting very harder to be wrong, completely. Like, you can say, "Ah, this piece of that theory was wrong." Yeah, absolutely. But a wholesale paradigm shift, that's getting less and less probable, it's getting harder and harder to do, because you've got to explain then, "Why were you wrong the last 70 years? How is that possible?" Now you have to go back and explain every single piece of data with the new paradigm. That's getting harder and harder to do as we collect more data. Does that make sense?

• 35:21Danny Jones?

  Yeah, totally.

• 35:21Speaker 02

  It's getting harder and harder.

• 35:22Danny Jones?

  Well, also, the people that, people have to come up, people that have other theories or that have other data, they have to justify if there's something that that comes out that proves it wrong, or they have to look at it wholeheartedly and like fully consider, does this shatter my belief? Or does this shatter and discredit the work that I've spent years doing? And I think a lot of people are incapable of doing that.

• 35:44Speaker 02

  But I don't understand that because I couldn't care less if dark matter didn't exist. I wouldn't go, oh, my God, oh, boo hoo, my ego, all my decades of my life have been wasted. No, not at all, because as I've been working on dark matter, I've also been doing nuclear physics. I've been looking at neutrinos. So basically, the way I look at it is, in my own world of looking for dark matter, I often can, I often encounter people who are like, oh, yeah, what if dark matter doesn't exist? And your whole career is wasted? And I'm like, and I would look at that person, I say, you have no clue how science works. At least how it works to me. I don't give a damn if dark matter is real or not. My goal is not to go prove dark matter is real.

• 36:26Speaker 02

  My goal is to prove or disprove. And so this whole thing about, oh, cosmologists, you're saying egos. A good cosmologist is out there to find the truth. They don't care if they've been wrong for decades. A good scientist is out there to find the truth. Now, you have bad apples.

• 36:44Danny Jones?

  Of course.

• 36:45Speaker 02

  Out there who are people who are so full of themselves that they want their pet experiment or theory to be correct. I'm not one of those people, though. Kevin, who you've had on the show, my good friend Kevin, is also not one of those people. And earlier, look, I'm not gatekeeping. I've, I have suffered from gatekeeping. I have had scientific papers rejected because people didn't like my idea, mainstream idea. And I'm not just talking about UFOs or UAPs. And so I think every scientific paper has a right to have peer review and not be, for example, rejected at the desk. So, but there's, there's different levels of so-called gatekeeping. If something is written by non-scientists, I don't think that's the case here.

• 37:29Speaker 02

  If something's written by non-scientists, some dude in his basement. Has a bachelor's degree in physics and they're gonna redo everything without a PhD. And that's not gonna happen. But a PhD scientist should not be gate gate kept, if that's a word, from doing their work. And including if they have controversial new ideas, absolutely. It should be peer reviewed so that it can be challenged and and and and and there can be back and forth about it.

• 37:54Danny Jones?

  Well, even peer review has been bastardized as well because I've seen plenty of cases where peer reviews have been done on credible academic research and books where people have have peer reviewed something that don't even have the expertise in what they're peer reviewing.

• 38:07Speaker 02

  But that's but that's right.

• 38:08Danny Jones?

  And this happened in specifically in one case where I actually talked to the guy. And I said, hey, can I talk to you about this peer review you wrote on this guy's book where you actually like completely destroyed it? And now no one takes it seriously. He goes, well, it's not really my expertise. You're the only one who did the peer review on it.

• 38:24Speaker 02

  So the system is very broken. It's an imperfect system, but it's still the best we have. It's kind of like jury duty. We all hate jury duty. But can you imagine what our free democratic society would be like without it? It's the same thing with peer review. There are problems. You want to talk about, I'll give you countless examples. I had I had my colleague, Professor Cecilia Levy and I, we discovered a new type of radiation detector to look for dark matter, among other things, called the snowball chamber. We got rejected from multiple journals. We had one peer reviewer say to us, it doesn't smell right. What's that supposed to mean? Is the math right? No, exactly. He said, doesn't pass the smell test. So here's the thing.

• 39:07Speaker 02

  And also, the peer review process can be abused and it can be manipulated. So but

• 39:12Danny Jones?

  And with journals, with money.

• 39:13Speaker 02

  But the solution to that is you fix the process. You don't say, oh, I don't believe in peer review, so I'm gonna read every scientific crack up paper and trust them all immediately now. There's a middle ground between those extremes. And there are plenty of peer reviewed papers that are wrong. This happens all the time in biology and psychology. Yes, physics too, but I'm gonna take the high horse and I look down on biology and psychology. There's I've seen statistics like something like 30%. I hope I'm not wrong on like on that because lots of people make up statistics on the spot. I'm not trying to do that. But I I I have heard it claimed, I don't know if it's accurate, that something like 30% of papers even in Nature magazine end up like who pass peer review, they're wrong.

• 39:53Speaker 02

  And so what I'm trying to say is, is that not being peer reviewed doesn't mean you're automatically wrong, but at the same time, getting peer reviewed doesn't automatically mean you're right. Neither of those extremes are correct.

• 40:06Danny Jones?

  There are top, uh, there's a top Stanford neurosurgeon who came out, who's still practicing, who said, uh, between 80 and 90% of all the medical, medical literature in schools is wrong or outdated.

• 40:19Speaker 02

  I believe it. I believe it. In physics, you can't say that though, because physics is so foundational, the whole town, the whole edifice would collapse. Remember earlier I said how biology is applied chemistry, chemistry is applied physics? There is truth to that statement. And so physics, so in fact, I always get angry at the textbook companies. You can be like, how is this connected? And here's just saying, the basic physics that freshmen learn has been the same for centuries. Okay. Why do I need the 10th edition? Why do I need the 11th edition? It's a money-making scheme. So like physics, you don't learn any cutting-edge physics or new physics until your senior year or graduate school. I'm talking about college, of course, not high school. And so like, why do we need a new

• 41:03Speaker 02

  textbook on Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics? It makes no sense.

• 41:07Danny Jones?

  I saw the statistics on school textbooks, like the amount of money that they make with no new stuff, just the printing. Can you find the stats on that, Steve?

• 41:15Speaker 02

  All they, all they do is shuffle the homework problem numbers around. But so my point is, is that I believe that about the medical research claim you just said, but with physics, no, that's like, I mean, you can do basic experiments to show that most of physics is correct. Like, so, so the basic foundation of physics has been solid for centuries. What's new is like, we've got relativity and quantum mechanics, we're not fully there yet. But classical mechanics is like forces, energies, that's like, that foundational structure is very, very solid. You don't need a new textbook for that every few, every, every year to like, just get money, more money from the students.

• 41:49Danny Jones?

  Right. What is this, Steve? Oh, textbook revenue in 2022, the pre-K through, the K through 12 textbook segment in the United States has generated 5.6 billion in revenue, reflecting 16% growth compared to the previous year. Oh my god.

• 42:04Speaker 02

  Why do I even need a textbook if I can just get a PDF?

• 42:06Danny Jones?

  Despite these increases, the textbook publishing industry has, has generally experienced a decline in revenue since 2015, when it reached 11.9 billion.

• 42:15Speaker 02

  It's declining because of the internet.

• 42:17Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 42:18Speaker 02

  And because of, you know, sneaky professors like me who are like, I'll just use the old edition. Why do I need a new edition? The physics hasn't changed. Why do I need a new edition for freshman physics?

• 42:28Danny Jones?

  Right, right. That's very true. And then the other problem with academia is people are afraid to speak out of their lane. They're afraid to venture out because, and I've experienced this too on the podcast. I've experienced people in academia that are afraid to go on podcasts because how they're gonna be viewed by their, by their peers or by the people that run their department.

• 42:52Speaker 02

  I couldn't care less. I couldn't care less about what people think about me. You know why? I'm interested in only one thing, Danny, and that's to find the truth. And I don't care.

• 43:01Danny Jones?

  Easy to say when you have people threatening to take your funding away.

• 43:05Speaker 02

  Well, I do, I do have, I've already had funding taken, taken away.

• 43:09Danny Jones?

  Have you?

• 43:10Speaker 02

  Yeah. So, so if that was meant to be a dig at me, like that backfired because I already had Doge already freeze my grants. I just, they were frozen for a while.

• 43:20Danny Jones?

  Doge froze your grants?

• 43:22Speaker 02

  Yeah, because dark matter's apparently woke. Yeah. So.

• 43:24Danny Jones?

  What?

• 43:25Speaker 02

  And I, so, so you're not gonna tell me that I'm sitting here saying that theoretically, oh, you know, it's, I'm just here to do the truth and I'm an idealist and then I don't face consequences. I face consequences all the time. I have people making fun of me on a regular basis that I work on UFOs. I've been passed up for jobs because I work on UFOs for better jobs than I currently have. I've been passed up for promotion. So you're not gonna tell me that like I haven't faced the stigma or taboo because I work on UFOs, UAP. Yes, I have. But I'm lucky that I'm at a university now that cherishes what I do and that actually allows it. That I'm very, very lucky. Me and my colleague Kevin you've had on the show.

• 44:07Speaker 02

  And my friends, our friend Cecilia, we're lucky. You're right that many people are not that lucky. They speak out and funding things happen. Absolutely. I'm not trying to downplay that at all.

• 44:17Danny Jones?

  Right. Well, a lot of people are scared.

• 44:19Speaker 02

  Friends of mine, friends of mine, I got lucky. My grant was unfrozen. They decided dark matter's not woke and I can have it back.

• 44:26Danny Jones?

  Oh, did they really?

• 44:26Speaker 02

  Yeah. Yeah. So basically, but I have friends who've lost everything, who've lost NSF funding, who've lost NIH funding. So, so I know people, I have friends and colleagues who lose funding. And some of, sometimes it's because they have. Too big of a mouth, so to speak, right? Which is wrong, right? I'm saying I support them. I wasn't saying that as an insulting way. I'm saying those are the, that's what their critics would say. So, and no, but the thing about, the positive side of academia is when you get tenure, you can't get fired. And that's what's so beautiful. That's why I can work on UFOs with Kevin. That's why John Mack was able to, you know, work with, um, with experiencers, abductees, because he was, had tenure. They still tried to fire him. They still tried to do it.

• 45:10Danny Jones?

  Oh, yeah.

• 45:10Speaker 02

  But guess what?

• 45:11Danny Jones?

  They ruined his life. Tried to.

• 45:13Speaker 02

  They tried to, but it backfired. Because here's the thing. For all of its flaws, academia allows you to work on whatever the hell you want after you have tenure and you're unfireable. Tenure is under assault right now. There are several states. Actually, I'm not sure. I think Florida might be one of them. I know Ohio's one of them, where tenure no longer exists. And so now if you're a professor, you're going to stay in the closet forever on whether it's UFOs, aliens, or whatever, you can get fired like that. Now, like what happened with John Mack. I'm not saying tenure's perfect, absolutely not, but notice what happened with him. It backfired. Did he get fired in the end? No. They couldn't do it. They couldn't find any wrongdoing and he had tenure. And so there are, there are guardrails that allow people like me to just go off and, you know, work on UFOs.

• 45:59Danny Jones?

  Wow. I didn't know tenure was removed in Florida. That's crazy.

• 46:02Speaker 02

  I, I, we should check that to see if that's accurate. In Ohio, for sure. For sure, this just happened recently.

• 46:08Danny Jones?

  And is this something they're trying to, they're trying to do nationwide?

• 46:11Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 46:11Danny Jones?

  And who's behind it?

• 46:13Speaker 02

  Well, um, a lot of MAGA folks are behind it, unfortunately.

• 46:16Danny Jones?

  Are they? Really?

• 46:17Speaker 02

  Yeah. So they, which I don't understand because in my, in, I have known for years, tenure protects conservative professors. They can come out of the Republican closet after they have tenure.

• 46:28Danny Jones?

  Jordan Peterson's a great example.

• 46:29Speaker 02

  Yeah, exactly. Jordan Peterson. I like Jordan.

• 46:30Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 46:31Speaker 02

  He's a great, you gotta have tenure. And so they're the, it's, you know, the old expression, cutting off your nose to spite your face? So they're just doing a self, it's a suicidal. It's very damaging because tenure protects Republican and conservative professors. Oh yeah, here's a list. Florida's on the list, see?

• 46:48Danny Jones?

  As of 2025, several states have either removed or significantly weakened tenure protection for educators.

• 46:53Speaker 02

  Exactly. Florida's on the list.

• 46:54Danny Jones?

  Arkansas, North Carolina, North Dakota, Kansas, Wisconsin.

• 46:57Speaker 02

  Yeah, I don't know why Ohio's not listed there, but definitely Ohio has happened to as well. So, but what this does is it means it's worse than what you said earlier, Danny.

• 47:07Danny Jones?

  Why are they doing this though, Steve? Can you find out why?

• 47:09Speaker 02

  They're doing it because it's a punishment for liberal schools. Is the idea is we're gonna fire all the liberal professors, but what they don't understand is-

• 47:16Danny Jones?

  Just to fire all the liberals.

• 47:17Speaker 02

  Yeah, but tenure-

• 47:18Danny Jones?

  That would be firing all of them.

• 47:19Speaker 02

  I did not, yeah, well-

• 47:20Danny Jones?

  There'll be no professors left.

• 47:22Speaker 02

  Well, that's not true, but the thing is, but tenure protects the freedom you get. There's a term for this, academic freedom.

• 47:29Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 47:29Speaker 02

  Is a beautiful thing.

• 47:30Danny Jones?

  Sure.

• 47:31Speaker 02

  So, when you're funding, let's say your federal funding is cut.

• 47:35Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 47:36Speaker 02

  You know what you can do?

• 47:36Danny Jones?

  Cause I protested the war in Israel.

• 47:38Speaker 02

  You can find, you can go find private donors, you can continue your work. I'm not saying it's easy, but you can keep going.

• 47:44Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 47:44Speaker 02

  And so that's what Kevin and I are doing is we're looking for private, you know, donors to get to keep the UFO work going.

• 47:49Danny Jones?

  Hmm. Yeah, it seems like a lot of the UFO stuff is funded by private institutions.

• 47:56Speaker 02

  Well, there's no federal funding, cause you know, there's still so much stigma against the topic.

• 47:59Danny Jones?

  There's a lot of federal funding, but it's just dark, black budget.

• 48:01Speaker 02

  Oh, yeah, yeah, of course, absolutely. But see, I want transparency and openness.

• 48:06Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 48:07Speaker 02

  On this topic, which we sort of-

• 48:09Danny Jones?

  Which we'll never get.

• 48:10Speaker 02

  Started sliding into-

• 48:11Danny Jones?

  You can want it all you want, we're never gonna get it.

• 48:13Speaker 02

  Of course we're not gonna get it. Of course we're not, that's why people like me and Kevin are doing our own thing.

• 48:19Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 48:19Speaker 02

  Without government funding, without their blessing, because we know it's hopeless to wait for disclosure. That's not happening.

• 48:25Danny Jones?

  One other thing I wanted to ask you about, um, did you see this new, uh, planet they discovered?

• 48:31Speaker 02

  There have been so many new ones discovered, I know which one.

• 48:33Danny Jones?

  This one was just a couple of weeks ago called Amanite.

• 48:37Speaker 02

  Oh, that must be its nickname. Usually the name is like Kepler seventy-five, six, yeah.

• 48:41Danny Jones?

  It was called, it was called K fourteen.

• 48:43Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 48:43Danny Jones?

  K, um-

• 48:44Speaker 02

  So many planets are new discovered, I can't keep up with the new discoveries, yeah.

• 48:48Danny Jones?

  So they, they said that it weakens the sixth planet theory, or the ninth planet theory.

• 48:55Speaker 02

  Oh, you mean within our system?

• 48:57Danny Jones?

  Yeah, oh yeah, they're saying-

• 48:58Speaker 02

  Oh, you're not talking about an exoplanet?

• 49:00Danny Jones?

  They think it's, they think it's like a, a planet that was a, originally a part of our solar system.

• 49:04Speaker 02

  Or rogue planet that was ejected, yeah, got ejected, yeah, yeah.

• 49:07Danny Jones?

  And now it's got this crazy, like, oblong, um-

• 49:10Speaker 02

  Yes, yes, yes. 2024.

• 49:14Danny Jones?

  KQ 14, yeah.

• 49:16Speaker 02

  Oh, it was a couple of years ago, 2023.

• 49:18Danny Jones?

  Oh, okay, I just saw it recently.

• 49:20Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah, this is very interesting. It's one of those like objects that are out past Pluto's.

• 49:25Danny Jones?

  I sent you a whole thing on this, Steve, on your texts. But yeah, no, it's um.

• 49:29Speaker 02

  But we're constantly making new discoveries in astronomy like this. For the most part, it's stuff outside of our solar system, but we're also making discoveries inside of our solar system.

• 49:37Danny Jones?

  Right, right, or just like on the edge of our solar system. It shows like how little we know just about like outside this, the the borders of our solar system. It's crazy.

• 49:47Speaker 02

  Well, you know, to tie this back to also, we talked a lot about my my mainstream scientific effort, which until a few, until, you know, until the last, until the current presidential administration was never controversial. Mainstream scientific effort was dark matter.

• 50:01Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 50:02Speaker 02

  And that effort. Um, one thing I forgot to say earlier is that dark matter, we think, makes up 25% of the universe. Dark energy, 75%. That leaves, and so of the of the 25% matter, about 20% is dark matter, about 5% is ordinary matter, roughly.

• 50:20Danny Jones?

  And what's the difference between dark matter and dark energy?

• 50:23Speaker 02

  Um, they're completely different. We just, we just share the word dark. But here's what's really interesting. We understand something like 4.6% of the universe. This ties into everything we were talking about earlier, because how do we know this pie chart that I just told you? We know this based on the cosmic microwave background radiation that we were talking about earlier. So and how do we know that's not wrong? Because earlier we were talking about, oh, cosmic microwave background's wrong. This is new paper. Here's how we know it's not wrong. Because we cross-checked the cosmic microwave background studies with supernovas, with what's called baryon acoustic oscillation, which is a whole bunch of other things. So but the bottom line is we understand about 4.6% of the universe. So what does that mean? There's over 95% of the universe.

• 51:09Speaker 02

  That we have no idea what it is. So my point earlier was like that this theory is correct or that what I was trying to say is the little part we know, we know it very well because we wouldn't have our modern technology without. We know that 4.6% very well. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a whole bunch more to discover. There is dark matter, dark energy. We don't know what those things are, but it's even worse than that. So of that 4.6%, three quarters is hydrogen in stars and galaxy. One quarter is helium. See a problem, any problem with what I just said? What does that add up to? Three quarters, one quarter?

• 51:50Danny Jones?

  A whole?

• 51:51Speaker 02

  Exactly. So where's, where's oxygen, carbon, where's everything else? Everything that's inside of you and me.

• 51:56Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 51:57Speaker 02

  We are this, we are, all of life is the sub, sub, sub 1% dregs of the universe. We're not even important enough.

• 52:06Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 52:06Speaker 02

  To come up on the cosmic pie chart. And so what I'm saying is there's still so much more to learn and so much more to discover.

• 52:14Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 52:15Speaker 02

  But earlier, so when I get mad when I'm like, oh, somebody says we don't understand this 4.6%. We understand the 4.6% very well. The, the thing is, is we don't need to keep overturning what we already know. We need to look to new frontiers. We have new frontiers of things we know nothing about. We've been studying the cosmic microwave background for decades. We've been studying galaxies for decades. We have no idea what dark energy is or dark matter is. Well, some theoretical physicists say they have some ideas. Nobody knows for sure. We understand a tiny sliver of the universe.

• 52:48Danny Jones?

  Right. Yeah.

• 52:50Speaker 02

  Could we see the pie chart actually?

• 52:51Danny Jones?

  It's also, it's all, it's also crazy how as far, as far as like things like particle physics, how we've done these things, like we had the Large Hydrogen Collider and all this stuff. And like we've got, we've done nothing. We've figured out nothing ever since. You know, there's, and there's also theories out there that like, um, I think Eric Weinstein talks about like how string theory was like supposed to be a smokescreen to like get us off the path of, of moving forward in physics.

• 53:17Speaker 02

  Yeah, I, you know, it's real, no, no, no, that's the wrong, the wrong chart. The, there, lower left, there, there, there, that's the chart I was talking about. This is the pie chart of the entire universe.

• 53:28Danny Jones?

