Top Astronomer: UFOs Are STILL Here - #561

Astrophysicist Beatriz Villarroel found point-like flashes in sky photographs taken before a single satellite existed. Nine of them lit up simultaneously on one 1950s plate. Nothing in orbit could have made them — because nothing was in orbit yet. Beatriz Villarroel leads VASCO, which scanned 600 million objects across 70 years of photographic sky surveys hunting for things that appear, then vanish. We cover: why finding zero vanishing stars pointed at something stranger than what she was looking for, the 8.7-degree deficit in Earth's shadow that a 22-sigma signal says cosmic rays cannot fake, the 68% transient spike clustered around nuclear test dates, how telescope aberration patterns prove these are real photons and not plate defects, and why she now says she fears for her safety. Pre-Sputnik plates may hold evidence of non-human technology in Earth orbit. She wants you to check the math before you decide. Chapters 00:00 It appeared, then it was gone 00:48 The obsession that built VASCO 06:10 What a Palomar glass plate really is 09:16 600 million objects, zero vanishing stars 13:47 Nine flashes, one plate, same instant 21:11 Why asteroids and cosmic rays are ruled out 26:47 The Earth's shadow shouldn't be empty 31:17 The flashes cluster on test dates 40:08 What is actually up there 55:24 Tic-tacs, retrievals, and belief 58:51 The question she didn't want to answer 📄 Want to check the math? Every VASCO paper, the full transcript, and the counterarguments — free: https://BrianKeating.com/bvpod ——— 📬 Get the transcript, fascinating bonus content, and my Monday M. A. G. I. C. Message: http://briankeating.com/bvpod 🌠 Have a .edu email and live in the USA 🇺🇸? You automatically win a meteorite: https://BrianKeating.com/edu 🔔 Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1 🎯 Support Into the Impossible on Patreon — get my weekly M. A. G. I. C. Message, unfiltered bonus content, and live monthly Office Hours with me: https://www.patreon.com/drbriankeating ⭐ Join this channel for perks, monthly Office Hours, and your name in the Member Roster at the end of every episode: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmXH_moPhfkqCk6S3b9RWuw/join My books: Losing the Nobel Prize (memoir): http://amzn.to/2sa5UpA Think Like a Nobel Prize Winner: https://a.co/d/03ezQFu Focus Like a Nobel Prize Winner: https://a.co/d/hi50U9U Galileo's Dialogue (first-ever audiobook): https://a.co/d/iZPi9Un 🌐 More: 🏄‍♂️ Twitter: https://twitter.com/BrianKeating 📚 Substack https://briankeating.substack.com/ss ✍️ Blog: https://briankeating.com/blog 🎙️ Audio-only: https://briankeating.com/podcast #intotheimpossible #briankeating #science #physics #astronomy #cosmology #podcast #universe Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

• 0:00Speaker 00

  In the world of expense management, SAP Concur is here to help. From cost control slipping to travel chaos, SAP Concur has an integrated travel and expense solution to help you overcome problems like overburdened teams, decisions looming.

• 0:19Speaker 00

  When travel, expense, and AP are connected with a single AI-supported solution, SAP Concur keeps you ahead of problems. Visit concur.com to learn more.

• 0:31Speaker 01

  This episode is brought to you by Google Chrome. You think you know a browser, but Gemini and Chrome, that's new. It can help you with practically anything on the web, like restoring a vintage motorcycle from a 50-page restoration block or finally break down that long article you've had open for weeks. Gemini and Chrome is here for it. Ready to make anything online make sense? There's no place like Chrome. Check responses set up required. Compatibility and availability varies 18+.

• 0:56Speaker 02

  This shows we have a population of objects near the Earth that have not been discovered until now. There's absolutely no way how they will remember this little circle of 8.7 degrees and only there have a deficit, but not outside it. So only reflections can produce that deficit.

• 1:15Brian Keating?

  What do you make of these claims of Tic Tacs and non-human biologics and interdimensional beings? Do you think that any of these hold the candle scientifically that meets your rigorous standard?