  Dark matter, dark energy.

• 53:30Speaker 02

  See what I, and see, look at, at that four, approximately four percent, that's, that's, that's the ordinary matter.

• 53:37Danny Jones?

  And that's like you and me.

• 53:38Speaker 02

  Exactly, except not, because most of that four percent is hydrogen and helium. So see, most of its star, a lot of its stars, in those stars is hydrogen and helium.

• 53:47Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 53:47Speaker 02

  Look at where the heavy elements are. 0.03 percent, that's the heavy elements.

• 53:52Danny Jones?

  Wow.

• 53:53Speaker 02

  And by heavy elements, it doesn't mean ultra heavy. It literally means, I think in this chart, anything heavier than hydrogen or helium. My point is here, is that, look, I, I walk a balance, I walk a balance between confidence in what science has already figured out, balanced with the humility that there's still so much more to figure out. But I'm not at either extreme. I'm not at the extreme that we already know everything, there's nothing left to figure out. That is so wrong. That is patently false. And then I'm not at, I'm not at the other extreme that, oh, we know nothing and we're still figuring things out. That's not true. We know a lot, all right?

• 54:34Speaker 02

  So, but the thing is, the truth is somewhere in the middle, but the truth is also, there's a lot we still don't understand.

• 54:42Danny Jones?

  You know when someone asks you how you're doing and your automatic response is, I'm great. And that got me thinking, what if I actually meant it? And that's where today's sponsor Headspace comes in. Headspace is an app that has helped me and over 100 million people actually improve their mental health and well-being. Guided meditations, breathing exercises, mindfulness practices, it's all there. Since I've started using Headspace, I feel way less stressed, I sleep better, my mind is clearer, and my mood is more elevated. And it's nice to feel this way without having to use any kind of medications. What I like is how personalized it feels. Whether you're brand new to meditation or you've been at it for years, there's always something that fits. Even on crazy, busy days, I'll throw on one of their on-the-go programs. It's just a few

• 55:27Danny Jones?

  Few minutes and I feel totally reset. And when I want to dive deeper, there's over a thousand hours of content taught by real experienced teachers. For me, the biggest shift has been learning how to slow down and quiet my mind at night. And that's been huge for improving my sleep and my energy the next day. Headspace really makes mindfulness practical. So the next time somebody asks, how are you? You can actually mean it. Feel good and mean it when you say it. For a limited time, get Headspace free for 60 days. Just go to headspace.com/dannyjones. That's H E A D S P A C E dot com slash Danny Jones to unlock all of Headspace for free for 60 days. Headspace.com/dannyjones. It's linked down below. Now back to the show.

• 56:12Danny Jones?

  What, what, what do you make of the idea? How much do you know about like what was going on with physics research in the 50s? I think it was with like this gravity research that like went dark and supposedly like went underground.

• 56:26Speaker 02

  Yeah, I've heard a lot about this. I have, I have a very controversial take on it. You're not gonna like.

• 56:30Danny Jones?

  I love controversial takes.

• 56:31Speaker 02

  I think it went dark because it doesn't work.

• 56:33Danny Jones?

  Oh, really?

• 56:34Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 56:34Danny Jones?

  Interesting.

• 56:35Speaker 02

  I mean, there.

• 56:36Danny Jones?

  Have you looked into Thomas Townsend Brown?

• 56:38Speaker 02

  Yes, I have. Yes, I have.

• 56:39Danny Jones?

  What do you make of him?

• 56:40Speaker 02

  I, if, if he had, if there were actual revolutionary ideas that worked, they would have been reproduced already. You can't keep science dark forever because someone else would accidentally stumble upon the same idea. So like, let's say, for example, take an example, say you suppressed Einstein and tried to stop relativity. Let's say you were a time traveler and for whatever reason, you wanted to stop human advancement. Kind of like in the three body problem, right? You're with the, let's say you wanted to stop Einstein. Wouldn't have worked because Minkowski would have come up with relativity. Or if not Minkowski, then Paul and Corre was very close to relativity. And so you can't stop an entire field of research and ideas because someone else would accidentally stumble upon. It might take decades. Don't get me wrong. Well, it might take decades.

• 57:25Danny Jones?

  Well, the, it could vary plausibly. What could have happened was if they, they could have been monitoring everybody who's been even getting remotely close to it. And then pulling them in. Through through time.

• 57:36Speaker 02

  It's possible, but I'm skeptical. And the reason is, is because conspiracies would fall apart eventually. I'll give you an example. So for a long time, so astronomers developed something for our new telescopes, for the ground-based ones. You know, we're talking about James Webb. There's also ground-based telescopes.

• 57:51Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 57:51Speaker 02

  Like a giant Magellan telescope.

• 57:53Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 57:53Speaker 02

  So we developed-

• 57:54Danny Jones?

  What's the other one? The Subaru? Is there one called Subaru?

• 57:56Speaker 02

  Not that I know of.

• 57:57Danny Jones?

  Like, isn't like the South Pole or something?

• 57:58Speaker 02

  Yeah, I'm not an astronomer, so unfortunately, I don't know the names of all the telescopes. But so for the giant Magellan telescope and for other telescopes like it, we're using something called adaptive optics. So what adaptive optics is, is where you cancel out the twinkling of stars and astronomical objects. The way you do that is you fire a laser into the sky, and you use that laser as your calibration of the, you know, like the thermal convection and like the atmospheric aberration. That's a way to get as good or almost as good or even better images-

• 58:32Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 58:32Speaker 02

  From the ground as from outer space. Saves money, right? You still need space-based telescopes like James Webb, Vera Rubin, right? But here's the, but when astronomers invented adaptive optics, guess what happened? The US Navy said, oh yeah, we developed that 30 years ago.

• 58:49Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 58:49Speaker 02

  It was secret. So yeah, things like this can happen, but my point is they can't last forever. So there's hope. There's hope. So even if there was anti-gravity, but also I don't even understand what anti-gravity means. And I have good friends who researched this. I have good friends in Falcon, um, space and Flux Space, uh, Mark Sokol, Jared Yates, uh, Tim Venture, a lot of these guys in APEC, the Alternative Propulsion Engineering Conference. I'm good friends with these guys. But the thing is, but I think they appreciate my, um, my skepticism with them and we go back and forth. I told them, look, anti-gravity already exists. It's called, you know, a superconductor or a magnet, a repelling magnet. Like, as a physicist, I don't even know what that word is supposed to mean because to me, we already have anti-gravity. I can do it right now. An airplane is anti-gravity.

• 59:35Speaker 02

  It uses Bernoulli's principle, Newton's third law. So like, I don't even know what that word's supposed to mean anymore. You know what I mean? Like, I hope that, like, there are forces. This is physics one. This is physics one. 101 textbook physics. I can take forces and I can cancel them out. That's physics 101. If I have gravity pulling me down, I create an equal opposite force the other way. Like, this is centuries old physics. So I'm not sure, like, when usually when people use the term anti-gravity, they mean some magical thing we haven't thought of yet. When, when I think of it, I'm like, but we already, we already have anti-gravity. We have airplanes, we have magnets, so I don't.

• 1:00:08Danny Jones?

  Well, I mean, I'm not the kind of person to describe this to you, but a lot of people have been on the show and described how, and have been on other podcasts as well and explained theoretically, you know, how this would work. And there's been lots of experiments to try to do it. I know.

• 1:00:20Speaker 02

  And the experiments all fail. Well, I'm friends with Mark Sokol and Jared Yates. You should have one of them on the show, actually. But their entire, they've been laughed at as crackpots. They've been insulted by people. I love these guys. They're not crackpots. You know what they do? They take every crazy idea and they're like, hey, what if that anti-gravity idea is true? They test it. Doesn't work.

• 1:00:39Danny Jones?

  Have you ever heard of Jack Sarfati?

• 1:00:41Speaker 02

  Yes, I can't stand him. I, I will do anything for him.

• 1:00:46Danny Jones?

  Shocking.

• 1:00:46Speaker 02

  I, for him to get off his email list. If it means I have to tell him now on, on this show that he's the best physicist who ever lived, I will do anything to get off his email list.

• 1:00:55Danny Jones?

  What do you think about his theories of like warp drive?

• 1:00:57Speaker 02

  I cannot say.

• 1:00:58Danny Jones?

  Have you looked into it?

• 1:00:59Speaker 02

  I have thoroughly. I cannot say because he'll threaten to sue me for libel. He already has, and I just don't want to deal with that. Because, look, I got, I have a wife and who doesn't work. I have four kids. I already take huge risks working on UFOs. There's a stigma.

• 1:01:13Danny Jones?

  He's not gonna.

• 1:01:14Speaker 02

  I, no, I don't think he has the money to do so, but still. I, but I, well, I'm also going to get an angry email. If I tell him what I actually think about him right now on the show, I'll get an angry email from him.

• 1:01:24Danny Jones?

  Who cares?

• 1:01:25Speaker 02

  Okay, if he was right about this stuff that he's doing, he could go to Home Depot and do it. He claims he can warp spacetime with a nine-volt battery. Go do it! Do it right now. Prove it to everybody. So like, I cannot stand Jack. He just spouts theories with no experimental evidence.

• 1:01:41Danny Jones?

  Do you know what the Bifield Brown effect is and how it works?

• 1:01:43Speaker 02

  Yes, yes, I do.

• 1:01:44Danny Jones?

  So do you know that that was?

• 1:01:45Speaker 02

  It's a great effect and it's real.

• 1:01:47Danny Jones?

  We can do it.

• 1:01:47Speaker 02

  Yes, we can. Just, but there's no new physics there.

• 1:01:50Danny Jones?

  So for people who don't know, can you explain what it is? Like, can you distill it down to something that's easy to understand?

• 1:01:54Speaker 02

  Yes, absolutely.

• 1:01:57Speaker 02

  It's when you can't, so there isn't, there is a way, and they tested this on Mythbusters as well, and it works. What you can do is using high voltage, you can ionize the air. And that allow, that produces a force that counteracts the force of gravity, and allows you to have an aircraft or airship that floats in the air. There's no new physics involved. It's just engineering. It's just new engineering. So people-

• 1:02:21Danny Jones?

  This is like ion wind, right?

• 1:02:23Speaker 02

  Yeah, exactly. People worship this effect as if it's magic. It's not magic. It's well-known physics that's been around for decades. It's cool. It's a cool trick. And I, we could have ships that capitalize it, absolutely. There's nothing weird about that at all. We might have some black ops project that uses it, absolutely.

• 1:02:40Danny Jones?

  Well, the B2 bombers are coated in like something, uh, they're covered, not the B2, the stealth bombers, the B2 stealth planes, they have this sort of a, like a skin on them.

• 1:02:49Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:02:50Danny Jones?

  That's supposed to have some sort of like an extra ion wind uplift.

• 1:02:53Speaker 02

  It's entirely possible, but here's the thing.

• 1:02:55Danny Jones?

  Steve, can you, by the way, sorry to interrupt, real quick. Steve, can you find that video that we, that we had Jeremy show us of the, yeah, there we go.

• 1:03:03Speaker 02

  Oh!

• 1:03:05Danny Jones?

  Do you know what this is? How's this working? This is, this is in a vacuum.

• 1:03:09Speaker 02

  I'm there. I'm off camera during this.

• 1:03:11Danny Jones?

  Are you really?

• 1:03:12Speaker 02

  I was visiting Falcon Space during this test. Yes.

• 1:03:14Danny Jones?

  No way.

• 1:03:15Speaker 02

  Mark Sokol's my friend at Falcon Space. This is what I'm trying to tell you, is Mark is one of those guys who tests every crazy idea. Occasionally, the idea works. This is an idea that actually works. The vast majority of anti-gravity ideas are garbage.

• 1:03:31Danny Jones?

  So what is, can you explain this?

• 1:03:33Speaker 02

  So, can you zoom out so I can refresh my memory?

• 1:03:37Danny Jones?

  This is the frame of the video.

• 1:03:38Speaker 02

  Oh, no, no, no, just the description of the video. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, see, B filled Brown effect. So basically-

• 1:03:43Danny Jones?

  In a vacuum chamber.

• 1:03:44Speaker 02

  Yeah, so basically, but what's weird here is you should need air for the effect to work.

• 1:03:49Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:03:49Speaker 02

  And so that what's really interesting here is it seems to be, it seems to be working without air, where you're getting propulsion from electricity, but in a high vacuum. And that's interesting. That's very interesting. It could suggest something. Now, and I said this to Mark, I told you, I'm good friends with Mark, but we get in fights and arguments. I tell him, look, it rotates. Prove it better to me. Show it taking off. He can't because, well, he's cramped in his lab. He can't just make it take off in one direction. So I'm not convinced it would be useful for outer space.

• 1:04:19Danny Jones?

  Wow, it feels like it's ramping up there.

• 1:04:21Speaker 02

  Yeah, it's, well, he's tuning the voltage. But yeah, I was literally there during the test. One of these tests, at least, I don't know for the YouTube video one, but, but yeah, Mark is a great guy. And what he's doing is he tests all these crazy anti-gravity ideas.

• 1:04:35Danny Jones?

  So how could you theoretically test this on like, make this bigger and make this something that's like?

• 1:04:41Speaker 02

  What I would do is try to send it in a straight line instead of rotating. He's got it rotating because he's got a tight space, you know, in his lap. I would send it in a straight line because the reason is in physics, there's a difference between angular momentum and linear momentum. So just because something can spin on its own without a propellant, doesn't mean it can go straight on its own. Those two things are not necessarily equivalent. But you have to understand, so another thing I would do is pull even higher vacuum. Because I'm wondering if there's residual air, there's always, you can never get, no such thing as a perfect vacuum. I'm wondering if it's ionizing the residual air in there. Mark says no, like I said, I've had back and forth with him. But see, this is the difference between theory and experiment. Anyone can come on a podcast with their grand anti-gravity theory.

• 1:05:26Speaker 02

  But these are the guys who are trying to make it a reality. People like Mark at Falcon Space. They're actually trying to make something happen. Mark will be the first person to tell you this, the vast majority of the ideas he tests, garbage. They're nonsense. Occasionally though, he gets something promising. But the vast majority of anti-gravity theories are wrong. Well, they're self-contradictory, right? You've got dozens of people say, oh, it's this effect, it's that effect, it can't be, is it gonna be all those effects? And so occasionally though, you hit upon something that looks promising like this, like in this case with the B. Phil Brown effect. I have no, I have very little doubt, I'm sure we have black ops, you know, planes that use something like this, absolutely. But to me, this is not new science. This is new engineering.

• 1:06:11Speaker 02

  There's a big difference. So this is a beautiful example of the difference between science and engineering. I'll give you another one like this. Take a guess what year it was when humans finally understood how to make airplanes. Take a guess, like understood how theoretically.

• 1:06:31Danny Jones?

  Theoretically.

• 1:06:31Speaker 02

  Theoretically.

• 1:06:33Danny Jones?

  Eighteen hundreds? Seventeen hundreds?

• 1:06:37Speaker 02

  Earlier.

• 1:06:37Danny Jones?

  Really? Uh.

• 1:06:39Speaker 02

  Sixteen eighty-seven.

• 1:06:40Danny Jones?

  Sixteen eighty-seven.

• 1:06:41Speaker 02

  Newton's, once we had Newton's physics, we knew how to make airplanes. So my question to you is, what the hell took humanity so long to do it?

• 1:06:49Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:06:50Speaker 02

  You know what the answer is? Engineering. So, there's a difference between physics and a difference between engineering.

• 1:06:58Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 1:06:59Speaker 02

  We have Einstein's theory of relativity.

• 1:07:01Danny Jones?

  And then how come we can't make better planes? How come we use the same planes as we've been using since the fifties?

• 1:07:06Speaker 02

  We've been using the same planes for decades.

• 1:07:08Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 1:07:09Speaker 02

  Did you know that when we canceled the Concorde? That was the first time in human history that technology has gone backwards instead of forwards.

• 1:07:23Danny Jones?

  Well, also, you could argue the Apollo, the Apollo program as well.

• 1:07:28Speaker 02

  That's a, yeah, but it's around the same time. Apollo wasn't canceled yet. So no, my statement still stands. Apollo was still doing multiple missions in the seventies.

• 1:07:35Danny Jones?

  Well, they, yeah, they.

• 1:07:36Speaker 02

  They was not canceled yet.

• 1:07:37Danny Jones?

  After seventy-two, they completely, they're.

• 1:07:39Speaker 02

  Yeah, so it's around the same time.

• 1:07:41Danny Jones?

  If you ask ChatGPT what happened to the Apollo technology, it will tell you that NASA's official statement was they accidentally uh, overwrote the hard drives with all the data. So they, oh, we accidentally erased it all, sorry.

• 1:07:51Speaker 02

  Apollo's another example, but let me, let me go back to my Concorde example, because it affects our daily lives.

• 1:07:55Danny Jones?

  Yes, sorry to derail you.

• 1:07:56Speaker 02

  No, it's okay, for the first time in human history, it took more time to cross the Atlantic or Pacific instead of less.

• 1:08:05Danny Jones?

  Wow.

• 1:08:06Speaker 02

  Do you realize, I get so, I get so angry with everybody who tells me technology, oh, it improves exponentially.

• 1:08:13Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:08:13Speaker 02

  Bullshit. If it actually improved exponentially, I could get on a plane right now. And in five minutes, I'd be home in New York. If technology improved exponentially. Why aren't airplanes improving exponentially? I'll tell you why. It's because of economics, it's because of practicality, you know, what people will pay for. And so that's why I'm not going to completely dismiss, I'm skeptical, but I'm open to the possibility that there's some secret anti-gravity program. You know why? Because it would upset the apple cart of all the airlines are suddenly out of business, right? Right?

• 1:08:49Danny Jones?

  Totally.

• 1:08:50Speaker 02

  People on your podcast have said the same thing, I'm sure. Exactly.

• 1:08:53Danny Jones?

  Well, also, these companies, uh, they, they control, they control every, they have, they, they have a monopoly on, on what they do, like Boeing and these companies. And not only that, but they-

• 1:09:05Speaker 02

  It's worse than that.

• 1:09:05Danny Jones?

  They literally own Congress, right?

• 1:09:08Speaker 02

  It's worse than that. They pretend not to have a monopoly. Do you know what the trick is?

• 1:09:14Danny Jones?

  Kill people.

• 1:09:14Speaker 02

  No, no, no, no, whoa. I, sometimes, in extreme cases, I'm sure that happens.

• 1:09:19Danny Jones?

  How many Boeing whistleblowers accidentally committed-

• 1:09:21Speaker 02

  No, no, no. Like, you're right, that happens too, but that's not where I was going, but you're right. And in Russia, you have an accident, you have an unfortunate window accidents, that's how they do, do you in Russia. Or you find polonium in your borscht, that's the other way. But you're, you're partially right about that, I was going in different direction. But the direction I was going is, they have a secret game they play, where, all companies do this, by the way. I forget what the exact term is of this, it's not a monopoly, it's like an oligopoly, I think. Where basically, you don't shit in my turf, and I stay out of your turf. So for example, with airlines, there are some airports where only one airline flies there. And there's another airport, a different airline flies to that one, because they've all made a deal.

• 1:10:04Danny Jones?

  Yes.

• 1:10:05Speaker 02

  You stay away, United, Delta, America, stay out of our, our, our hubs. It's the same thing with internet. At home, my wife and I and kids have the absolute shittiest internet service you can imagine. What can we do about it?

• 1:10:21Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:10:21Speaker 02

  What can we do? Nothing. Can we switch to another provider? No, you know why? It's only one provider. And if you go to Philadelphia, there's one provider, you go to Boston, and they go, oh, we're not a monopoly, because they're in different parts of the country. So that's the sneaky stuff they do. So yeah, I'm, I, I am-

• 1:10:40Speaker 02

  I believe there's probably secret stuff and military industrial complex and all that. But the story I told earlier of adaptive optics makes me hopeful. People like Mark and his work at Falcon Space make me hopeful that other people are gonna rediscover the secret stuff. And, and now in the age of internet, it's impossible to stop everyone and bring everyone in. It's not gonna happen. It's gonna fall apart. So I'm optimistic. I'm optimistic.

• 1:11:06Danny Jones?

  What, what happened with the Concorde?

• 1:11:09Speaker 02

  Safety. It crashed once or twice and people are like, oh my god!