• 1:28Speaker 02

  I believe it's true.

• 1:29Brian Keating?

  Why aren't they here now?

• 1:32Speaker 02

  Who has said that they are not here now?

• 1:34Brian Keating?

  Are you worried about your safety?

• 1:36Speaker 02

  Yes, there have been a number of incidents.

• 1:44Brian Keating?

  And when did you start Basco?

• 1:46Speaker 02

  So it depends on how one defines it. The first tests we did was in 2016.

• 1:53Speaker 02

  And it was something, I was obsessed with an idea since I was a student and I wanted to search for vanishing stars. It had nothing to do with UFOs, but I was super, super interested in vanishing stars. Um, it came from a crazy idea I I got when I was writing a fable about a poor depressed quasar. And and then, you know, while writing and there at the end and I started wondering, but can an object just vanish? Could an object vanish? And well, I I was just a student at the time and then I got stuck with this thing. And I remember I I even had a phone conversation with, could it have been Michael Strauss?

• 2:36Speaker 02

  From uh from SDSS and I was asking, hey, can you redo the whole Sloan? Like one more time so that I get one more like uh set of a photometry. And I had no idea what I was asking and he was smiling a little bit, you know. When I was asking if they could just do it one more time, observe the whole sky. So that they could compare like different epochs and see if something or a galaxy or whatever had vanished. And that was like, eh, that that was the first thing in twenty sixteen, but uh. Uh, the group or the network didn't exist until twenty seventeen. Uh, when uh together with uh two senior scientists, we said, okay, let's do it for real because.

• 3:18Speaker 02

  Twenty sixteen, I had together with two bachelor students, tried to do a small search in a like one percent of the sample. Uh, provided uh by the US Naval Observatory, looked for vanishing objects, but then they said, okay, now we need to do the whole sky. And that, my god, that was a challenge.

• 3:36Brian Keating?

  Wow. So what why would, what would make you think that there would be things that vanish other than, you know, true transients that like supernovae or novae? Why did you think there might be objects that would disappear and that they would be relevant somehow astronomically?

• 3:51Speaker 02

  Well, first, uh failed supernovae. Uh, there's a uh class of uh like um. Uh, massive stars that are believed that they might be able to collapse into a black hole without emitting any supernova. So that was one of the things and I was curious about whether that could happen. But then, of course, I was also wondering about just purely fundamental questions like. Could something just vanish? Has anyone ever looked? And that was maybe the thing that.

• 4:22Speaker 02

  Mostly like was bugging me if nobody has ever looked, how can you know that it doesn't happen? And then we were, when I wrote the paper, we were motivating it a little bit with SETI. Questions like maybe it's a very, very advanced technological civilization, although I was mostly interested in this just fundamental thing.

• 4:40Brian Keating?

  Right.

• 4:41Speaker 02

  Which is, I can't explain it. Sometimes you just get stuck with something without really understanding why.

• 4:48Brian Keating?

  And the transients that you thought you might find originally, besides the failed supernova. I mean, were they like planets, like astronomy has a very long tradition of looking for things, you know, blinking back and forth between. Images or photographic plates or now CCDs or CMOS cameras. So. Did you think you'd find comets and you'd become a prolific, you know, finder of of phenomena in our solar system that are interesting, but maybe not as as. Ground shaking as aliens or even supernova.

• 5:16Speaker 02

  Well, I was hoping for the failed supernova, or I was mostly hoping to find, you know. A star that is there in all images and beautifully there through, you know, Palomar Survey One, then the second Palomar Survey in the eighties, nineties. And then one looks today and it has vanished and we would maybe even be able to get some beautiful light curve by looking at some. Sky surveys taken in between. And I was very excited by that particular idea. So we were looking first and we found nothing, but I found these stupid images, you know, with just. One single point source and not again. And then we did this um second attempt when I looked through fifteen percent of the data.