• 1:11:12Danny Jones?

  And what made it, what made it so special?

• 1:11:14Speaker 02

  Well, it was, it was, it was supersonic. You could, you could cross the Atlantic in four hours.

• 1:11:19Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 1:11:20Speaker 02

  So it was the best air, it was the, it was the fastest commercial airplane ever developed. You could get on a plane in New York.

• 1:11:26Danny Jones?

  And what year was this?

• 1:11:27Speaker 02

  And in four hours, it was canceled in the seventies.

• 1:11:28Danny Jones?

  The seventies.

• 1:11:29Speaker 02

  It was around the same time as Apollo. Apollo, Apollo is another good example you gave me. Did you know that Elon Musk's fastest rocket that he wants to use to get to the moon? It's about equal to the Saturn V or slightly slower. Again, where's the exponential technology improvement?

• 1:11:48Danny Jones?

  Well, Elon also said to get to the moon, they would have to have, I think it was five refueling stops. Was that right, Steve?

• 1:11:54Speaker 02

  That's insane. We didn't need that in sixty-nine or in the seventies.

• 1:11:57Danny Jones?

  We got, we got there, we got there first try in sixty-nine.

• 1:12:00Speaker 02

  That's the example, technology moving backwards. I'm optimistic that we'll start moving forwards again. Oh, let's not go there.

• 1:12:08Danny Jones?

  See, that's another academia problem. Academics aren't allowed to talk about the moon landing not happening.

• 1:12:12Speaker 02

  No, because there were multiple landings. So the moon landing thing is one of the things that really, that's one of the buttons that pushes me to really piss me off.

• 1:12:18Danny Jones?

  That's the one, that's the one where you're an automatic, you're an automatic fool if you question it.

• 1:12:23Speaker 02

  Correct. And I'm saying that not as an academic.

• 1:12:26Danny Jones?

  It's not as bad as Flat Earth, but it's the next one.

• 1:12:28Speaker 02

  Yes, but I'm not saying that as an academic. I'm saying it as a rational human being.

• 1:12:33Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:12:34Speaker 02

  Because hundreds of engineers would not have been, Russia would have, look, we could spend three hours debunking the moon landing. Cause I can do it and crush every single thing any moon hoaxer has ever said, but it would take three hours. And I, I think that's not where we wanna, we wanna spend our rest of our time today.

• 1:12:50Danny Jones?

  Correct, correct.

• 1:12:50Speaker 02

  But that's a good example, but here's the thing. My reaction there seemed emotional, but my, it's like flat earth. My rejection is as a rational human being. I know so many hundreds of things that disprove it that to me it's a waste of time to talk about. Does that make sense? Whereas, and I, you, someone would say, oh, you're being hypocritical with UFOs and aliens. I'm like, no, are you kidding me? There's mountains of evidence for UFOs, like from everywhere, from all directions.

• 1:13:16Danny Jones?

  And during, also during that period in time during the Cold War, there was more bullshit happening in the US government than ever. There was more lying, there was more.

• 1:13:24Speaker 02

  Yeah, but Russia, if we had faked the moon landing, Russia would have outed us immediately. They'd be like, oh, you suckers, you faked it. They would have outed us immediately, immediately. So you would have been like, um, that, you know what that would have done to world politics? To embarrass the United States on the world stage? That by itself disproves the entire moon hoax conspiracy without going to all the other reasons. Like that by itself.

• 1:13:48Danny Jones?

  Well, it would have been, it wouldn't have been as easy as it is today with the internet to discredit. And there was also a lot of Russian people who came out and in the US and wrote books and started, tried to start movements, basically proving that the moon landing was fake.

• 1:13:59Speaker 02

  I know. So what I would love to do.

• 1:14:01Danny Jones?

  It was a war, it was an information war between Russia and the US. I've gone deep on this and there's, they, I think they tried and there's actually, I think there's overwhelming evidence to say, uh, the otherwise. I'm not convinced, but we don't have to go there.

• 1:14:12Speaker 02

  I want to take every single person who thinks the moon landing happened, send them to the moon. We should send you to the moon.

• 1:14:16Danny Jones?

  I would love to go.

• 1:14:17Speaker 02

  Put you right there.

• 1:14:17Danny Jones?

  Actually, no, I take that back. I don't think I want to go to the moon.

• 1:14:19Speaker 02

  I do.

• 1:14:20Danny Jones?

  I'd rather stay here.

• 1:14:20Speaker 02

  I want to go.

• 1:14:21Danny Jones?

  Really?

• 1:14:22Speaker 02

  Absolutely.

• 1:14:23Danny Jones?

  Two hundred, what's the temperature? Two hundred and fifty degrees in the sun and the negative two hundred and fifty in the shadows.

• 1:14:28Speaker 02

  That's fine. I want to step on another world. By the way, so there's no such thing as the moon landing. It's plural. We landed multiple times. So you're going to tell me we faked every single one? Really? Like there was an entire Apollo program. There are multiple photos. Uh, Kevin Canute, whom we have on the show.

• 1:14:43Danny Jones?

  The footage looks so stupid. The footage looks dumb.

• 1:14:46Speaker 02

  Look, let's not go there. The other, the other one is simulation hypothesis. I will, I want, I'm going to personally, I just, never mind.

• 1:14:57Danny Jones?

  You don't like simulation hypothesis?

• 1:14:58Speaker 02

  No, I hate it. I think it's just one of the stupidest ideas ever invented.

• 1:15:00Danny Jones?

  Really?

• 1:15:01Speaker 02

  You know why?

• 1:15:01Danny Jones?

  Elon says one in a billion chances that we're not in a simulation.

• 1:15:04Speaker 02

  Yeah, he made that number up. How does he know that?

• 1:15:06Danny Jones?

  I don't know.

• 1:15:07Speaker 02

  So, simulation hypothesis is not a scientific theory, it's a religious belief. Because, because there's nothing I can do to disprove it.

• 1:15:14Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:15:14Speaker 02

  Tell me one thing I could do to disprove the simulation hypothesis.

• 1:15:17Danny Jones?

  To disprove the simulation?

• 1:15:18Speaker 02

  It's impossible, because any evidence I present to a believer, they'll say, "That's what the simulators wanted you to think."

• 1:15:25Danny Jones?

  Yeah, you're right, you can't, you can't.

• 1:15:26Speaker 02

  So, it's a religious belief. It is not disprovable.

• 1:15:29Danny Jones?

  Is there any way to disprove the simulation hypothesis, Steve? We need to find this out. I need to see this.

• 1:15:34Speaker 02

  ChatGPT isn't God, but, okay.

• 1:15:35Danny Jones?

  Well, ask Grok. Grok is God. It's about to be God.

• 1:15:38Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:15:38Danny Jones?

  It'll be God soon.

• 1:15:40Speaker 02

  But anyway, we somehow went off in different directions there, but that's how you're showing up.

• 1:15:45Danny Jones?

  Well, the con, I mean, I was making the point of like what happened in the Cold War, like, the moon, like, the moon landing was smack dab in the middle of, do you believe JFK with Lee Harvey Oswald was the only shooter?

• 1:15:55Speaker 02

  Hell, the fuck, no.

• 1:15:56Danny Jones?

  Okay, well, it was right between JFK, Watergate.

• 1:15:58Speaker 02

  It's for the same reason that I believe in the JFK conspiracy that I think the moon landing actually happened. It's for the same reason. Because I'm a rational human being who looks at all the facts. Give me a break, come on, Lee Harvey Oswald conveniently gets killed before going to trial, really?

• 1:16:14Danny Jones?

  Right, right.

• 1:16:14Speaker 02

  Really?

• 1:16:14Danny Jones?

  Well, you know who?

• 1:16:15Speaker 02

  So, my, my point is, Danny, is some conspiracies are true.

• 1:16:19Danny Jones?

  Sure.

• 1:16:19Speaker 02

  But not all of them.

• 1:16:21Danny Jones?

  Correct.

• 1:16:21Speaker 02

  I'm very open-minded. Not as open-minded as Kevin, I think, but I'm very open-minded. But I'm not so open-minded that I fall, um...

• 1:16:30Danny Jones?

  There's no definitive way to disprove the simulation hypothesis.

• 1:16:33Speaker 02

  See, I told you so.

• 1:16:34Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:16:34Speaker 02

  Which means,

• 1:16:35Danny Jones?

  Well, hey.

• 1:16:35Speaker 02

  It's not science.

• 1:16:37Danny Jones?

  Don't be a party pooper. It's still fun to talk about. There's so much, it's, it's such a compelling idea.

• 1:16:42Speaker 02

  It is, but here's, here's the time and place for simulation hypothesis. Time and place for simulation hypothesis is 3 a.m. over beers.

• 1:16:52Danny Jones?

  Yeah, well, maybe.

• 1:16:53Speaker 02

  Because it's not science. It's philosophy.

• 1:16:56Danny Jones?

  Yes.

• 1:16:57Speaker 02

  I'm not claiming it's wrong, by the way. All I'm saying is there's nothing you or I could ever do to prove it or disprove it.

• 1:17:05Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:17:05Speaker 02

  There's no way. It's impossible. And so it's fun to speculate, but there's nothing we'll ever be able to do to prove or disprove it.

• 1:17:12Danny Jones?

  Well, right, even though there's no way, there's no way we'll be able to prove or disprove it. It's reasonable to suggest that in hundreds of years with the development of technology and video games and VR, we'll be able to create virtual worlds that are indistinguishable from reality.

• 1:17:27Speaker 02

  Like the thronglets from Black Mirror. If you've seen the Black Mirror episode.

• 1:17:31Danny Jones?

  I haven't seen that one.

• 1:17:31Speaker 02

  Or the holodeck on Star Trek: The Next Generation.

• 1:17:34Danny Jones?

  Hmm, yeah.

• 1:17:35Speaker 02

  So, so are you familiar with the holodeck from Star Trek? You just walk into a 3D virtual. Really?

• 1:17:41Danny Jones?

  No.

• 1:17:41Speaker 02

  Alright, so Kevin and I are huge fans.

• 1:17:43Danny Jones?

  Have you seen the 13th floor?

• 1:17:44Speaker 02

  I have not, but I heard it's really good.

• 1:17:46Danny Jones?

  It's very good, yeah.

• 1:17:46Speaker 02

  It's basically The Matrix before The Matrix. It was earlier.

• 1:17:49Danny Jones?

  It came out the same year.

• 1:17:50Speaker 02

  Same year, okay, yeah.

• 1:17:51Danny Jones?

  Same exact year.

• 1:17:52Speaker 02

  I'm gonna see it. I'm gonna check it out. Yeah, absolutely. Now, again, yeah, like I'm saying, I'm not saying simulation hypothesis is wrong. I'm just saying it's a waste of time for scientists to talk about it because we'll never prove it or disprove it. All we can do is do this. All we can do is go in circles arguing. There's no way to get an answer, ever. We will never have an answer.

• 1:18:10Danny Jones?

  Right, right.

• 1:18:11Speaker 02

  Impossible.

• 1:18:12Danny Jones?

  Yeah, that's a good point. That's a good point, but like, so.

• 1:18:15Speaker 02

  By the way, string theory, you could say the same thing. And my string theory friends hate it when I say this, but I say string theory is not a theory. They get really mad because it's not provable. It's not disprovable, at least. Because you'll just say, oh, it's beyond human technology forever. We'll never prove or disprove string theory. Yeah, I have a problem with that. I do have a problem with that. And so does Eric Weinstein.

• 1:18:38Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:18:39Speaker 02

  Weinstein, sorry, I probably mispronounced it.

• 1:18:41Danny Jones?

  Yeah, he makes a point about like Ed and Lewis Witten.

• 1:18:43Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah. And Lee Smolin has also said this. People hate him. Oh, the hate that this guy gets in academia. I believe that every, that crazy ideas should be permitted. That's the whole spirit of academia, like I was saying earlier about academic freedom. So yeah, I think string theory, it's had a good run. Let's explore other possibilities. My string theory friends will get rid, next door, next door to me, to the left and to the right, on the third floor, where my offices in the physics department are two string theorists. They're literally my next door neighbors, but you know, I kid with them, with love, you know? But I just mess with them.

• 1:19:20Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:19:20Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:19:21Danny Jones?

  So how did you get into this whole UFO thing?

• 1:19:23Speaker 02

  Oh, my friend Kevin, whom you had on another episode, oh yes. He convinced me that there's real shit going down, and he's the one who got me into it.

• 1:19:31Danny Jones?

  Yeah. How did, how did you meet him and how did he convince you?

• 1:19:33Speaker 02

  Oh, he's in the same department as me, his department. So I've known him since I was there in 2000, uh, I've been at the Department of Physics since 2014.

• 1:19:40Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 1:19:41Speaker 02

  So I've known him from when I first joined at University of Albany in New York. Yeah, Kevin's the one who was like, and I'll be honest with you, at first, again, because of the stigma, the brainwashing, right? I was like, ah, Kevin, he's crazy, and whatever, UFOs. But then, the 2017, uh, New York Times article came out, by, uh, Leslie Kane, uh, Helen Cooper and Ralph Blumenthal, and I was like, and then Lou Elzondo's on TV, and I'm like, holy shit, this stuff's real. And so that really helped push me over the edge, to join forces with Kevin and start researching UFOs. You know, from childhood, I was always interested. I mean, who isn't?

• 1:20:22Speaker 02

  I watched Unsolved Mysteries with Robert Stack, I saw like the, the Cash Landrum Incident, the Rendlesham Forest Incident, that stuff scared the hell out of me as a little kid. And so the seeds were already planted there for me to be interested in UFOs, but then the seeds blossomed, thanks to Leslie Kane's reporting and thanks to Kevin.

• 1:20:41Danny Jones?

  So how do you, how are you applying your understanding of physics and the work you do into this stuff?

• 1:20:47Speaker 02

  So, basically, I'm bringing some of a particle physics perspective. So a lot of people use cameras, obviously, to look for UFOs, right? But I'm bringing more to the table, because this ties into the earlier discussion about my work on dark matter. One of my expertises is particle detection. I'm a particle physicist. There are all these stories, these claims of people who've been hurt physically.

• 1:21:15Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 1:21:16Speaker 02

  By UAP.

• 1:21:16Danny Jones?

  Radiation.

• 1:21:17Speaker 02

  Ionizing radiation, exactly. There's a, um, I'm sure conspiracy guy like you, you know, all these stories, I'm sure, right? Falken Lake incident, Rendlesham Forest, um, a cash landrum. They sued the government.

• 1:21:30Danny Jones?

  I don't even know what that one is.

• 1:21:31Speaker 02

  So cash landrum, so it was 1980, I think, or 79, December in Texas. There was a, a, a family that saw a diamond shaped craft. They ended up getting skin burns.

• 1:21:41Danny Jones?

  Oh.

• 1:21:41Speaker 02

  It was like sunburn, they got cancer.

• 1:21:43Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:21:43Speaker 02

  And so they sued the government. So there's evidence.

• 1:21:46Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 1:21:46Speaker 02

  Of ionizing radiation.

• 1:21:47Danny Jones?

  Right, and this stuff goes back, right?

• 1:21:49Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah.

• 1:21:50Danny Jones?

  There's like, there's like stories from antiquity of people and they think it was like religious related stuff. Where people were getting burned, I think Saint Francis of Sisi was one of them.

• 1:21:58Speaker 02

  Well, UFOs in general, they didn't just magically start in 47. It goes back hundreds, if not thousands of years, absolutely. Some people think, a lot of the ancient alien guys, I'm friends with all the ancient aliens.

• 1:22:10Danny Jones?

  Are you?

• 1:22:11Speaker 02

  It's like Travis Taylor and like, yeah. So I, I went, oh, you, I went backstage, actually, at the Ancient Aliens live show. You should have seen the dirty looks my wife and I got from all the super fans when security was extorting, escorting me and my wife backstage. Cause I, I know Travis Taylor, he's on also Skinwalker Ranch. And oh yeah, these, oh man, what was, where was I going with the ancient, oh, yes. One hypothesis is that a lot of religious experiences were actually extraterrestrial. Some other form of non-human intelligence.

• 1:22:41Danny Jones?

  I think that one makes a lot of sense.

• 1:22:42Speaker 02

  I really think we can't discount that. It sounds crazy, but to me, that's something you could prove or disprove. That's, that's reasonable. It's wild. And if, when I say that, yeah, my reputation, when people watch the show now, yeah, my reputation goes down.

• 1:22:54Danny Jones?

  Especially when you look at like James Fox's version, uh, latest documentary where he goes to Brazil and he interviewed like dozens and dozens of witnesses of this being that, that they explained having cloven feet and smelling like sulfur, which is exactly how demons.

• 1:23:08Speaker 02

  Yeah, I've only seen clips, I've not seen the whole thing yet unfortunately, but yeah. Do we laugh at those people and say they're making stuff up? Um, I'm inclined to think they're describ- they might be describing a real physical experience.

• 1:23:21Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 1:23:21Speaker 02

  I think that's reasonable.

• 1:23:22Danny Jones?

  That Varjean you won, I, I've never heard of a case, whether it be a UFO or anything, but this one's a being.

• 1:23:27Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:23:28Danny Jones?

  More corroborating, corroborating witnesses.

• 1:23:30Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:23:31Danny Jones?

  That's the, that's the most in any story I've ever heard in this topic.

• 1:23:34Speaker 02

  It's amazing, but where we were going with this is what I bring to the table with UFO. So UFO, UAP, whatever you call them, I think we can all, we can agree. It's an interdisciplinary problem. You're not going to solve the mystery with just one group of scientists. You need physicists, chemists, biologists, engineers. You need a multi-disciplinary approach. And what I bring to the table is my knowledge of particle and nuclear physics. Because if UFOs are producing radiation, do you know how hard that would be to hoax? You can hoax a video. How are you going to hoax ionizing radiation from controlled substances, right? You know, like from like uranium, plutonium, calcium, things like that.

• 1:24:19Speaker 02

  So, so I-

• 1:24:20Danny Jones?

  How many people have been, have been affected by, or injured by this radiation?

• 1:24:24Speaker 02

  Oh, nobody knows. It depends on who you ask, right?

• 1:24:27Danny Jones?

  How many people have been cataloged or how many people do you know of?

• 1:24:29Speaker 02

  I, I, I know how, I know of a small number, but I've only been looking at U of P for a while. So I know of only the three incidents I, I, I mentioned earlier, but there are more. If you talk to Gary Nolan, for example, I'm sure he can list way more. Remember, I'm still young. I haven't been doing this for decades, you know, like Kevin. So I still don't know, I wouldn't know off the top of my head how, what, how large the number is. I'm only aware of three cases, but one of them, the Rendlesham Forum, Forum, Forest case. John Burrows, a US veteran, got disability for be getting hurt by a UFO. That's like Senator John McCain have to, had to help him out. Did you know this story?

• 1:25:11Danny Jones?

  I don't think so.

• 1:25:12Speaker 02

  So, so what happened was he, um-

• 1:25:16Speaker 02

  He, his medical records were classified. He couldn't see his own medical records.

• 1:25:22Danny Jones?

  Wow.

• 1:25:23Speaker 02

  How messed up is that?

• 1:25:24Danny Jones?

  That's crazy, man.

• 1:25:24Speaker 02

  And so to me, that inspired me that like, you know what? I can bring my expertise on radiation detection into the field of UFO studies.

• 1:25:38Danny Jones?

  Wow.

• 1:25:38Speaker 02

  So that's my angle. Obviously, I'm still using cameras with Kevin, everything else, but that's my personal angle of what I added. That's the extra that I added to the field.

• 1:25:47Danny Jones?

  So of the three people that you're aware of, what have you found with them?

• 1:25:51Speaker 02

  Well, all we have is unfortunately, you know, like a couple old grainy photographs, if that, or just

• 1:25:56Danny Jones?

  Oh, you haven't actually, okay, I got you.

• 1:25:58Speaker 02

  Yeah, no, no, so I, I, I don't personally have any connections. Gary does at Stanford, Dr. Nolan does, but you know, I'm not saying I have any personal connection, but rather I've studied their accounts, like on the web and TV.

• 1:26:11Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:26:12Speaker 02

  And to me, I'm not claiming I believe them all immediately, but to me, I'm, I, the, the approach I take is, what if they're right? What if there's radiation we can detect? Then we should be bringing radiation detectors, not just cameras, to our UFO parties. And that, so that's the angle that I, that I've brought.

• 1:26:30Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:26:31Speaker 02

  To, to, to UAP studies, ufology. I'm not saying I brought it completely by myself. People have been using Geiger counters with UFOs. So I'm not saying I'm first or anything like that. I'm saying, but that's the angle that I bring into the teams that I work on for, for, for looking for UFO evidence. To answer your original question about what did I bring?

• 1:26:50Danny Jones?

  Right, right.

• 1:26:51Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:26:51Danny Jones?

  And if you were, if you wanted to, uh, use radiation detection, how would you go about doing that? Like, was there specific places you would, you would do this? Or like, like, how do you, how does that work out?

• 1:27:03Speaker 02

  Well, it's challenging because you know, a lot of encounters are like, ma'am, it's over, right?

• 1:27:08Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 1:27:08Speaker 02

  And so the philosophy of the team that I work on, which is a UAPX, you know, we published a paper only a couple of months ago from our expedition to Catalina, which was in the movie A Tear in the Sky, by Carolyn Corey. If you haven't seen the movie, you should, so Kevin and I are, are in that.

• 1:27:24Danny Jones?

  I tried to watch it.

• 1:27:25Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:27:25Danny Jones?

  Last night, but it was like, trying to make me jump through all these hoops and like. Get some subscription to some crazy service or something like that. I couldn't fucking figure it out.

• 1:27:32Speaker 02

  Ah dang, okay. Well, that's because the movie's several years old now. It was easier when it first came out. But basically, um, to answer your question, we need to go to alleged UFO hotspots. That's the solution. Is you go to places where people claim to see these things again and again. That's hard to do. I need to get permission. No, but you're right. You're absolutely right, but we can't do that. But we can go to like, for example, Catalina area, places like that.

• 1:27:57Danny Jones?

  They wouldn't let you go there? They wouldn't let you go there and install some like detection equipment or anything?

• 1:28:01Speaker 02

  No way. No way. If I was at an important university, sure. Um, so I'm sure Avi's gonna try that for Galileo project with Harvard. I'm sure he's gonna try that, but I'm at a no, I'm, I'm at a lowly university. It's not an Ivy League. I don't have the clout to tell the US government, hey, can I install some UFO sensors on your nuke silo? That's not happening. Believe me, Kevin and I would be thrilled. Believe me. We know all about Salas, Robert Hastings. We know all about the story of the, yeah, absolutely. No, I'm, I'm saying something that's a little bit more achievable, easier. Which is go to other non-nuclear, you know, hotspots.

• 1:28:33Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 1:28:33Speaker 02

  And so the idea here is, is you go to hotspots and you set up permanent or semi-permanent stations. Cause you're not gonna catch fleeting encounters, right? And so what you need to do is identify hotspots, taking into account things like population density, obviously, and things like that. And so, um, but yeah, for the radiation detection, yeah, we're looking for anything above normal background radiation. Cause there's radiation all around us all the time now. Right now, there's cosmic radiation coursing through our bodies right now. Not just dark matter, you know, neutrinos, cosmic ray protons, all kinds of stuff going through and we're fine. It's a small amount. And so, so we're looking not for something above zero. That's ridiculous. Cause always a little bit of radiation everywhere. It's in your sweat. It's in a banana. It's in a Brazil nut. It's everywhere.

• 1:29:18Speaker 02

  However, what we're looking for is a statistically significant increase in radiation. Either in energy or in like count rate that is correlated with a visual sighting in the camera systems. So that is our angle, like a multimodal study, just like Galileo project is doing.

• 1:29:38Danny Jones?

  Yeah, I'm not familiar with Galileo Project. What specifically are they doing?

• 1:29:41Speaker 02

  So, so Galileo Project is led by Professor Avi Loeb of Harvard and they're, they want to also, they want to set up also equipment at UAP hotspots and look for, um, uh, look for, for UAP. But it's kind of a, it's got other facets as well. Recently Avi tried to get, uh, and he believes he succeeded and he got pieces of an interstellar meteorite from the bottom of the Pacific that some people thought was maybe, you know, an alien ship that crash landed, not actually a meteor. So Galileo Project is doing a lot of stuff as well at Harvard. Yeah. Well, it's not just Harvard. They also have other institutions like Wellesley College and it's a multi-university.

• 1:30:17Danny Jones?

  I think it's most likely that whatever these UFOs are, they're already here. I don't think they necessarily came from, I mean, I think it's possible they came from like other galaxies, if you want to say that, but I think the, I think the most likely explanation, and I think the vast majority of them, uh, have been here for a long time and they're just in, where they're sent like how we are to ants, you know, they just, uh, they exist here on a higher plane and, uh, they've probably been here, whether it's under the oceans or somewhere, they manage to be undetectable unless they really want to be.

• 1:30:45Speaker 02

  It's possible. It's possible. That's what Kevin says, that they're already here. It's entirely possible. But yeah, I wouldn't say that from other galaxies. That's too far away.

• 1:30:51Danny Jones?

  Especially, especially when you have accounts of these things like coming out of oceans and stuff, you know, back into antiquity.

• 1:30:58Speaker 02

  Yeah, well, the oceans are a great place to hide. That's what my friend Kevin says. And also, um, you have to keep in mind, let's, let's speculate. This is Kevin's idea, not mine. Full credit to him. He suggests that water's pretty safe because no matter where you are in the universe, water can only be, be a liquid in a very narrow, limited range of temperature and pressure. So if you're an extraterrestrial from somewhere else, you know what to expect with water. Air can be different. Atmospheric compositions can differ wildly. Water is water. Everywhere in the galaxy, everywhere in the universe, water is water.

• 1:32:00Speaker 05

  Visible puts the ultimate wireless hack in the palm of your hand. With unlimited 5G wireless data and hotspot designed to keep you connected. Powered by Verizon's 5G network. And no contract holding you back. Plans start at $25 a month. Or get the premium Visible Plus Pro Plan and save $10 on your first month. When you use promo code HAK. Make the switch at visible.com. Terms apply. See visible.com for details.

• 1:32:30Speaker 02

  Because it exists as a liquid only in a limited most in most of the universe waters. You know, either a gas or a solid. It only exists as a liquid in a very limited.

• 1:32:39Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:32:39Speaker 02

  Temperature and pressure range. And so if you're used to water, you can go find another water. Planet.

• 1:32:45Danny Jones?

  Yes.

• 1:32:46Speaker 02

  That's Kevin's idea.

• 1:32:47Danny Jones?

  Oh, wow. Yes, I forgot he told me that.

• 1:32:49Speaker 02

  Exactly. And so he thinks that's the connection. That's why UFOs are often seen around water and near water. Coming out of water, going into water. I have to say it's an absolutely fascinating idea. And my friend Kevin has also published a paper that suggests that if we've been discovered by extraterrestrials on average, he ran a, you know, a giant computer simulation of the galaxy.

• 1:33:13Danny Jones?

  Yep.

• 1:33:13Speaker 02

  And he suggests that we, if Earth was discovered randomly, then the most probable time that happened was 1.1 million years ago.

• 1:33:24Danny Jones?

  Why?

• 1:33:25Speaker 02

  Just, there is no why. He just ran a computer simulation.

• 1:33:28Danny Jones?

  Oh, that's just the computer.

• 1:33:29Speaker 02

  He just put all the factors into the computer. That would be like asking chat GPT. Why did you just say that?

• 1:33:33Danny Jones?

  Didn't give any sort of like reasoning behind it at all?

• 1:33:36Speaker 02

  Yeah, the reasoning is all is in a scientific paper. There, there is no one liner way to explain it because it's all the factors. How many habitable planets are there in the galaxy? How big the galaxy is, how fast they're going like, there's like literally dozens of factors that went into the calculation. So this is not some, it's not some cotton dry thing where there's like a.

• 1:33:54Danny Jones?

  Is there a way we can find the paper online?

• 1:33:56Speaker 02

  Absolutely. Absolutely.

• 1:33:57Danny Jones?

  See if you can find it.

• 1:33:58Speaker 02

  If you go to knuthlab.org, K N U T H L A B dot org. I'll point you to this paper by my friend Kevin.

• 1:34:05Danny Jones?

  Steve, see if you can find it.

• 1:34:06Speaker 02

  He didn't, he didn't bring it up when he was on the show.

• 1:34:08Danny Jones?

  He probably did, but it was, it's been a while.

• 1:34:10Speaker 02

  Yeah, this is my friend Kevin's website. Yeah, my good colleague. I think it would be under UAPs and techno signatures. Click, no, no, you're going too far. Left, left, UAPs and techno signatures. You're like right there. Yeah. Okay, scroll down to.

• 1:34:26Speaker 02

  Oh, sorry. It's not there. I'm sorry. Go back. Go back. He must not have populated it there yet. I'm scroll down slowly from on the main page. Let's see if we can find it here.

• 1:34:38Danny Jones?

  Is there a search?

• 1:34:40Speaker 02

  No, this is his private website, so it's not like perfect.

• 1:34:43Danny Jones?

  Gotcha.

• 1:34:43Speaker 02

  It's definitely here, so just bear with me a moment. I know he's got it here somewhere. Click maybe current projects. Try that. Try current projects. It's right there.

• 1:34:53Danny Jones?

  Right there, Steve.

• 1:34:54Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:34:56Danny Jones?

  Boom. Foundations, astrophysics, cyber physics, Bayesian data.

• 1:35:00Speaker 02

  No, no, it's not here either. Oh, there it is. UAP Library on the left. UAP Library, left.

• 1:35:06Danny Jones?

  Very left column, Steve.

• 1:35:07Speaker 02

  Left column. Yeah, UAP Library. Go there. Ah, ha, ha, ha. There's my paper.

• 1:35:14Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 1:35:15Speaker 02

  And there's Kevin's History of UFOs. There it is. Simulating the characteristics. That's the one we were just discussing. So in that.

• 1:35:22Danny Jones?

  And this is the one that says 1.1 million years ago.

• 1:35:24Speaker 02

  On average, but with a huge error bar. But basically, what's really interesting about that result is it seems to suggest that they, that whoever they are, they've been here a long time.

• 1:35:38Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:35:38Speaker 02

  Like you just said, but here's.

• 1:35:40Danny Jones?

  Well, maybe they, maybe they came, maybe they evolved here.

• 1:35:43Speaker 02

  That's possible, too. Have you, there's Hal Pudoff has a paper on this called, um, the ultra, ultra terrestrial model or hypothesis. Yeah, absolutely. It's another possibility.

• 1:35:53Danny Jones?

  Yeah, it's totally possible that they got, go back to it, Steve.

• 1:35:56Speaker 02

  Remember, we don't.

• 1:35:56Danny Jones?

  I want to read the abstract of it. It is generally believed that it is unlikely that our civilization is alone in the galaxy. This belief is central to the premise of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Study which has focused mainly on searching for radio signals originating from extraterrestrial communication. Since it is believed that extraterrestrial craft visiting Earth would be extremely unlikely event. However, the fact that we ourselves are currently working on developing probes to send to the Alpha Centauri system by 2069 strongly suggests our expectations by considering.

• 1:36:35Speaker 02

  Oh, you skipped the line. Strongly suggests that other.

• 1:36:37Danny Jones?

  That other civilizations may make similar or more ambitious efforts. Therefore, it is reasonable to inform civilizations to find.

• 1:36:46Speaker 02

  To inform our expectations.

• 1:36:47Danny Jones?

  To inform our expectations by considering what characters. Can you zoom in a little bit, bro?

• 1:36:54Danny Jones?

  Uh, there we go. Considering what characteristics and capabilities would be required for an interstellar civilization to find or visit Earth. In this paper, the physics-based analytical analytic model of expanding interstellar civilizations is developed. A million civilizations, a million civilizations that encounter Earth are simulated, and their statistics are studied to determine their characteristics.

• 1:37:19Speaker 02

  There you have it. And one of the characteristics that he found is that if Earth is found, it was probably found a long time ago. And that's because the galaxy is over 13 billion years old. That's a mind-boggling amount of time.

• 1:37:32Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:37:32Speaker 02

  So if you had a civilization evolve early on, a long time ago, can you imagine how much more advanced they'd be than we are today? Like, we can't, we can't even guess technology 100,000 years from now. Imagine a civilization that's been around for millions or billions of years. We can't even fathom what that would look like, what they would look like.

• 1:37:54Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:37:55Speaker 02

  You know, it might be incommensurate with our understanding.

• 1:37:58Danny Jones?

  Right. Well, even the idea that it could have been us, like that, that version of us could have evolved and gotten so advanced.

• 1:38:04Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 1:38:04Danny Jones?

  And, and there could have been some sort of breakaway civilization that either went under the oceans or to the moon, or to another planet in our solar system.

• 1:38:11Speaker 02

  Yeah, Kevin and I call that the Wakanda hypothesis.

• 1:38:14Danny Jones?

  Yeah, and then they came back after things settled down, you know, maybe there was thousands of years of instability here, you know?

• 1:38:19Speaker 02

  Maybe, maybe.

• 1:38:20Danny Jones?

  You know, or like an ice age or whatever, and then...

• 1:38:22Speaker 02

  Yeah. Well, another thing that's possible is if, if you, if you're familiar with the work of Professor Mike Masters, Montana State.

• 1:38:29Danny Jones?

  Oh yeah, of course.

• 1:38:29Speaker 02

  He thinks...

• 1:38:30Danny Jones?

  Time travel.

• 1:38:30Speaker 02

  Yeah, he thinks it's not aliens, it's humans from the future.

• 1:38:32Danny Jones?

  Yeah, I think that makes, I think that makes a ton of sense.

• 1:38:34Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah. So we, the fact is, we don't know.

• 1:38:37Danny Jones?

  Mm-hmm.

• 1:38:38Speaker 02

  We don't know, but it's fun to speculate, but for me, it's even more fun to try to go find the answer.

• 1:38:43Danny Jones?

  Well, one of the biggest, I think one of the biggest pieces of evidence that this could have been humans or people that lived here and this was their home, are things like the pyramids and things like, you know...

• 1:38:51Speaker 02

  Why are they so perfect?

• 1:38:52Danny Jones?

  These types of things. These are made, this is a 3D model of a granite, or a, a, a red granite vase that was measured in a Rolls-Royce light scanner, Rolls-Royce Aerospace, and they found out it's perfectly symmetrical from top to bottom on each side, within less than a deviation of like 1 one-thousandth of a human hair. This couldn't even be made on a fucking CNC machine today. And it was made allegedly 4,000 B.C.

• 1:39:14Speaker 02

  There's all kinds of stuff on Ancient Aliens, Puma Punku and all the crazy like straight lines and stuff.

• 1:39:20Danny Jones?

  So they were obviously on a trajectory that we can't even fathom. Like they weren't, they weren't doing the same, they weren't making things the same way we make things today because with our tools, there's no way we, and we have no reason to make stuff like this either, right?

• 1:39:35Speaker 02

  Well, we do have one reason. So actually, the, the, the best, the most precise object ever created by humans was a ball that was used on Gravity Pro B to test Einstein's theory of general relativity. That ball was so perfect that I think it was off by way better than what you just quoted. It was like one atom off maximum in one direction. So if the earth was that perfect of a ball, I think the earth would have like one hill the size of this desk or something like it was a perfect ball. It was necessary for this gravity experiment in the 90s or I think early 2000s. So nowadays we have this technology. Did we have that in 4,000 B.C.?

• 1:40:19Speaker 02

  It's like, yeah, so it's interesting, but remember earlier how I said technology? It doesn't just always improve. There goes forward, it goes back. Controversial discovery a few years ago, did you know we found evidence that the ancient Greek Archimedes, he was recently in the Indiana, you know, fictional Archimedes was in Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. Turns out Archimedes may have discovered calculus several thousand years.

• 1:40:48Danny Jones?

  Really?

• 1:40:49Speaker 02

  Before Newton.

• 1:40:49Danny Jones?

  How did they find this out?

• 1:40:50Speaker 02

  Because they found it on a tablet.

• 1:40:53Danny Jones?

  A tablet?

• 1:40:54Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:40:54Danny Jones?

  When was Archimedes alive?

• 1:40:56Speaker 02

  Oh, we should look that up.

• 1:40:57Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 1:40:57Speaker 02

  But they found on a tablet that was erased and written over, but using modern technology, it was a, it's called a palimpsest.

• 1:41:05Danny Jones?

  Can you find the story, Steve, about what he's talking about?

• 1:41:07Speaker 02

  Look up, look up Archimedes integral calculus and a palimpsest. P A L I M P S E T. A palimpsest is something that you, it's like, it's like Etch A Sketch.

• 1:41:19Danny Jones?

  Right, right.

• 1:41:20Speaker 02

  It's the ancient form of Etch A Sketch. So somebody overwrote over what he wrote.

• 1:41:25Danny Jones?

  Oh, wow.

• 1:41:26Speaker 02

  And it turns out he may have discovered Riemann integration that we teach in like, you know, calculus 101, thousands of years. There it is.

• 1:41:37Speaker 02

  Yes. No, no. Yeah. I don't know if that's it, but the, the, the paragraph that was describing it is correct.

• 1:41:42Danny Jones?

  Archimedes is not considered the inventor of integral calculus, but his method of exhaustion uh, is regarded as the precursor to integral calculus.

• 1:41:52Speaker 02

  Exactly. Thousands of years before Newton and Leibniz. But what this tells you is maybe the ancient alien guys aren't so crazy, but there's another angle to this.

• 1:42:00Danny Jones?

  Is this a new thing they found?

• 1:42:02Speaker 02

  It was a few years ago. It's not that new. Yeah. It was a few years ago, but um, basically my point is, is that humans are also pretty smart. We, we might not even need help from aliens. Your point earlier, break away, human branches and stuff like that. Sometimes we don't give humans enough credit. Sometimes it could be that some of the weird anomalies are really that humans came up with clever technologies. And we're too arrogant to admit that ancient people were actually pretty damn smart. I don't know if you've heard of the Baghdad battery. Also, there's apparently this battery from ancient Iraq. Yeah. Oh yeah. They tested it on Mythbusters and it worked.

• 1:42:40Danny Jones?

  The Baghdad battery?

• 1:42:41Speaker 02

  You've never heard of the Baghdad battery? It's one of the greatest, like, it's like, yeah. So basically, I think ancient people were a lot smarter than we give them credit for.

• 1:42:52Danny Jones?

  Find this, bro.

• 1:42:53Speaker 02

  But what if, there it is. See?

• 1:42:54Danny Jones?

  A 2,000 year old artifact found in Iraq that is hypothesized to be an ancient battery. Consists of a clay jar, copper cylinder and an iron rod. While some believe it could be used for electro plating or even electrotherapy. Its exact purpose remains debated. Can you find a better picture of this dude?

• 1:43:14Speaker 02

  They tested it on Mythbusters.

• 1:43:16Danny Jones?

  No way.

• 1:43:17Speaker 02

  And get, and it kind of works, but it works better. They cheated on Mythbusters and they

• 1:43:21Danny Jones?

  Is this actually it right here?

• 1:43:23Speaker 02

  Car battery.

• 1:43:23Danny Jones?

  Whoa.

• 1:43:26Speaker 02

  I mean, what do you do with something like that?

• 1:43:28Danny Jones?

  This was supposed, the Parthian empire it was supposed to come from was allegedly illiterate.

• 1:43:33Speaker 02

  Yeah. But see, look, look how little we know about our own ancient past.

• 1:43:39Danny Jones?

  So what is the theory? What is like the conventional theory for this thing?

• 1:43:42Speaker 02

  I'm not aware of a conventional one. All I know about is that it's a battery. I'm not aware what the, I'm not aware with the BS conventional explanation for what it's supposed to be. Would you believe the conventional explanation for it?

• 1:43:54Danny Jones?

  I don't believe the conventional explanation for many things. It starts with ancient Egypt with the Egyptologists.

• 1:43:59Speaker 02

  Yeah, but so, so, so you're asking me for the conventional explanation. To me, the battery is the correct explanation.

• 1:44:05Danny Jones?

  Right, it's the correct one, but I would also be interested to hear how academics try to explain it.

• 1:44:09Speaker 02

  I haven't heard a single credible alternate explanation of it.

• 1:44:12Danny Jones?

  See what you can find.

• 1:44:13Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah.

• 1:44:14Danny Jones?

  Even like things like the Antikythera device that was found in the bottom of the ocean, like.