• 6:02Speaker 02

  So I had twenty four thousand candidates. And that's like three times as many images and I had nobody who was willing to help me to look through them and one had to look through them one by one.

• 6:15Speaker 02

  And then the machine learning people who were supposed to help me, they were doing their work, of course. But they were a little bit slower and I was growing impatient, like, come on, we have, somehow we have to sift through this data set. So I took these images and one by one, I went through all these twenty four thousand candidates. And it, of course, you take small images because you're not going to use a, uh, six by six degrees plate, you use small images of ten by ten, uh, arc minutes or something to look if something vanished in the middle. And I was just hoping to find that vanishing star. I found hundred of these blinking things that appear and vanish within one image.

• 6:56Speaker 02

  But I didn't find a single of these objects of the vanishing stars and I was like, okay, we have to do even more of even bigger catalog. So it was.

• 7:07Brian Keating?

  Now, the instrument that you used is not far from, uh, from me here in San Diego. Mount Palomar is a legendary observatory that goes back many, many, almost a hundred years. Uh, it almost killed the director, the original director of it, just getting the two hundred inch mirror up the mountain. But there are other instruments there too. There's forty eight inch camera. And why don't you talk about the instrumentation? What was used? What is a photographic plate? For my viewers who are under fifty, you know, they, they're not going to get this. You don't even have much experience, you're so, you know, uh, you're much, much younger than I am. But tell me, what is a photographic plate? What was the ideal characteristic of this instrument that really stood out to you to use it?

• 7:46Speaker 02

  Well, if to be fair, it was something much simpler. I didn't even think about photographic plates when, when we used it. I just was searching for the, um, for a digitized catalog of the sky that was as old as I could find it. Because I wanted to have some hundred years in between. I only got seventy years. But then, um, so the photographic plates, they are these big, big glass plates. They are heavy.

• 8:11Speaker 02

  I have never actually worked with them myself. I've seen one once in Sonneberg Observatory when I was visiting them. They're big, they're heavy, I wouldn't lift it. And um they they have an photographic emulsion on top. And they have different type of emotion. If you look in the red light, if you look in the blue blue light, they have like silver highlights. Crystals there that are reacting if you have uh photons that uh hit it. So they are using this uh big plates with emulsion at the telescope. So it's the good thing about it is that you can actually observe a big patch of the sky. And they are much less sensitive to cosmic rays than our CCDs, for example, because they are they're um they are even less sensitive than the eye

• 8:56Speaker 02

  uh to cosmic rays, these kind of emulsions. And so these photographic plates were used in astronomy a lot in the past to watch the sky and like they had a long exposure time. So very often you had like fifty minutes or you could some blue place had only ten minutes. Today with CCDs you can take, of course, an image just in a in a in a few seconds. So and with a CMOS cameras, you can even take several images per second of the sky. So it's a totally different technology than the the modern one of the sky. So, yeah, historic things.

• 9:34Brian Keating?

  Yeah, I know, and they they're treasures. I do have a plate. I'll put in a cut of it from Margaret Burbidge is one of the pioneering astronomers of the twentieth century. Came up with a fundamental paper explaining why we exist as a and have the composition in our bodies that we do because the Big Bang can't produce most of the elements in our bodies. It makes a lot of the hydrogen and other elements, but nothing really that we can put our sink our teeth into, so to speak. So talk about VASCO. First of all, what's the acronym stand for? And what does the pipeline actually do when it gets a plate? Compares it to something new or two different plates within the same survey. What does it do?

• 10:11Speaker 02

  So

• 10:11Brian Keating?

  What does it mean?

• 10:12Speaker 02

  So VASCO is the Vanishing and Appearing Sources during a Center of Observations project. And that's the one that we started in twenty seventeen, one year after uh the first test that I did as a PhD student. So, uh, what's it actually doing? Well, it was it was this project that was supposed to search for this uh failed supernova and and all kind of funny objects that I was hoping to find. And what it did is that um essentially we are comparing the sky from from the like early fifties with the sky as it looks today. And so one can use digitized images, and this is what we have been doing.

• 10:55Speaker 02

  So uh originally, we used the US Naval Observatory catalog and later like used images from DSS, etc. Uh, in um, like in twenty nineteen or twenty twenty, I got in touch with the Spanish Virtual Observatory with Enrique Solano, who has like created lots of catalogs, like digitized catalogs. And so what he did then is he went directly to the source material, to the Palomar survey, and he fetched all these terabytes of data and started comparing pixel by pixel uh to to the sky as it looks today with panstars like seventy years later. And we were, he was doing that at the same time as we still were processing this uh data

• 11:39Speaker 02

  from your US Naval Observatory catalogs and comparing also again with panstars and but there we had a citizen-sized project, so we had two parallel efforts to analyze the same data. The citizen-sized project where we had a interface where a lot of students and uh young astronomers and children and and and actually also professional astronomers were going there and looking for the vanishing stars that we were hoping to find. And then we had this automated process with a very super uh like uh well, very advanced thing that Enrique Solano developed. And both were searching for vanishing stars. And so we actually went through something like uh six hundred um

• 12:24Speaker 02

  yeah, I think something like six hundred million objects with the with with the automated uh analysis that Enrique did. We did all that, the whole northern hemisphere and even more.

• 12:38Speaker 00

  In the world of expense management, SAP Concur is here to help. From cost control slipping to travel chaos. SAP Concur has an integrated travel and expense solution to help you overcome problems like overburdened teams, decisions looming. When travel, expense and AP are connected with a single AI-supported solution, SAP Concur keeps you ahead of problems. Visit concur.com to learn more.

• 13:08Speaker 02

  And we found zero vanishing stars. I mean, zero.

• 13:14Brian Keating?

  A failure, right?

• 13:16Speaker 02

  Yeah, I mean, we did report it. Maybe, maybe the super, like, the theoretical astronomers that are believing in failed supernova were not as excited. But instead, we found all these, like, thousands and thousands of objects that appear and vanish within a plate exposure. And initially, we were thinking, okay, maybe it's M dwarf flares, maybe it's some kind of, maybe it's optical afterglows to gamma ray bursts. And that was the initial thought. So we were writing about all the possibilities. I also, I think in 2019, yeah, it was 2019, we were also including the SETI possibilities because I had a figure.

• 13:55Speaker 02

  I remember the referee was, was telling me to tone down the aliens. And then I felt compelled to include, to do the opposite, of course, and I included a picture, figure one, with a green little alien in it as one of the possibilities. And there, the referee gave up and just approved it.

• 14:18Speaker 02

  Well, well, we also included all the other changes, but, you know, it was very, like, early for me. And, and then we had this, I had, through this visual vetting of 24,000 candidates alone during three months, you know, you get crazy after that. I promise you, it's, it's working to get a little. And so I had this table too there, and then there were 100, like, coordinates that I identified as interesting with these single images that could have been M dwarf flares, whatever. And the really interesting thing didn't come in that paper. It came when I decided to look through that table yet one more time.

• 15:02Speaker 02

  And we suddenly discovered that one of these images had nine objects appearing and vanishing at the same time within a small image. And we were like, what is that?

• 15:13Brian Keating?

  Were there segments, like if you if you look at a transient? Were they all basically the same? Like there'd be some blurring or smudging? I mean, obviously some things like, you know, we'll talk about cosmic rays later, of course. We'll talk about, um, you know, asteroids and planetary objects and near earth objects that do uh, come and go perhaps, or you know, bolides or meteoroids and things like that. But do what was the characteristic of these transients? Let's say, let's stipulate that they are, you know, uh, some some sort of technology. Although obviously, we're going to talk about that, it's contested. But let's say it was, would that have the exact same transient, you know, behavior in a photographic emotion?

• 15:55Brian Keating?

  As it would say in a in a CMOS camera or or or similar, advanced camera? What would you, what do you actually see? Like, what, can you describe them for the people that are listening? What do they look like?