• 1:44:18Speaker 02

  That's the basis of Indiana Jones 5 and the Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.

• 1:44:22Danny Jones?

  Wow. And that's, I think that's the only device like that that's ever been found.

• 1:44:27Speaker 02

  It took us a long time to finally figure out what it was for.

• 1:44:30Danny Jones?

  Okay, the conventional explanation for the Baghdad battery is that it was not a battery in modern sense, but it was rather a storage vessel used for keeping sacred scrolls or other items.

• 1:44:39Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 1:44:40Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 1:44:40Speaker 02

  And it just happens to have electrical properties. Okay.

• 1:44:42Danny Jones?

  Okay, yeah, sure.

• 1:44:43Speaker 02

  Yeah, sure, why not?

• 1:44:46Danny Jones?

  This fits our theory.

• 1:44:48Speaker 02

  Well, it's like you said earlier, right? It's about ramming square pegs into round holes.

• 1:44:52Danny Jones?

  Yes.

• 1:44:53Speaker 02

  Sometimes we try to force the data to fit our models.

• 1:44:57Danny Jones?

  They hate it when there's new data that doesn't fit their theories.

• 1:45:01Speaker 02

  I don't. I love it.

• 1:45:03Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 1:45:03Speaker 02

  You know why? Because there's more for me to do than I'm an experimentalist, not a theorist. So to me, that's great. All right, let's go explore.

• 1:45:09Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:45:10Speaker 02

  To me, that's when the most exciting things happen is when something doesn't fit our preconceptions. That's when real learning happens.

• 1:45:17Danny Jones?

  Yes.

• 1:45:18Speaker 02

  But most academics don't think that way. They think they're, they're more stuffy than I am.

• 1:45:22Danny Jones?

  Most of them don't, right.

• 1:45:24Speaker 02

  Of course, yeah.

• 1:45:25Danny Jones?

  Right, which explains why they're, you know, just going back to the great pyramids, why they had, there hasn't been any more excavation down there. You know, you see those things they found with the rods that go underneath them?

• 1:45:33Speaker 02

  Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

• 1:45:33Danny Jones?

  There was that big thing that came out where they had these giant.

• 1:45:35Speaker 02

  Using particles. That's my, my shtick. I'm not saying I didn't, I didn't participate in that, but it's using particle physics. They're using like muons, using particles to basically X-ray, except it's not X-ray, right? Yeah, it's amazing. Why aren't we, why can't we just go in there?

• 1:45:49Danny Jones?

  Spirals that apparently go down for miles underneath the pyramids?

• 1:45:52Speaker 02

  What are those things? Why is nobody interested in learning more about them?

• 1:45:55Danny Jones?

  Right. It just that that story just kinda like disappeared.

• 1:45:58Speaker 02

  How did you disappear?

• 1:45:59Danny Jones?

  There was a Italian, there was a group of Italians.

• 1:46:01Speaker 02

  You know what my friend Kevin says? I don't know if he said this on your show. Some scientists suffer from a profound lack of curiosity. That's a serious problem.

• 1:46:13Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 1:46:14Speaker 02

  I'm a scientist because I'm curious, not because I'm incurious. Does that make sense? I'm curious, so I wanna know the answers for everything.

• 1:46:21Danny Jones?

  Right. Yeah, no, I would be really curious to see like what would happen if we were able to dig under those things and look under that.

• 1:46:27Speaker 02

  Some of that is politics. I'm sure the Egyptian government is not gonna want that. I don't think it's all conspiracy or stigma against it.

• 1:46:33Danny Jones?

  Sure.

• 1:46:33Speaker 02

  Some of it's politics.

• 1:46:34Danny Jones?

  There's a lot of bureaucracy.

• 1:46:35Speaker 02

  Bureaucracy, politics, I'm sure, yeah.

• 1:46:36Danny Jones?

  But I think one of the things that I'm optimistic about is there's a lot of young upcoming Egyptian archaeologists and Egyptologists who are considering the pseudoscience hypotheses and like the unconventional theories of like what these things could have been. And that are coming up in academia that are actually considering them and not just brushing them off as like complete bullshit pseudoscience.

• 1:46:59Speaker 02

  There is occasionally, occasionally something that was considered pseudoscience turns out to be correct. I'm gonna give you six examples or maybe more. I can give you a few more probab- oh, you're, you want more or is that too few?

• 1:47:14Danny Jones?

  I can do six.

• 1:47:15Speaker 02

  Okay. Germs. There's no such thing as germs. Did you know that there were doctors? I'm saying this is what people would say. There were doctors who would literally go from delivering a baby to an autopsy without washing their hands to prove to all those idiot doctors who believe in germs and washing hands. I'm like, okay, like germs were pseudoscience at one point. Well, it gets better. Relativity was pseudoscience at one point. Einstein was insulted repeatedly as a crackpot, as a pseudoscientist. In Germany, you know what they said to him? Oh, that's Jewish science. In the UK, you know what they said?

• 1:47:57Speaker 02

  Oh, that's German science. Remember, there's World War I, so the UK, they hated Germans. So into the, to the British, Einstein was German and to the Germans, he's Jewish. But my point, continental drift, continental drift.

• 1:48:09Danny Jones?

  Oh, yeah.

• 1:48:09Speaker 02

  Um, here's another one. Did you know that Ludwig von Boltzmann?

• 1:48:15Speaker 02

  Committed suicide because he was so deeply insulted by academia and the scientific community, they ruined his career. Cause you know why? He dared to say that atoms are real and that atoms exist. And he was driven to suicide. So there's atoms, germs, relativity, continental drift, meteors, meteors, another great example. Did you know that for a long time, people laughed, oh, meteors, rocks don't fall from the sky. Those are just, you know, crazy people telling you stories. What does all this sound like to you? Doesn't this sound like a lot like UFOs?

• 1:48:53Danny Jones?

  People didn't believe that at one point.

• 1:48:55Speaker 02

  Meteors for centuries. Scientists used to laugh at meteors. That's nonsense. It wasn't until the 19th century, the 1800s, until finally the French figured out, oh, wait, meteors aren't made up. They're real.

• 1:49:09Danny Jones?

  When did we, when did we, I'd be curious to know when we came up with the explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs?

• 1:49:18Speaker 02

  Oh, it was recent. When I was a kid, we were still debating. We still didn't know until we found the crater in the Yucatan. And then it was like game over. Then it was obvious. We were still arguing, was it disease? Was it this? And then we found it was in the 90s, I think. I was a kid when we finally figured out, oh yeah, it was a giant rock that fell from the sky.

• 1:49:36Danny Jones?

  It's crazy how recent a lot of these big mainstream discoveries have happened.

• 1:49:39Speaker 02

  People used to make fun of the idea that a meteor killed the dinosaurs. People used to think that was pseudoscience.

• 1:49:44Danny Jones?

  What do they think? How do they think they could duck it?

• 1:49:45Speaker 02

  Oh, they just argued about that was disease. It was some random plague or something. Yeah. But I'll tell you this. Do you know what, do you know what separates, in my opinion, but you know, it's kind of an expert opinion, but that's why you might be, what separates science and pseudoscience? I have an answer that'll differ from any other answer that you'll hear.

• 1:50:03Danny Jones?

  Ideology.

• 1:50:04Speaker 02

  No, no, it doesn't. No, it doesn't.

• 1:50:06Danny Jones?

  Because people can label real science pseudoscience just to confit their, their

• 1:50:10Speaker 02

  That's misuse of the label. I'm saying what separates actual pseudoscience from actual science, not what's nonsense.

• 1:50:18Danny Jones?

  Well, what do you, how do you define pseudoscience?

• 1:50:20Speaker 02

  Very easy. I'm glad you asked. That's what I was about to say. Okay. If you test your idea. And your idea doesn't work, you abandon it, you don't double down. That's the difference between a scientist and a pseudoscientist. It's not about ideology. Has nothing to do with ideology, nothing. That is what the gatekeepers use. It's not about ideology. Real pseudoscience is when you've been disproven and you won't shut up. That's pseudoscience. Real science is where, and when pseud- when something that's called pseudoscience isn't pseudoscience, it's when you have the proof, but your ideology blinds you to see that.

• 1:51:05Speaker 02

  Continental drift, atoms, these are all examples of that. So that is the difference. If 20 years from now, it turns out 100% of the CMB going back to other things like, was the early light, it was something else, I'm like, oh, you know what? Great, I was wrong.

• 1:51:21Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:51:21Speaker 02

  Because the proof came up, oh, I'm not going to double down because I'm like, oh yeah, that's proven wrong.

• 1:51:27Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:51:28Speaker 02

  But a pseudoscientist, when confronted with facts, will double down on the incorrect idea that's already been disproven over and over and over and over again. Because they're like, no, you didn't do it right. You gotta tweak the experiment a little bit. No, it's gonna work. I've got the anti-gravity, you didn't do it right. So that's the difference. But it's misapplied, the term is misapplied in the modern age, to shut down rational discourse?

• 1:51:55Danny Jones?

  Yes.

• 1:51:55Speaker 02

  And silence critics.

• 1:51:57Danny Jones?

  Yes.

• 1:51:58Speaker 02

  So I'm not interested in ideology, neither is my friend Kevin. We're interested, what do the facts say? What does the data say? Do you have data to support your claim? If so, let me see it. Baghdad Battery, great example. There's support of that claim. If you don't have support in your claim, go away. Come back to me when you have proof and I will listen to you. I won't shut you out. But if you're gonna just make stuff up without evidence, I don't want to hear it. I don't have to hear it. So that's the difference between science versus pseudoscience as an ideology versus how it should actually be honestly applied. You shouldn't use insults as a way to shut your critics up.

• 1:52:39Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 1:52:40Speaker 02

  That's not how rational discourse works.

• 1:52:41Danny Jones?

  100%. But unfortunately, that's the way discourse happens online these days.

• 1:52:45Speaker 02

  Online is a toy, like never read the comments on a YouTube video.

• 1:52:49Danny Jones?

  The internet and X are the best thing for the government that has ever existed because it's so, it makes it so much easy for them to keep secrets.

• 1:52:57Speaker 02

  Because you can't tell what's the truth anymore. There's so much noise.

• 1:53:00Danny Jones?

  Cauldron of bullshit.

• 1:53:01Speaker 02

  I'm telling, do you know, I'm not on social media.

• 1:53:04Danny Jones?

  Oh, good for you.

• 1:53:05Speaker 02

  I don't have X. I have a Facebook page that I look at once a year because it's historical. I got peer pressured into joining Facebook when it was new. So I have Facebook. I never had Twitter. I don't have X because you know what? I have better things to do with my time.

• 1:53:17Danny Jones?

  It can be fun. It can be fun to like peek in. It's like, it's like going to Vegas.

• 1:53:22Speaker 02

  Well.

• 1:53:23Danny Jones?

  The best, the first, the best parts about going to Vegas are the day you arrive and the day you leave.

• 1:53:28Danny Jones?

  It's like the same thing with, with like looking in. Sometimes you can just like peek in and like look around, like especially UFO Twitter. I don't know if you've ever heard of UFO Twitter, but this is a thing. It's a community.

• 1:53:36Speaker 02

  I've, I've been insulted already by UFO Twitter repeatedly. People tell me secondhand.

• 1:53:40Danny Jones?

  Everybody, everybody's a fed. Everybody's working for the deep state.

• 1:53:44Speaker 02

  I've heard it all.

• 1:53:45Danny Jones?

  And if, and this is one of the greatest things, the way, great, one of the greatest ways to dismiss people is to call them a fed and to say that they're working for the CIA or whoever.

• 1:53:53Speaker 02

  Oh, I, I, Jack Sarfati said I was a Russian agent.

• 1:53:56Danny Jones?

  He's friends with Russia.

• 1:53:57Speaker 02

  Oh, now he's friends with Russia. I know.

• 1:53:59Danny Jones?

  He brags that Putin.

• 1:54:00Speaker 02

  I know.

• 1:54:00Danny Jones?

  Putin, Putin invited me to Russia 16 times.

• 1:54:03Speaker 02

  No, he didn't. No, he didn't. And Trump did not invite him to Mar-a-Lago.

• 1:54:07Danny Jones?

  Oh, yeah.

• 1:54:08Speaker 02

  And, and so, yeah. Oh, oh, look, like I said, look, if, if Jack is listening to this, if you take me off your email list, Jack, I will proclaim to everyone, you are the greatest scientist who ever lived. I will do anything if you just stop fucking emailing me. But let's, let's, I can't.

• 1:54:26Danny Jones?

  You can't.

• 1:54:26Speaker 02

  You know why? Because he CCs everyone instead of BCC. He doesn't have an email list. So anytime anyone else replies.

• 1:54:36Danny Jones?

  Yeah, you get it.

• 1:54:37Speaker 02

  I, I'm back on the list.

• 1:54:38Danny Jones?

  There's gotta be technology. We can't, we can't, we're, we're that low tech. We can't figure out how to block Jack's fat email chains.

• 1:54:44Speaker 02

  But anyway, but let's not go off on that tangent. Before, Jack, where were we going?

• 1:54:47Danny Jones?

  I forgot.

• 1:54:48Speaker 02

  You had asked me something important.

• 1:54:49Danny Jones?

  What did I ask him, Steve? Y'all were talking about pseudoscience.

• 1:54:52Speaker 02

  No, no, no, we finished that.

• 1:54:53Danny Jones?

  Oh, we were talking about like UFO Twitter and like discourse. Yeah.

• 1:54:56Speaker 02

  Yes, I was saying you, I, what, I've been called a Russian agent. Um, I've, I've, it's, it was said that I work with child stars. Like you should see the stuff. But you know.

• 1:55:06Danny Jones?

  A lot of prominent physicists went to Epstein Island. I don't know if you know that.

• 1:55:10Speaker 02

  Yeah, but not me. Right. But I was like a fetus.

• 1:55:14Danny Jones?

  You're a little too young.

• 1:55:14Speaker 02

  Okay. All right. So, yeah, I'm so anyway, my point is, but you know how I look at that? I look at it as positive. You know why? There's an old saying in the military. If you're catching flak, that means you're over the target. So if I'm catching shit and Kevin's catching shit, I'm like, good. That means we're pushing buttons. That means we're asking the wrong questions. That means we're actually getting closer to the truth.

• 1:55:40Danny Jones?

  Sure.

• 1:55:41Speaker 02

  So I don't care what anyone says about me on X. Like I said, I don't even have an account. So all I hear is secondhand, oh, hey, Matthew, you know what they said about your social media? I'm like, I don't care. I've got science to do. I've got real work to do rather than know what some, you know, you know, some 13 year old in his mom's basement thinks about me and my work on UFOs. I don't care.

• 1:56:01Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 1:56:01Speaker 02

  Right. It's just, it's.

• 1:56:03Danny Jones?

  Yeah. It's it gets really bad when you mix like boon or boomers and older people with social media because they don't really, they don't really understand how to use it, you know?

• 1:56:10Speaker 02

  I've already had, this has already happened to me where I get AI slop, like AI generated videos sent to me by my mother in law, thinking it's real. My father in law, this has already started happening. So they're already falling for the like the AI.

• 1:56:23Danny Jones?

  I fell for it yesterday because I saw a video on Instagram of the Texas floods. And it looked like it looked so real. It looked like towns like being flooded and it was supposed to be like security camera footage. In the town of like sped up time lapse of the rivers flooding and literally just wiping out the town. I thought it was real. I'm like, this is fucking insane. And I, I was like, hold on a second. Before I send this to a hundred people. I'm gonna make sure I'm gonna read the comments and then I went through the comments and sure enough, they confirmed like, there's no way this is Texas. This is like architecture from Eastern Europe. There's this is just not, this is definitely not Texas. And it was, it was confirmed it was AI, but it completely tricked me. I thought it was for sure. The only reason I knew was because I decided to read the comments.

• 1:57:03Speaker 02

  I have two, I have two ways of finding AI out.

• 1:57:07Speaker 02

  Count human fingers. It can't do fingers.

• 1:57:10Danny Jones?

  Right, it messes up fingers.

• 1:57:12Speaker 02

  It messes up fingers. And the other one is it can't do letters. It can't do words. So you remember this like fake photo and video of Trump getting arrested? It was like violently arrested on Mid Journey?

• 1:57:22Danny Jones?

  He released one yesterday of Obama getting arrested by the FBI.

• 1:57:26Speaker 02

  No, this is old. This is like years ago.

• 1:57:28Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 1:57:29Speaker 02

  You look at the police, you look at their armbands, and it's like...

• 1:57:32Danny Jones?

  It's just hieroglyphs.

• 1:57:33Speaker 02

  It's just hieroglyphs, it's just gobbledygook. And it's like, what the hell? And so those are my...

• 1:57:37Danny Jones?

  It's getting better though.

• 1:57:38Speaker 02

  It is getting better and it's scary.

• 1:57:40Danny Jones?

  It's getting a lot better. Every day it's getting better.

• 1:57:41Speaker 02

  It's scary, I know. I'm still waiting for Star Trek level AI. As far as I'm concerned, AI is still dumb.

• 1:57:46Danny Jones?

  Yeah, so what I was saying earlier was that it's shocking to me like how many of like the foundational discoveries of our universe and our species and our planet in general are so recent. Like, you know how Mike Masters explains that there's 20 different species of hominids? And out of all those 20 species, we're like the only one that has developed technology to escape the Earth?

• 1:58:12Speaker 02

  Are we?

• 1:58:12Danny Jones?

  Well, five of those species have been discovered in like the last 10 years.

• 1:58:17Speaker 02

  I know.

• 1:58:18Danny Jones?

  And there was just this video that came out that we pulled up the other day, Steve, was an Instagram video

• 1:58:26Danny Jones?

  of these Peru mummies. They found these things that look like aliens, and they're these mummies, they look like powdered donuts, and they have three fingers.

• 1:58:34Speaker 02

  I know, they brought them before the Mexican...

• 1:58:36Danny Jones?

  This is different. This is different. This is new. This is not the Jaime guy. This is a different set of mummies.

• 1:58:41Speaker 02

  It's a different set of...

• 1:58:42Danny Jones?

  And one of them had a fetus inside its womb.

• 1:58:45Speaker 02

  Oh, yeah, yeah, I saw this.

• 1:58:46Danny Jones?

  Watch this. Watch this. This is crazy.

• 1:58:48Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah, yeah.

• 1:58:48Danny Jones?

  And they think it's a new species of hominid. Can you give us some volume?

• 1:58:52Speaker 06

  ...into the rock thousands of years ago. When I visited Maria, I saw no apparent signs of manipulation on the hands or the feet. One of the mummies has a fetus inside, and rumors are starting to spread that the images are showing the fetus to also have three fingers. I contacted the lawyer of the American scientist, Josh McDowell, who told me that the current imaging isn't good enough to say either way whether or not the fetus has three fingers. Some notable oddities regarding the mummies. Maria has thirty-two vertebrae, while most humans have thirty-three. Not an impossible anomaly, but still notable. Maria has abnormally large eye sockets and a protruding mouth. Doctor Zuniga told me that the metal implants had organic tissue fused to them, indicating that they were alive whenever these were placed.

• 1:59:37Speaker 06

  This is a process called osseo-integration. And it takes about half a year to fully complete. If these are fake, then this would be one of the greatest hoaxes of all time. If they're real, this would be one of the greatest discoveries of all time. I'm an independent journalist.

• 1:59:51Danny Jones?

  Super interesting.

• 1:59:52Speaker 02

  Not necessarily alien, like you said, could be a different.

• 1:59:54Danny Jones?

  Not necessarily alien, but like, the most reasonable explanation is this is a new species of hominid. You know, just to jump straight to alien would be.

• 2:00:00Speaker 02

  You know, but people are gonna dismiss it immediately because, um, there have been a lot of these mummies and unfortunately, some are hoaxes. Some are hoaxes, unfortunately. And, you know, that really damages a lot of the, then increases the stigma and taboo against the so-called fringe topics that you specialize, right, on your show? Like, increases the stigma when you've got people doing hoaxes. It's just, but that would be really hard to hoax what we just saw.

• 2:00:25Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:00:27Speaker 02

  So, yeah.

• 2:00:29Danny Jones?

  Yeah, no, the idea that, um, you know, that there's only twenty hominids and like, we were the ones that were able to develop the technology to get off the earth means that we are, human beings are like point zero zero zero one percent of all catalogued species on earth, right? So we're super rare on earth as it is. So if you extrapolate that out into the universe, like, that is just exponentially more rare than we even thought, right? Like, just to say there's life, like, I think it's pretty, I completely believe that there has to be tons of life out in the universe. But just judging by the fact that we are point zero zero zero one percent of living species on earth,

• 2:01:12Danny Jones?

  what are the chances that there are, that there are other beings, life forms, that have evolved to be as intelligent as us and to be upright bipedal hominids like us? With a brain that sits directly on top of the head?

• 2:01:24Speaker 02

  The chances are very high.

• 2:01:26Danny Jones?

  To be evolved that way?

• 2:01:27Speaker 02

  Not that shape, but intelligent life, yes, because that tiny number you just quoted?

• 2:01:31Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:01:32Speaker 02

  I can cancel that out very easily. There are trillions of planets in our galaxy alone. So that tiny number has to face the gigantic number of all the exoplanets out there, of all the potentially habitable planets. That's Kevin's field of research, actually, exoplanets. So is there intelligent life out there? Almost certainly. Is it gonna look like us? No, that's highly improbable.

• 2:01:55Danny Jones?

  Right, because the atmospheric conditions, the gravity is gonna be different, they're likely gonna be like, like if we evolved in water, what about like all the water world that we've

• 2:02:02Speaker 02

  That's exactly why Mike Masters says, probably not aliens, the grays are probably humans of the future. He's got a good point.

• 2:02:11Danny Jones?

  That's the, I think that's the strongest.

• 2:02:12Speaker 02

  That's a damn good point, but Gary Nolan has a counter argument.

• 2:02:15Danny Jones?

  There's a couple of counter arguments.

• 2:02:17Speaker 02

  He says the grays aren't aliens. He says they're like.

• 2:02:19Danny Jones?

  CIA.

• 2:02:20Speaker 02

  The aliens? No, no.

• 2:02:21Danny Jones?

  That's what Stephen Greer says.

• 2:02:22Speaker 02

  Oh, like in a vat, in a zipper?

• 2:02:24Danny Jones?

  No, no, no, no. He thinks that they're CIA constructed robots, basically like.

• 2:02:28Speaker 02

  You know, that's similar to what Gary Nolan says. Gary Nolan says they're alien constructed robots that are meant to be similar to humans.

• 2:02:34Danny Jones?

  Yeah. That's what Gary Nolan believes?

• 2:02:38Speaker 02

  That I've heard him suggest that on numerous shows. He says that the grays are sort of like, um, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think he says they're avatars. That's the word he used.

• 2:02:48Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:02:49Speaker 02

  But not CIA avatars, but actual alien avatars, and the aliens look nothing like us. To me, that is a lot more plausible than saying that somewhere light years away, a bipedal creature evolved again. Really? Really? So no, Mike Masters has a good point, a very good point on that.

• 2:03:07Danny Jones?

  Well, another point that's been made to me is, is that, um, are you familiar with morphic resonance, Sheldon Drake, Rupert Sheldon Drake's morphic resonance?

• 2:03:17Speaker 02

  Yes, I've actually, I've actually met Rupert Sheldon Drake at a conference a few years ago, yeah.

• 2:03:21Danny Jones?

  So like the idea is basically if like a problem gets solved in one side of the world, or one side of the universe, it could be easily, it quickly gets solved on another side because it's like, and this, this reconciles with, um, With like the simulation hypothesis that we're in a computer program like it's conserving processing power. So if a problem gets solved in one place, some people break a world record in one part of the world, it gets broken soon after in another part of the world. Right? So like if if evolution got solved here on earth, maybe it could get solved somewhere else using more morphic resonance on another planet, another part of the galaxy.

• 2:03:54Speaker 02

  That's reasonable. Yeah, I've heard it. I've heard that case made that, oh yeah, there will be bipedal. It's an efficient structure. It just conver- convergently evolved in another place. I've definitely heard that.

• 2:04:04Danny Jones?

  Yeah, I've had a lot of smart people tell me that that's a super likely scenario.

• 2:04:09Speaker 02

  I don't know what to think until we get some more facts, right? Some more data on what's going on.

• 2:04:14Danny Jones?

  Right. Yeah, totally.

• 2:04:17Speaker 02

  I've actually got so one of the papers I recently published, actually, if you want to pull it up, could you go back to archive.org that I brought up earlier before the show started? Yeah. Can you can you look for the search for the word? Not not there, like, search on the page, do Ctrl F and search for catastrophic.

• 2:04:39Speaker 02

  There you go. Click that. Click that one. Number eight. Yep. So this is a paper I recently published in Limina, the Journal of UAP Studies. By the way, I say that to anybody in academia, Journal of UAP Studies, they roll their eyes because of the stigma. I think this is one of the most important things I've ever written. It's only eight pages. I basically, I calculate the probability of somebody accidentally capturing evidence of a Roswell style crash on their smartphone. Because I got sick and tired of people saying, oh, if you know, crashes were real, somebody would have gotten it on their iPhone already. You know, we hear this all the time. Well, Bigfoot's real, it would already be on your smartphone.

• 2:05:19Danny Jones?

  You mean a video of a crash?

• 2:05:20Speaker 02

  Yeah. Yeah. And you know what I concluded? You know what I discovered? Actually, because the earth is mostly water and because we have, we don't have the population of New York City everywhere, right? Most of the world is rural. I actually calculate and determine, you know what? It's actually reasonable that there hasn't been any iPhone or smartphone ever. According to my paper, I conclude that if David Grush is right.

• 2:05:50Speaker 02

  And it's an average of uh 10 crashes per century of NHI craft. If they're if they're real or not necessarily NHI, you know, breakaway civilization, doesn't matter who it is. According to my calculations, and again, a huge error bar, I say it's gonna be until about like 2040, 2050. Again, that's a random number, so it could be tomorrow, could be in 20 years. I'm basically calculating, based on the David Grush's claim of a crash rate. What is the most probable year, just doing a simulation like Kevin did, just running all the stats? What's the most probable year of the first video of like an actual, someone captures video of crash? And I estimate about 2040.

• 2:06:33Danny Jones?

  Well, you know, there is one that has been um on video, which was during Operation Starfish Prime. Are you familiar with this?

• 2:06:41Speaker 02

  I am not.

• 2:06:41Danny Jones?

  During uh Operation Starfish Prime uh in the 60s, when they were uh detonating nukes in the atmosphere and in outer space.

• 2:06:48Speaker 02

  Oh, yes, is this with the ship that came in and zapped the nuke?

• 2:06:52Danny Jones?

  No, that that was that was that was Vandenberg.

• 2:06:55Speaker 02

  Vandenberg, you're right, I mixed them two, okay.

• 2:06:56Danny Jones?

  So so Operation Starfish Prime, uh there was another name for it too, I forget what the other name was. But there was a uh a nuclear detonation in the atmosphere and it was on video. And Harold Malmgren uh was part of this and they, when they were observing it, they saw, they were filming the the blast. And out of the blast, uh an object just fell, fell straight to the, to into the ocean. And uh these people were just calling it, calling it a tag along, like nobody, nobody thought it was anything. But he was like, this is definitely something fell out, an object.

• 2:07:29Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 2:07:29Danny Jones?

  Fell out of this nuclear blast.

• 2:07:31Speaker 02

  No, but you see, you said ocean, but that's not what I'm focusing on in the paper. So that's why I'm saying it hasn't happened yet. I'm saying on land, I'm saying like Roswell cell, I'm saying there's a saucer and someone's got an iPhone 16 video. Of like a gray alien calling, that's what I'm talking about. So you're, what you're talking about, that's old school video technology. I'm talking about on a smartphone, someone whips out their phone and gets the evidence, people check it. They know it's not AI, they know it's not fake video. And what I estimate is that the reason why it hasn't happened yet, it's not necessarily because it's not real. Hasn't happened yet because the earth is mostly. Water.

• 2:08:09Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:08:10Speaker 02

  And population is spread thin. There, I've driven across the country multiple times. I hate flying. Driving is so much easier. I can stop my car and I can go pee. Nobody runs over and goes, sir, sir, you gotta get that. I love driving. I've driven across the United States multiple times.

• 2:08:27Danny Jones?

  Yeah, that's amazing how much it's unpopulated.

• 2:08:30Speaker 02

  Freaking empty.

• 2:08:31Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:08:31Speaker 02

  Cow.

• 2:08:32Danny Jones?

  Even flying, you can look out the window and just see.

• 2:08:34Speaker 02

  Yeah, of course. Here, there's a cow. There's a horse. It's just empty. So like, what people don't realize is just because there's no smoking gun evidence yet.

• 2:08:44Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:08:45Speaker 02

  That doesn't mean something's not real.

• 2:08:47Danny Jones?

  Right, totally.

• 2:08:48Speaker 02

  That doesn't mean it's not real.

• 2:08:50Danny Jones?

  See, if you could find a video, I want to see a video.

• 2:08:52Speaker 02

  The Starfish Prime?

• 2:08:53Danny Jones?

  That Starfish Prime video.

• 2:08:54Speaker 02

  Yeah, I haven't heard of this before.

• 2:08:55Danny Jones?

  The UFO falling out of it.

• 2:08:57Speaker 02

  I did study the, um, the other case, the Vandenberg with the like zap, zap.

• 2:09:00Danny Jones?

  That one's crazy.

• 2:09:01Speaker 02

  Yeah, I know.

• 2:09:02Danny Jones?

  That one's crazy. I think they interviewed one of the officers there.

• 2:09:04Speaker 02

  They did. An investigation alien, George Knapp interviewed, one of the lieutenant.

• 2:09:08Danny Jones?

  Yeah, this was a long time ago. But allegedly, yeah, there, there's a, and we actually.

• 2:09:13Speaker 02

  Allegedly, the video exists and was confiscated.

• 2:09:15Danny Jones?

  Yeah, but I've seen, uh, there was video online at one point, and I think we found it. And then, uh, it was just really hard to find after that, like they buried it. And that's another problem with this whole thing is that if somebody did capture this on their iPhone, with the way that the internet is just regulated by the government these days, I don't think it would ever survive.

• 2:09:35Speaker 02

  No, it would survive.

• 2:09:36Danny Jones?

  I don't know.

• 2:09:37Speaker 02

  I disagree, respectfully disagree, because I'm optimistic. Let me explain why. You can't put the genie back in the bottle because it gets copied on TikTok, YouTube, Vimeo. There's, there's no way.

• 2:09:46Danny Jones?

  It's easy for them to scrub all that.

• 2:09:47Speaker 02

  No, no, it's not. It's not because you can't scrub all the private copies also on hard drives and everything. So the, if, if I ever captured incontrovertible evidence of something truly anomalous, I would make multiple copies. I would bury some of them in the ground on hard drives. There's no way a government could get them.

• 2:10:03Danny Jones?

  What was it called, Steve? Operation what?

• 2:10:05Speaker 02

  Also, so I think you're.

• 2:10:07Danny Jones?

  Dominic one and two. Okay.

• 2:10:08Speaker 02

  I think you're giving the government too much credit. They're incompetent. You're right that they could scrub everything, but you know why it wouldn't happen? Because some bureaucrat would forget to fill out the correct form.

• 2:10:17Danny Jones?

  Sure, I agree with you. They're incompetent, but this stuff is classified according to Harold Malmstrom.

• 2:10:22Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 2:10:22Danny Jones?

  Two, two levels above the Manhattan Project.

• 2:10:24Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah.

• 2:10:24Danny Jones?

  So this is like super, super secret.

• 2:10:26Speaker 02

  And that's one of the reasons why we're not making progress, by the way.

• 2:10:29Danny Jones?

  Sure.

• 2:10:29Speaker 02

  It's too highly classified, and so you don't have enough people looking at it. You don't have enough eyes on the problem.

• 2:10:34Danny Jones?

  Yep. Alright, so here's the blast.

• 2:10:37Speaker 02

  So this is a nuclear bomb test?

• 2:10:38Danny Jones?

  This is a nuclear bomb test in the upper atmosphere. Uh, I don't know if you can see it from this angle. Uh, fishbowl. I don't know if we can-

• 2:10:46Speaker 02

  Oh, there. Was that it?

• 2:10:48Danny Jones?

  No, that wasn't it. You can see this thing falling directly. Oh, so, okay, stop, pause it. So they altered this and they added that white triangle. This is the blast right here.

• 2:10:56Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 2:10:56Danny Jones?

  But it was in, see that white triangle on the bottom?

• 2:10:58Speaker 02

  Yes, I do.

• 2:10:59Danny Jones?

  They added this onto it after. It happened, it fell right down through that, where that triangle was.

• 2:11:04Speaker 02

  Ah, I see, I see.

• 2:11:05Danny Jones?

  Go to, uh- So it was doctored? Go to, yes, go to Jesse Michaels', uh, Jesse Michaels', type in Jesse Michaels' Harold Malmgren. And, uh, if you go to, oh god, if my memory serves me correctly, about an hour in-

• 2:11:18Speaker 02

  Something doesn't make sense here, though. Are you sa- are you saying an advanced ship was somehow damaged by the blast?

• 2:11:23Danny Jones?

  Yes.

• 2:11:24Speaker 02

  But that shouldn't be possible. I'll, I'll explain why. Actually Travis Taylor did the math on this, you know? Travis, right, of course, Ancient Aliens, Skinwalker Ranch?

• 2:11:31Danny Jones?

  Yeah, yeah, I've heard of him.

• 2:11:32Speaker 02

  He did the math on this, and I, I can check his math, because I'm a physicist, it's easy. If you have an interstellar craft that can get through, this is an assumption, right, because they could be here, I'm just saying, let's use the assumption of an interstellar craft. If you can travel the stars, that means you could, that means that this is a serious problem, which is if you're traveling between the stars at relativistic speeds, speck of dust has more energy than that, has more energy than a Tsar Bomba, the largest nuke ever created, Soviet Union. So basically, if they can travel interstellar space, our nukes would be like nothing, mosquito to them. And so, it, it really bugs me if there's some supposedly advanced tech.

• 2:12:17Speaker 02

  The nu- a nuke should be nothing to them. They should be able to fly right through-

• 2:12:20Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:12:21Speaker 02

  A nuke and it would be nothing to them.

• 2:12:22Danny Jones?

  Yeah, well then, I mean, how would you explain all the other UFO crashes?

• 2:12:25Speaker 02

  I, I don't know.

• 2:12:26Danny Jones?

  Like, how would you explain, uh, a lightning bolt, taking out the, the one that happened?

• 2:12:29Speaker 02

  Well, Kevin has an explanation. Kevin says they're not used to traveling in atmospheres.

• 2:12:34Danny Jones?

  There, there it is, Steve, there it is, go back. Right, but right, uh, a little bit forward. Right around here, yeah. Go ahead. Play it. Well, these are nukes in the- Give us some audio. This is it.

• 2:12:44Speaker 02

  You know, somewhere, did you know somewhere there's a memorial somewhere? On a distant planet or in another dimension that says, "For all of the lives lost on Earth" or on Sol 3.

• 2:12:56Danny Jones?

  Oh, yeah?

• 2:12:57Speaker 02

  Like an alien memorial. There's an alien memorial somewhere for all the crashes-

• 2:13:01Danny Jones?

  Right. Sure.

• 2:13:02Speaker 02

  On Earth.

• 2:13:03Danny Jones?

  That's funny.

• 2:13:04Speaker 04

  Operation Dominic was a class-

• 2:13:06Danny Jones?

  Operation Dominic. You were just on it, dude.

• 2:13:11Speaker 04

  Running from April to October of 1962, Operation Dominic was a classified American program conducting 31 nuclear test explosions in the Marshall Islands. These tests were designed to study the effects of nuclear detonations in high altitudes, in space and near space.

• 2:13:33Speaker 04

  One of these tests, Starfish Prime, created an electromagnetic pulse that extended over 1,400 kilometers, knocked out streetlights, triggered burglar alarms, and caused electrical surges in nearby Hawaii. It also produced an artificial aurora visible from Hawaii to New Zealand, and it even created a man-made radiation belt similar to the Van Allen belt that destroyed multiple satellites.

• 2:14:01Speaker 04

  The last few tests of this series were the Blue Gill tests, which involved a unique X-ray-based missile defense system. And Harold was put in charge of doing all of the cost assessments for this test. Tell us about the Blue Gill Triple Prime-

• 2:14:17Danny Jones?

  So just hold on, click on the video, make it go double speed.

• 2:14:21Danny Jones?

  Let it roll, right?

• 2:14:23Speaker 04

  You can see clearly from the Kettle One footage of the nuclear blast-

• 2:14:25Speaker 02

  There it is, there it is.

• 2:14:28Danny Jones?

  Give us the volume on it.

• 2:14:29Speaker 04

  The official report written about this test at the time was written by the Flight Dynamics Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The report tries to explain the presence of this second thermal source in the footage. Quote-unquote, "There is no evidence to indicate that even the closest pod was ever immersed in the fireball." So it definitely wasn't one of the instrumentation pods on the missile.

• 2:14:51Danny Jones?

  In the film, yeah.

• 2:14:53Speaker 04

  If that's not weird enough, these videos were declassified to the public in 1998. At the declassification review, the Defense Special Weapons Agency, led by Dr. Byron L. Ristvett, applied a large white triangle to the footage, sanitizing it, right where you can see the object tumbling out of the plume in the Kettle One footage.

• 2:15:14Speaker 07

  There's well-known animosity between Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore Labs. Lawrence Livermore ran one aircraft, Los Alamos ran the other. The reason why the Kettle One footage was declassified and Kettle Two wasn't was simply a personal difference in what should remain classified and what shouldn't.

• 2:15:36Danny Jones?

  And we know that those things have, you know, throughout history, just been all around nuclear bases. And there's also, um, you know, uh, Navy pilots and submarines talking about, you know, weird things happening around nuclear submarines.

• 2:15:49Speaker 02

  UFOs, yeah.

• 2:15:50Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:15:50Speaker 02

  And they can turn the, they can turn missiles on, they can turn them off.

• 2:15:54Danny Jones?

  Yeah, yeah.

• 2:15:54Speaker 02

  You know, the story of World War III almost started because UFOs started up.

• 2:15:58Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:15:59Speaker 02

  A countdown on Russian missiles.

• 2:16:00Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:16:01Speaker 02

  And of course, Wall Street Journal had some bogus article how that's fake and, oh my God, I'm just...

• 2:16:06Danny Jones?

  Oh, it was some elaborate hazing experiment.

• 2:16:07Speaker 02

  Oh, give me a break. You don't haze people on something that can cause the end of the world. Give me a break. Like, so you asked me earlier, what could, how, what got in, got me into UFOs? I forgot to tell you, my, my snarky answer to that is at some point, the debunker explanations got dumber than just admitting, okay.

• 2:16:29Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:16:30Speaker 02

  It could be, it's probably alien.

• 2:16:30Danny Jones?

  Totally.

• 2:16:31Speaker 02

  You know, like, at some point, I, I've had enough of McWest's seagulls and, you know, and Chinese lanterns and like, give me a break, okay? Like, at some point, I was like, some, okay, there are so many encounters, so many stories and events now where the simplest explanation is like...

• 2:16:52Speaker 02

  There was some advanced non-human craft. They're like, that's the simplest explanation.

• 2:16:55Danny Jones?

  Yeah, I think some of those videos though that came out around 2014, I think it was 2017 when the New York Times.

• 2:17:01Speaker 02

  Seventeen, yeah.

• 2:17:02Danny Jones?

  Like the Go Fast video. I think those things can be explained away pretty easily. Like the one, the one with the, uh, it looks like somebody, it looks like this thing flying above the water.

• 2:17:10Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah.

• 2:17:11Danny Jones?

  What they don't, people don't realize is like, the plane is flying in one direction.

• 2:17:14Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 2:17:14Danny Jones?

  There's a water in the background and then there's something that's flying the opposite direction above the water. So it's like this parallax effect.

• 2:17:19Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 2:17:20Danny Jones?

  So that, that could very easy be a bird flying the opposite direction.

• 2:17:23Speaker 02

  But that can't explain the Tic Tac.

• 2:17:25Danny Jones?

  No, that can't, that cannot explain. But we haven't, we don't have, the problem is we don't have video of the Tic Tac. We only have, uh, Fravor's, uh...

• 2:17:31Speaker 02

  No, we do have video, but we only have a little bit. We have the little bit of the gun cam or the, the.

• 2:17:35Danny Jones?

  It's public?

• 2:17:36Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 2:17:37Danny Jones?

  The Tic Tac?

• 2:17:38Speaker 02

  Yeah, it's one of the three videos. You can even see the little legs under the Tic, under the Tic Tac.

• 2:17:43Danny Jones?

  You're talking about the Gimbal one?

• 2:17:44Speaker 02

  No, no, no. I'm talking about the third video. There's three.

• 2:17:47Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 2:17:47Speaker 02

  There's Gimbal, there's Go Fast, and then there's an actual Tic Tac video. It's a Tic Tac with two little legs.

• 2:17:52Danny Jones?

  Oh, okay.

• 2:17:53Speaker 02

  Yeah, no. And so like, we have that. And there's no, there's no explanation.

• 2:17:58Danny Jones?

  Right. But there's gotta be so much more. There's gotta be so much more.

• 2:18:02Speaker 02

  Oh, of course. We're not gonna see that.

• 2:18:03Danny Jones?

  They're just not gonna release ever.

• 2:18:04Speaker 02

  Yeah, of course not.

• 2:18:07Danny Jones?

  Yeah, that one's crazy. Like, what the fuck is that?

• 2:18:11Danny Jones?

  And then it starts rotating.

• 2:18:12Speaker 02

  So that's the Gimbal. Yeah, the Gimbal is also hard to explain. And then there's a third video. There were three videos that came out in seventeen.

• 2:18:18Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:18:19Speaker 02

  They often get mixed up. Some of them are west coast, some of them are east coast, some of them are Roosevelt limits. They get mixed up all the time. But yeah, the, the, the Tic Tac video was analyzed by my friend Kevin. He published a paper. This is the one where, yeah, I'll give McWest this one.

• 2:18:33Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:18:33Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah, I'll give him this one.

• 2:18:35Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:18:35Speaker 02

  But the Tic Tac cannot be explained that easily. Recently, actually, there was a YouTube video by a professor, Simon, who was like, oh, Tic Tac, that was the Lockheed Martin device. I'm like, really?

• 2:18:44Danny Jones?

  Well, what's his name came out and said it's undeniably 100% uh, uh, Lockheed Martin technology.

• 2:18:49Speaker 02

  Yeah, Ross Colheart said that.

• 2:18:50Danny Jones?

  Ross Colheart said that, yeah.

• 2:18:50Speaker 02

  Yeah, and that, interesting. So they didn't read Kevin's paper that shows it was, it had kind of accelerations beyond human capability. I mean, like, there are published papers by me, by my friend Kevin, showing that's not possible. And everyone conveniently pretends they don't exist.

• 2:19:06Danny Jones?

  Why couldn't it be possible that there couldn't have been some, if physics, if there's some sort of physics that was, uh, went dark in the 50s and they've been working on it ever since and they've been, uh, developing it and what they wanted to test it against like our, our Navy fighters. Wouldn't that, even if there weren't, wasn't humans in there, that wouldn't be like liquefied, moving around, couldn't they, wouldn't, isn't it?

• 2:19:25Speaker 02

  Great question, great question. You gotta read Kevin's paper, it's because even if it was unmanned, at the accelerations that Kevin has calculated, there doesn't exist a material that could withstand that.

• 2:19:37Danny Jones?

  Oh, really?

• 2:19:38Speaker 02

  It would just be crushed, like, and I, and I know what you're gonna say, oh, some breakaway civilization? No, you don't understand, there's literally against the laws of all physics.

• 2:19:45Danny Jones?

  Yeah, but what if the material isn't actually going against air like that?

• 2:19:49Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know exactly what you mean.

• 2:19:51Danny Jones?

  What if it's like creating a cavity, a cavitational type thing?

• 2:19:53Speaker 02

  Doesn't matter, doesn't matter, these are simple, basic laws of physics we've known for centuries. Is one of the points of Kevin's paper, is the accelerations are not possible. They would destroy any material, I don't care if it's in air, I don't care if it's in vacuum. And conveniently, everyone who spouts off they think they have figured out, the tic tac, they all pretend that Kevin's work and my work doesn't exist. They don't read it, they don't, in fact, did you know, I have proof that Sean Kirkpatrick lied under oath and nobody's listening to me? Every, no news media outlet would carry this story for me. I said I can prove it, nobody's listening.

• 2:20:35Danny Jones?

  How do you prove it?

• 2:20:35Speaker 02

  So here's what happened. What happened was, um, this might be the first time I'm saying on a podcast, but I don't care, I'll get in trouble, but whatever. I'm just sick and tired of all the lies and the obfuscation. I, so, um, during one of the hearings, former head of Arrow, Sean Kirkpatrick, said to Senator Gillibrand, to her face, under oath, it was one of those mini hearings, there was like almost nobody there, it wasn't the full Congress, I think. It was like, it was just Sean Kirkpatrick, Senator Gillibrand and a few people, okay? It was like a subcommittee meeting of some kind. He said,

• 2:21:15Speaker 02

  I'm going to paraphrase, but I wrote down the exact quote, of course. He said something like, "There are no published scientific papers claiming that the Tic-Tac encounter might have been aliens." And then he sneers, he laughs like, "And if you think otherwise, you're welcome to publish."

• 2:21:35Speaker 00

  Hey Spotify listeners, when you travel with American Airlines, you'll enjoy comfort and convenience at every altitude. Before takeoff, unwind in the Admiral's Club Lounge with curated self-serve offerings of hearty bites and refreshments. In-flight, stay connected with high-speed Wi-Fi, sponsored by AT&T. Your journey is designed to feel easy from the moment you check in to the moment you arrive. No matter where you're going, American gets you there. Book now at aa.com.

• 2:22:00Speaker 05

  Visible puts the ultimate wireless hack in the palm of your hand. With unlimited 5G wireless data and hotspot, designed to keep you connected. Powered by Verizon's 5G network. And no contract holding you back. Plans start at $25 a month. Or get the premium Visible Plus Pro Plan and save $10 on your first month when you use promo code HACK. Make the switch at visible.com. Terms apply. See visible.com for details.

• 2:22:31Speaker 02

  We already published a paper. Kevin did. So can we go back to knuthelab.org and I'll show you the paper? This is many years old already now.

• 2:22:39Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 2:22:39Speaker 02

  This paper published estimating the flight characteristics of anomalous air.

• 2:22:43Danny Jones?

  Maybe he just wasn't aware of it.

• 2:22:45Speaker 02

  I knew you were going to say that. But guess, so then he was, so then he's ignorant and he's not good at his job.

• 2:22:50Danny Jones?

  Sure.

• 2:22:50Speaker 02

  He's the head of Arrow. But what if I could tell you? What if I told you that's not the case? Because I told him about it. So Kevin and I, UAPX, we had, we actually had, we were told not to talk about it, but you know what? Screw them. I'm so sick of these people. We actually talked to Arrow. We had like a Google Meet or Microsoft Teams or whatever, Zoom or whatever the hell software. We met with them. We actually talked to them and we actually brought up Kevin's paper and it's like, "Look, it turns out in the Nimitz encounter, these accelerations, if you apply them to interstellar craft, these would be good interstellar craft. You could cross the galaxy in a few months." And like, we told Sean Kirkpatrick. I heard his voice. He asked me a question. I know Sean Kirkpatrick

• 2:23:33Speaker 02

  was on the call. And so, you're not gonna tell me he didn't know. So either he didn't know, in which case, he's ignorant of facts that he needs for his job, fortunately, he's not head anymore, of Arrow. Number two, okay, then, or he's lying, or he forgot, conveniently, okay? So you're right. I can't prove he's lying, but he's either lying, ignorant, or forgetful. Which of those is the better option? All of those options are bad. But anyway, he's aware of this paper. Could you go back to, um, could you please click on, um, a UAP library again, like last time? So Sean Kirkpatrick knew about this paper, because we told him about it. We're like, "Oh, and Kevin has written this great paper."

• 2:24:15Speaker 02

  In this paper, which Ross Colheart has conveniently forgotten exists, because he knows about it too, because I've talked to Ross, I've talked, Kevin's talked to him. In it, Kevin and his friends, Robert and Peter, from the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies, SCU, they show that the Nimitz encounter demonstrates velocities accelerations beyond human capabilities. And Mick West poo-poos this. He says it's BS, it's a jet or a seagull, whatever, the usual. This is a scientific paper. It passed peer review. But then, you know what the critics say? "Oh, it doesn't count." You know why it doesn't count? Oh, Kevin's the editor of the journal. He's not the only editor. He recused himself. And that's what they always say. "My crash paper, that doesn't count? That's in limina. It's a UFO journal."

• 2:25:00Speaker 02

  You know what's the one paper they can't say doesn't count? Kevin's History of UFO Studies is in Progress in Aerospace Sciences. That's a major journal. And my paper on the UAPX results is also Progress Aerospace Sciences. But yeah, basically, people, skeptics always find a way to pretend that this doesn't count. That these facts, these numbers, these results are wrong, or they don't count. But what's really incredible to me is like, the past week, I hear all this nonsense that the Tic Tac was Lockheed Martin.

• 2:25:32Speaker 02

  People, why are they not reading the facts? Like Kevin did a study, SCU did a study of this and it shows that this is incredible. Let's now take the perspective of like, I'm very skeptical, but let's take your perspective. Let's say, ah, it's not alien, some super advanced tech. Then I got some questions. Okay. Number one, why isn't David Fravor, Top Gun Academy pilot, why isn't he flying it? Why are we still wasting time with F-16s if we have this?

• 2:26:00Danny Jones?

  Because it has to be kept secret, super classified.

• 2:26:02Speaker 02

  But why don't we, then, okay, I have another que, I have another answer for that then. I've had this same conversation multiple times. Why did we lose Afghanistan? Why has America lost every single war it's been in since World War II? If we had this, we should be flying this shit around. We should be going to Ukraine, bailing out Ukraine.

• 2:26:21Danny Jones?

  It's not worth, it's not worth deploying in those types of things. We don't, we don't give a fuck about the people in Ukraine or Afghanistan. All those, all those wars are just about money and extracting oil.

• 2:26:30Speaker 02

  That's a fair point. That's a fair point.

• 2:26:32Danny Jones?

  So I don't think that they would plan on.

• 2:26:34Speaker 02

  But that makes me angry. That makes me angry because freak up, if we have this technology, I want America to use it to win every war. We're like, what the hell? So it makes me mad. As a taxpayer, if I paid for that shit, it needs to be used, not just hidden away.

• 2:26:51Danny Jones?

  Yeah, no, I, I think, I think possibly one of the reasons for the information coming out about this stuff and, and this becoming more public in the, in the media could be some sort of a deterrence, uh, some sort of a subliminal message to other countries, uh, who are probably are working on very similar things.

• 2:27:10Speaker 02

  Oh, yeah.

• 2:27:11Danny Jones?

  To let them know that we have it in, in the case that there ever is some sort of an existential crisis that would bring a war to American soil.

• 2:27:19Speaker 02

  I have an answer to that. We don't need it. Why would we need Tic Tac? We have nukes already. We already have the best thing that could annihilate cities in seconds. I don't understand what the point is.

• 2:27:29Danny Jones?

  Yeah, nukes, uh, the problem with nukes is that everybody has nukes. And as soon as a nuke gets launched, it's likely just gonna be Armageddon.

• 2:27:37Speaker 02

  I know.

• 2:27:38Danny Jones?

  I think everybody knows that.

• 2:27:39Speaker 02

  I know, but then it's same thing with the Tic Tac technology, because you can use that to drop a nuke.

• 2:27:44Danny Jones?

  Uh, yeah, but if you have the Tic Tac technology, uh, you know, who knows what that could be used for? I don't know. I don't know how it can be used for weapons. But, um, I, I think that, again, you know, this is all conjecture. I don't know what possible weapon systems could be deployed using these things. But, um, the fact is it's super advanced tech and it's scary. And, uh, to let people, you know, people can use their imaginations. If you have these things that can travel from one point to another in an instant, what type of weapons do you actually have? And, you know,

• 2:28:26Danny Jones?

  we have deterrence with nukes. I mean, we, not only do we have, not, not only is every, there's nine nations that are armed with nukes. And we have, you know, systems like the Star Wars things and like these laser things and on satellites.

• 2:28:40Speaker 02

  You had any, didn't you have any Jacobson on the show?

• 2:28:42Danny Jones?

  Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that could potentially take out, uh, nuclear warheads when they enter the atmosphere. You know, I, I'm terrified at the idea of nuclear war, but I think that there's, there's other things that we're developing that we don't know about, that we'll probably maybe learn about in the next 20 years. And DARPA's been

• 2:29:00Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah.

• 2:29:00Danny Jones?

  Historically working on things that never come out into the public for at least 20 to 30 years. For example, like Neuralink, they've been working on,

• 2:29:06Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 2:29:07Danny Jones?

  on brain chips for soldiers since the early 90s.

• 2:29:09Speaker 02

  All that's gonna collapse now, because Doge has cut everything, basically. So, no, I'm dead serious.

• 2:29:14Danny Jones?

  Doge, Doge, Doge, Doge is taking funding out of, out of things like IRS, HHS, so, you know,

• 2:29:23Speaker 02

  And my dark matter originally, but they restored it.

• 2:29:25Danny Jones?

  You know, Elon was behind Doge, but Elon gets all his money from the Pentagon, where there is a $21 trillion black hole.

• 2:29:30Speaker 02

  Oh, yeah.

• 2:29:31Danny Jones?

  That's been going to things. So, so I don't think he's, I don't think he's attacking the Pentagon. The Pentagon just got his budget increased to a trillion dollars.

• 2:29:36Speaker 02

  Oh, I know, I know. I was kidding. I was just kidding.

• 2:29:38Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:29:38Speaker 02

  But my point earlier was that the thing is you can't keep secrets forever because scientists are clever, curious people. Things get accidentally rediscovered. It happens all the time.

• 2:29:46Danny Jones?

  So, do you think the Bob Lazar story is bullshit?

• 2:29:49Speaker 02

  Complete.

• 2:29:49Danny Jones?

  Really?

• 2:29:50Speaker 02

  Complete bullshit. And I hate to say it because I want it to be true. But everything that comes out of his mouth is so wrong. It's against science. Like, we discovered element 115 already. It has none of the properties, he claims. And I feel like, so I've talked to people I know, like Eric Davis, Hal Puthoff that I trust. And they've got, and I've talked to people like that who said they've got a hypothesis. They think that Bob Lazar's purpose is disinformation, to say stuff that's so wrong that any scientist with half a brain cell knows immediately it's nonsense. Any physicist can listen to Bob Lazar and be like, "Yeah, he's not a real physicist, he's talking nonsense." And so, every, like, everything he says is so wrong on so many levels,

• 2:30:33Speaker 02

  I could spend three hours on just Bob Lazar and debunking everything he said. Like, don't get me wrong, I wish he was real. I wish it was true. But he, he doesn't even get basic nuclear physics right. And come on, he never went to MIT. They, would they erase the memories of all the professors? It makes no sense.

• 2:30:50Danny Jones?

  There's a very reasonable explanation for that, for his records being erased.

• 2:30:54Speaker 02

  Oh, his records could be erased, but you can't erase the memory. The professor would be like, "Oh yeah, I had Bob in my class."

• 2:30:59Danny Jones?

  No, he wouldn't be in a public class, that's the point. If he was, if he, if he, there, there's lots of evidence of people going to MIT to work on military shit and weapon systems that were under the sanction of the Pentagon that were kept secret and had all this stuff expunged.

• 2:31:13Speaker 02

  But if they open their mouth, they talk correct physics. So, for example, Eric Davis, he opens his mouth and correct physics comes out. Hal Puthoff opens his mouth, correct things come out of his mouth. Bob Lazar opens his mouth and nonsense comes out.

• 2:31:26Danny Jones?

  Even if it was nonsense, he doesn't have to be like a PhD physicist to be useful to some of those programs.

• 2:31:32Speaker 02

  Oh yeah, so I think, I think there's a grain of truth in what Bob Lazar says. But I think he misheard some things and he's saying some things wrong.

• 2:31:42Danny Jones?

  Maybe.

• 2:31:42Speaker 02

  That's what I think is happening. But I, you can't take everything he says is scientifically accurate because it doesn't work.

• 2:31:48Danny Jones?

  I don't think, I don't think, I don't think the idea is saying that he doesn't, he says a lot of bullshit or says a lot of wrong things about physics.

• 2:31:54Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 2:31:54Danny Jones?

  I don't think that's a, a, a, a strong argument to him saying that his story's full of shit, you know? I think it's totally flawed.

• 2:32:01Speaker 02

  A grain of truth in there is what I'm saying. What I was saying was the physics is full of shit that he says. There could be a grain of truth. No, not maybe, for sure, his physics is wrong.

• 2:32:10Danny Jones?

  Even if it is, if it is, if what you're saying is correct, I think it's still totally plausible that some secret black program would want to get a guy like him in there to throw shit at the wall to see if maybe he can tinker around and figure something out that they haven't been able to figure out in 50 years.

• 2:32:22Speaker 02

  That's true. That's possible, but here's that. But this is the problem. This is why we're not making progress.

• 2:32:28Danny Jones?

  Sure, because it's all secret. It's all compartmentalized. It's stovepipe.

• 2:32:30Speaker 02

  Exactly. Stovepipe compartment. If we really want to make progress, we would hire people like my friend Kevin. We'd hire smart, good scientists. We'd have Eric Davis. We'd have Hal Pudoff, who were not really part of the legacy program. They're on the outside. We would have smart people. We would have hundreds of people, like the Manhattan Project. We're not making progress. If there is a crash retriever versus engineer program, we're not going to make progress because there's too much stove piping. There's too much compartmentalization. But I honestly, look, one part of me thinks that if, if, if, if Bob Lazar was totally on the up and up, he'd already be dead in the desert, like by quote unquote suicide.

• 2:33:08Danny Jones?

  He doxed himself. He came out and, and with the stuff with George Knapp in the early 90s, late 80s. That, I mean, that, that's what I think that's what he was doing. Probably trying to protect himself and get his stuff out there. And that's also, you know, his background is a very discreditable background. Like the stuff that he was doing, running the brothels and all the crazy stuff he was doing and, and.

• 2:33:26Speaker 02

  Well, some of that could be made up to suppress him. Some conspiracy people think.

• 2:33:29Danny Jones?

  It doesn't have to. I think it's, I think a lot of it's very well, you can look up the court documents from his divorce to sell that he was actually running these brothels.

• 2:33:36Speaker 02

  But yeah, but 115 exists already. We found it has none of the properties he claims. There's no stable isotopes of it. And he claims he has a little bit of it left that he's keeping at home. Good. Send some to me. I can prove it's 115 in 20 seconds. That's not exaggeration, by the way. So like.

• 2:33:53Danny Jones?

  The problem with this stuff is you have people around him and around people like him that are just incentivized to use him as a mascot to make money and to make documentaries about him.

• 2:34:04Speaker 02

  Exactly.

• 2:34:05Danny Jones?

  And, and to just further their own careers. And that's my, that's my thing about this whole topic is that it's just fucked from the. Beginning because you have the internet and you have people trying to make careers off of it.

• 2:34:15Speaker 02

  Yes, yes, exactly.

• 2:34:17Danny Jones?

  That muddies the waters even more.

• 2:34:18Speaker 02

  I don't want to make any money. You know, the only money I want to make off UFOs is the only money I want to make is to turn into equipment for research and a little bit of salary to survive. I don't want to become rich and famous. I just want enough to do my work with my friends like Kevin at U Albany. But your point is very, very well taken. And remember what I said earlier. It's like the Fox Mulder poster, right? What does Fox Mulder's poster say? The X-Files. I want to believe, right? I want to believe Bob Lazar's story, but the holes on the holes in it are so gigantic to me. Actually, this is why I'm never going to be invited back to Phenomicon. I got it.

• 2:34:53Danny Jones?

  Phenomicon?

• 2:34:54Speaker 02

  You know about Phenomicon, right? No? It's in Utah. It's the like UFO Bigfoot. It's right next to Skinwalker Ranch.

• 2:35:01Danny Jones?

  Bigfoot convention?

• 2:35:02Speaker 02

  And it's like all about Skinwalker Ranch as well.

• 2:35:04Danny Jones?

  That's amazing.

• 2:35:04Speaker 02

  We Kevin and I pissed off the entire crowd because someone during Q and A asked about Bob Lazar and 115. And then we went on and on how Bob Lazar was wrong. He's full of shit and it's impossible and blah, blah, blah. Oh, we ticked off everybody.

• 2:35:17Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:35:17Speaker 02

  But here's the thing. I just, I want to know the truth. I'm not going to believe some person who claims to be a whistleblower. That's why, for example, when Grush came out, I tested his claims. I wrote that paper earlier. Remember I said, if Grush's claim of the crash rate is correct, I was going to see, okay, why don't we have evidence yet? I crunched the statistics and I discovered, oh, Grush's claims are plausible. Doesn't prove they're right, but they're plausible. But right out of the gate, all of those harsh claims are not plausible within physics and engineering. And I know people. I've talked to people

• 2:35:56Speaker 02

  who are allegedly connected with the legacy. I have several people tell me, oh yeah, Bob Lazar is just disinformation agent to just say things that are so wrong. So that physicists like me and Kevin, but other than us, you know, other physicists, they watch Bob Lazar and they not interested in jumping into UFO studies because they're like, that's so dumb and wrong that I'm not interested in participating. It's kind of like, if you take something, if you take anything that's fringe, considered pseudoscience, and you crank something up to 11, you're going to scare off well-meaning people who want to come in, and CIA is master at this, by the way.

• 2:36:39Speaker 02

  And like, you want to scare off, so I'm, I'm, I often worry that Lazar might be some sort, you know, people worry about the same thing about Lou Elzondo, it might be some sort of misinformation, disinformation campaign. The thing is, you can't believe anyone or anything, and that's what's so scary and it makes it so hard. But look, I hope I'm wrong. I really hope Bob Lazar is telling the truth, because to me, that means humanity has a future. Because if somebody else can figure out interstellar travel, we can figure it out. Like, that means there's a hopeful future. And so I want to be wrong about Bob, and I want, I'd be happy to sit down with him

• 2:37:19Speaker 02

  privately and be like, hey, I'm sorry I said UFO, if I can, please prove to me, I'm wrong, show me the facts, prove to me, talk to me as a scientist, right? He says he has a degree in science, prove to me that I was wrong about you, and I'm open about it, I'm open-minded. But the thing is, I'm going to call a spade a spade, and when I see massive amounts of evidence, problematic evidence stacking up, that somebody is not telling the truth, I'm deeply concerned, especially when it comes to this UFO, UAP sphere of things. Right. But there was some podcasts I was watching, where I think Commander Fravor said, if I'm not mistaken, it was like Friends with Bob Lazar, they have like barbecues together,

• 2:38:04Speaker 02

  and I'm like... I was starting to then like, I'm like,

• 2:38:07Danny Jones?

  Fred were saying that he was doing this?

• 2:38:09Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I think he was on Lex Friedman's podcast or another one. And I was like,

• 2:38:14Danny Jones?

  He said it seems like an interesting guy to be around.

• 2:38:16Speaker 02

  Yeah, so I'm like, ah, so I was starting to feel bad. And I'm like, oh, maybe he's not full of shit. So like I said, I hope I'm wrong, but I, the problem is I know too much physics and what he says is just so wrong.

• 2:38:25Danny Jones?

  I've gone back and forth on him. I believed him in the beginning and then I stopped believing him for a while. And now I'm back on the Bob Lazar train now, I think.

• 2:38:32Speaker 02

  I'm on, I'm on the Eric Davis train, actually. Actually, recently Eric Davis joined the physics faculty as an adjunct faculty at U Albany. That was a big deal. That's a big deal. So nobody knows that because I'm not on Twitter. So soon as somebody hears that, if they hear this on this podcast, UFO Twitter is gonna lose its shit over this news. No one's heard this. There was no press release. We didn't trumpet it. But yeah, Eric Davis is working with me and Kevin now at U Albany remotely. He's just a volunteer. He's not paid. He's a volunteer adjunct professor and we're honored to have him. Him, I believe. Because I sit down with him, I talk physics, unlike, you know, I listen to Bob Lazar's physics.

• 2:39:10Speaker 02

  I ask Eric questions and guess what? His answers are reasonable. I have a PhD in physics, so I know he's not talking BS to me. And,

• 2:39:18Danny Jones?

  Yeah, he's one of the guys that seems to be the, one of the few guys that's like not detested by anybody in this space. Everyone seems to take him seriously.

• 2:39:24Speaker 02

  He's the real deal. Wilson memo, that's the real deal. He's never gonna admit that publicly, but that's the real, that's real, that's real.

• 2:39:31Danny Jones?

  What was the Wilson memo?

• 2:39:32Speaker 02

  Oh, that's the alleged recording of the like, of Eric talking with Admiral Wilson about the legacy program.

• 2:39:39Danny Jones?

  Right. Okay. Yeah, I've heard this before. It's just like in and out.

• 2:39:43Speaker 02

  Yeah, people consider earth shattering revelation and, but then some people say it was debunked. It's real. But Eric's not gonna admit that. He just wants to have a, you know, he just wants to be left alone, right? He just, he's got, he's got a wife and families, as do I. Like, he just wants to be left the hell alone. So you don't see him on every podcast or like promoting himself. He hasn't gotten a single dollar off of anything. And so that's again, why I think, you know, he's more likely to be legitimate than people like Bob Lazar, who are just, you know, going documentaries and this and that. He's just a real physicist. I asked him, so okay, you, you talk to people in legacy program. You've talked to people who claim reverse engineering. He gave me the most honest answer, better than Bob Lazar's answer, but any answer ever, the most plausible to be correct answer.

• 2:40:28Speaker 02

  I go, okay, Eric, how do the ships work? Bob thinks he knows. Tell me how they work. Eric, si- sitting on my classroom office, Eric says to me, "Matthew? We don't have a fucking clue." That's the most honest answer. Think about it this way. Think about it this way. Let's do a thought experiment. Let's take my phone, or take your phone. Let's give it to the greatest scientist of the 1890s. What do you think they would do with it? What, how much, what percent of it do you think they'd figure it out?

• 2:40:57Danny Jones?

  Nah, yeah.

• 2:40:58Speaker 02

  None.

• 2:40:59Danny Jones?

  Oh, not much.

• 2:40:59Speaker 02

  Zero. After the battery died, they would make even less progress. Where's the U- where's the lightning port? Or the USB C to plug it in in 1890? That's the problem here.

• 2:41:09Danny Jones?

  If you dropped a Tesla off at somewhere in like-

• 2:41:11Speaker 02

  Exactly.

• 2:41:11Danny Jones?

  In like, in Rome, in the Roman times.

• 2:41:13Speaker 02

  How long ago was 1890?

• 2:41:15Danny Jones?

  A long time ago.

• 2:41:16Speaker 02

  Let's do the math. How long ago was 1890?

• 2:41:18Danny Jones?

  1890, uh, 200 years ago?

• 2:41:22Speaker 02

  So, a little less than that.

• 2:41:23Danny Jones?

  Less than 150 years ago, something like that?

• 2:41:25Speaker 02

  Okay, so, to 1900, that's 125 years ago, right?

• 2:41:28Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 2:41:29Speaker 02

  So we're talking 135 years ago. Okay. That's only 135 years, okay? This iPhone, you agree, would never be reverse engineered. Even if you took the 100 smartest human beings on earth, they would all die of old age, having, having figured out nothing.

• 2:41:49Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:41:50Speaker 02

  And you're gonna tell me now, and this is what Bob was our clip, you're gonna tell me that human beings can figure something out that's millions potentially? Millions, billions of years more advanced than us? No.

• 2:42:00Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:42:01Speaker 02

  And that's why Eric's answer always stuck with me. And by the way, Hal Pudoff gives the same answer. I asked him separately, he gives the same answer. "We don't have a fucking clue." So you know what Hal said to Kevin once? He said, "Kevin, we wouldn't know the difference between their navigational computer and a sandwich."

• 2:42:18Danny Jones?

  Well, Bob says that in the, inside that craft, there was no instruments. There was nothing.

• 2:42:22Speaker 02

  So how do we make progress? Exactly. But the, the problem is, is that there are not enough people working on it, number one. It's too classified and stove piped. And number two, the other problem is, it's too far ahead. And so we don't know. We can't, we don't know where to start.

• 2:42:37Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:42:38Speaker 02

  Exactly. I've actually-

• 2:42:42Speaker 02

  I'm going to claim something very bold. I'm one of the only people who's actually figured out what at least one alleged UFO crash part is for. So recently, I've actually, with my help of my friend Mark, who came up earlier, remember we played the YouTube video from him with the spinning, yeah. Thanks to my friends Mark and Jared, they're, you know, aerospace guys who are doing anti-gravity research. They're the real guys who are actually trying to make anti-gravity reality. Nobody's, you know, no men in black have killed them yet. You ask them, they're like, oh, you know, it's a good day today, right? Because men in black haven't killed me yet today. But basically, thanks to them, I got a piece. It's known as the art part. You know, Art Bell, Coast to Coast AM, Linda Moulton Howell also had

• 2:43:25Speaker 02

  this. So I got a fragment that's allegedly from New Mexico from 1947. And I've been doing material analysis on it. And I'm gonna publish a paper on it, hopefully by the end of this year or next year. Then I'm gonna print out that paper, and I wanna shove it up the ass or down the throat of every single skeptic and debunker, because we found that that material is anomalous, and discovered that the arrow report on this material was a lie. It was a whitewash. They didn't list half of the elements in it. They didn't list any of the interesting isotopic configurations. Nothing. Gary Nolan knows this. A few people know this, who have pieces of the mother sample. There was a big sample. I only got

• 2:44:10Speaker 02

  a fragment of it. And I was, I developed a whole new technique. I developed a new way of testing what something is made of faster and cheaper. You did? Yes, I did, than existing techniques. Yes. And so I'm hoping that people start sending me like, actual parts. I can determine whether something is terrestrial or extraterrestrial. How? By the isotopic ratio. So everything is made of elements, and each of those elements has isotopes, but the isotopic ratios are unique to different planets, different parts of the galaxy. Still doesn't conclusively prove something's extraterrestrial, because a skeptic could always say, oh, it was part of a nuclear test, and it changed the isotopic composition. Sure. But what I can't, what I can, what I can demonstrate is whether something

• 2:44:54Speaker 02

  is weird. I know that's very vague, but I can demonstrate whether something's weird, whether it's anomalous, or whether it's boring. Like, oh, this is just a hunk of aluminum.

• 2:45:02Danny Jones?

  That reminds me, are you familiar with the, uh, there was some sort of, um, material with a certain configuration of isotopes that was found in like, in the middle of like, nuclear blasts that they found that matched the exact type of material they found on Mars. Have you ever heard of this?

• 2:45:21Speaker 02

  I have not heard of this. Oh, so maybe we created it by accident.

• 2:45:24Danny Jones?

  Giorgio was, was, remember this Steve, when Giorgio was talking about this, he was, he was-

• 2:45:28Speaker 02

  Oh, are you talking about the possibility there was like a nuclear war back in the day on Mars?

• 2:45:32Danny Jones?

  This was his theory, but the hard evidence that he explained to back this up was that there was some sort of, uh, material with isotopes that were found on nu- in nuclear blast sites.

• 2:45:43Speaker 02

  Yes, yes, yes. I definitely heard of this.

• 2:45:45Danny Jones?

  That matched specifically, specific isotopes they configured, like Mars is only the place.

• 2:45:50Speaker 02

  I know who you're talking about, cause he's one of the co-stars on a show I'm on, actually. The proof is out there on the History Channel.

• 2:45:57Danny Jones?

  Okay.

• 2:45:57Speaker 02

  And he's, there's the Mars guy. I know who you're talking about. The guy who thinks that there was a civilization on Mars.

• 2:46:03Danny Jones?

  John Brandenburg theory suggests that the red color of Mars could be evidence of catastrophic, uh, but what's the, what's the-

• 2:46:08Speaker 02

  Xenon 129.

• 2:46:09Danny Jones?

  Xenon 129, that's what it is.

• 2:46:11Speaker 02

  Funny coincidence. Remember I use Xenon to look for dark matter, right?

• 2:46:14Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:46:15Speaker 02

  That's just a coincidence.

• 2:46:16Danny Jones?

  Right. So what does it say? So Giorgio claims-

• 2:46:18Speaker 02

  Sidonia. Ah, yes, yes, yes. So it's, I don't think it's Brandenburg, but what if his associates, something, there's a guy, who's head of the Sidonia Society, who's a co-star on The Proof Is Out There with me.

• 2:46:30Danny Jones?

  Oh, so this is what the theory, so, so Xenon 129 is consistent across the entire solar system, except for on Mars.

• 2:46:37Speaker 02

  Yes, yes, yes, yes. Yes, so that we're talking about isotopic ratios, yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

• 2:46:43Danny Jones?

  Yeah.

• 2:46:43Speaker 02

  Is that there are unique signatures in different locations. Yeah, Mars is a problem, but, exactly. But my point is, is that I want to look at the isotopic ratios. I ha- I'm using a non-destructive technique to determine the composition of a material.

• 2:47:01Speaker 02

  I'll tell you though, so far, I've only gotten one potentially anomalous thing. Most of the things is UFO, you know, crazy people send me, it's a meteorite. Sure. Or it's a piece of an airplane. So most of the time, unfortunately, it's boring. But finally, thanks to knowing the right people and being patient, I finally got a piece of something that's really interesting. Hmm. And I have, and let's see how silent the mainstream media is going to be on this. I'm going to publish later this year, definitive evidence that the government lied about this material

• 2:47:41Speaker 02

  and published a whitewashed report claiming it was not anomalous, when they knew better. And I have definitive proof that it's anomalous, that it's strange. I don't have proof it's extraterrestrial, to be clear. Not yet. But it's weird. And they claim it's not weird. Oh, it's a boring piece of whatever slag. It's like, no, it's not. When is this coming out? I'm hoping by the end of the year. End of the year. Because here's the thing, um, I don't want to get, I don't want to get, um, gate kept past test. I don't want, I want to get all my ducks in a row. I want to double check it. I want to triple check it. I want to quadruple check it before I submit it for scientific peer review.

• 2:48:21Speaker 02

  Because what I don't want to happen is, I, I want it to be perfect. I want it to be an airtight case. So like I said, I can publish the paper in a major scientific journal and then shove it in the face of people who have been poo pooing UFOs for years. I'm sick and tired of them. I'm sick and tired of Neil deGrasse Tyson going out there saying, oh, it's all nonsense. Oh, aliens, whoa, blah, blah, blah, what if they invite, you know, it's, you know what I'm tempted to do? I could totally pull this off to get his attention. It's very hard to get his attention because I'm not important. I'm at an unimportant university, not trying to be rich and famous. I'm at a low, I'm not at Harvard. I'm not at Stanford.

• 2:49:05Speaker 02

  Just to get under his skin, what I'm hoping to be able to do, so I've actually been working with Neil deGrasse Tyson's high school, where he graduated, because I've been reviewing their physics courses, because I'm part of the uni- U Albany in the high school program, the University of High School program, where there's, they're doing college course at university level. One of them is Neil deGrasse Tyson's alma mater, the high school he graduated from. So here's what I'm thinking. I was gonna go to the principal, I'm still thinking of doing this, I might seriously do this. Be like, "Hey, can I give a talk on UFOs? And do this at Neil deGrasse Tyson's high school that he went to school at? Get it in the newspaper, get it all over mainstream media, to the point where he's like, "Who's this Matthew guy?" Where he's finally forced to pay attention.

• 2:49:48Danny Jones?

  That's amazing.

• 2:49:49Speaker 02

  Yeah, that's my goal, just to get under, get under his skin, cuz I'm sick and tired of him claiming there's no physical evidence. Well, then what the fuck am I testing in my lab? That's not an eyewitness account, it's not a video. I have a piece of material that is not easy to explain. That's physical evidence, okay? So, so I'm sick and tired of people like Neil deGrasse Tyson saying, "There's no physical evidence." Yes, there is. There's Delphos, Kansas, there's all these alleged UFO crashes and landings where there is physical evidence that's been subjected to chemical testing, and there are evidence of anomalies. Just talk to Gary Nolan, talk to any, talk to Jacques Vallée.

• 2:50:32Speaker 02

  There is physical evidence from some cases. But if you close your eyes and you stuff your fingers in your ears, like all the dogmatic people do, and play la la la la, "I'm not listening," then you're not gonna see

• 2:50:45Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:50:46Speaker 02

  any of the evidence. You're not gonna see Kevin's paper, that, that we talked about earlier, that shows the Tic Tac could have crossed the galaxy in six months. And nobody cares, nobody reads the paper, nobody understands. It's insane.

• 2:51:01Danny Jones?

  Well, listen, man, I hope you continue to do this and bring this energy to this topic and do all these things to get this stuff out, because I think we could use more people like you out there, trying to put this shit out in the public and point out all the craziness.

• 2:51:14Speaker 02

  I'm open source, no NDAs, no classification.

• 2:51:18Danny Jones?

  I love it.

• 2:51:18Speaker 02

  I'm gonna be discovering stuff, and, and what am I gonna do? I'm gonna publish it, so you can read it.

• 2:51:23Danny Jones?

  Fuck yeah, dude. I love it, dude. Matthew, thank you so much for your time, I wasted three hours. Tell people where they can find you online, find your website, your papers, all the stuff.

• 2:51:31Speaker 02

  Well... It's funny because I'm not on social media, like I said earlier.

• 2:51:35Danny Jones?

  Working on your Facebook.

• 2:51:37Speaker 02

  There's a very easy way to find everything I've ever published. And the reason is, almost nobody on this planet has the same last name as me. Less than 100 people, I would estimate. And so the easiest way to find everything I've written without a paywall is to go to archive.org, A-R-X-I-V dot org, and you just type in my last name, Szydagis, S-Z-Y-D-A-G-I-S. You'll find everything I've ever written, like my mainstream stuff, of course, too.

• 2:52:09Danny Jones?

  Fantastic. There we go.

• 2:52:10Speaker 02

  Yeah, there it is. Now, Archive is a beautiful thing. It was created by Cornell University. It's a way of trying to get around the gatekeeping at a lot of journals. You basically, you throw up your paper here before it's gone through peer review.

• 2:52:23Danny Jones?

  Right.

• 2:52:24Speaker 02

  Unfortunately, Archive does have a dark side as well. They, in recent years, have started to do some of their own gatekeeping. And so I know people who have gotten their papers rejected from Archive when it's like, how can it be rejected? It's not supposed to be peer reviewed yet. So yeah, so Archive has positive and negative sides.

• 2:52:43Danny Jones?

  Doing like a Wikipedia type deal, huh?

• 2:52:44Speaker 02

  Yes, yes, yes, yes, exactly. Yes. You know what recently happened to the debrief? Like they kicked them off of Wikipedia.

• 2:52:50Danny Jones?

  No, I didn't know that.

• 2:52:51Speaker 02

  They said they're a tabloid. I'm friends with the debrief guy, you know, Micah Hanks. You know, Micah?

• 2:52:55Danny Jones?

  No, I don't.

• 2:52:55Speaker 02

  So, yeah.

• 2:52:56Danny Jones?

  I know Bill Clinton got all his stuff about Epstein removed from his Wikipedia recently.

• 2:53:01Speaker 02

  Convenient, right? Yeah, so, but, but so Archive is doing some gatekeeping, but I have been blessed that they haven't rejected any of my stuff, including my crazy UFO stuff. Everything I've ever written, you can find right there.

• 2:53:13Danny Jones?

  Fantastic. Well, hopefully we keep it that way.

• 2:53:15Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 2:53:15Danny Jones?

  And thanks again for your time, man. I really appreciate you coming down here and talking to us.

• 2:53:18Speaker 02

  Thank you. Thank you for having me.

• 2:53:20Danny Jones?

  All right. Good night, everyone.

• 2:53:52Speaker 08

  Observe. The North American Dad. 50s. Great polo collection. He enters his vehicle information on Carvana. An offer appears in minutes. Remarkable. He squints, reads it again, smiles and says, "Dang, that's a good offer." The highest form of approval. No haggling, no hassle. No one called him "boss." He's still on the couch. Astonishing. Sell your car today on Carvana.com. Pickup fees may apply.