• 16:05Speaker 02

  So what we saw was nine objects that looked just like stars. Like any kind of stars in the plates.

• 16:12Brian Keating?

  Mm hmm.

• 16:13Speaker 02

  And when I manually tried to look at the brightness profile, so what we astronomers do to separate something that is round and is around dirt. Because you can have bubbles, you can have plate defects that are round and also are star like. So what you do is to look at the brightness profile for a star of a certain magnitude and compare to the brightness profile of another, of a real star that you know is real and that is there in multiple catalogs.

• 16:41Brian Keating?

  And this camera, sorry to interrupt you, Bees, but but the camera has a support for the secondary, right? So it must have some um, diffraction spikes or or some telltale sauce for point source function, the point spread function. Uh, and what you're saying is that the point spread function looked identical for for these objects as for a true point source like a star, right?

• 17:01Speaker 02

  Exactly. So we just compared and it looked identical and I was comparing to the stars that had similar magnitude. So they just looked identical to me when I was measuring. Now, later, we learned that there are some statistical differences, but when you just manually were trying to look at it and it looks very similar for like if you compare one and one.

• 17:21Brian Keating?

  What is the new phenomenon that you you said you found statistically looks different uh when you examine it statistically rather?

• 17:27Speaker 02

  So today, uh and actually that's thanks to some of the critics, if you if you take a big sample of these transients and you compare it to a big sample of the stars, you see that they are slightly, not much, but a little bit sharper and more narrowed the brightness profiles

• 17:44Brian Keating?

  Hmm.

• 17:45Speaker 02

  than they are of the real stars. And that fits very well with what happens if you have a very short flash. Because then you have a less of time for atmospheric turbulence to disturb the profile. So then it's slightly more narrow.

• 18:01Brian Keating?

  I wanna uh just highlight something you just said. Uh you said, thanks to my critics. And I I just thought of um where I heard that s- uh that exact same sentence before, and it was in my conversation with Nobel Prize winner John Mather. John Mather won the Nobel Prize for uh co-leading the COBE cosmic background explorer FIRAS experiment that determined that the CMB is a black body despite what all my haters and critics and I have my own trolls out there, Beatrice. You you you're not the only one who has haters and trolls, okay, my friend? Um so I have a lot of people that that hate that, oh, I just I talk up the Big Bang so much and it's I make up this fact that it's a black body, but it's not. It's not a black body. Only carbon can make a black body or metallic hydrogen. And

• 18:45Brian Keating?

  there's a lot of nonsense I I have to debunk a lot of times, okay? But uh but but what John Mather and his team found was that the CMB is not only a black body, it's the most perfect black body that you could possibly imagine, signifying a long period of thermal equilibrium with high optical depth and a uniform absorption and emission. Now, why did he say that? Be- what he told me in the interview I did with him six years ago, seven years ago. That he was very thankful to his critics. And I've heard that many times, actually from the late Ray Weiss at MIT, who won the Nobel Prize for LIGO. They say your critics sometimes reveal some of the shortcomings of your argument, and by hearing them, it can make them stronger.

• 19:28Brian Keating?

  Now, obviously, you can go overboard. You can have people that are malicious, malevolent, and do things as trolls do, and they're not interested in the light, they're interested in the heat. But I did wanna, I always like to point out, we have a lot of young scientists that listen to this program, Beatrice, and I always love to highlight when a scientist says something that's particularly important, that can help guide the career and the choices and even the emotions of a scientist as he or she starts off young. So, thank you for that explanation and for being candid and honest and having the integrity that a good scientist should have. So, I really do appreciate that. And it led you to something even better, you know, than if the critics didn't exist, you know? So, thanks to the critics.

• 20:09Brian Keating?

  So, one of the things that's fascinating to me is that it's kind of, you know, I often have thought about light when I'm out on the beach with my kids late at night and they're looking at a star, and I'll say to them, like, "We don't know if that star is still there, you know? It could be gone, right? It could have vanished." I like to visualize it as like this tube of light that's coming to us, you know, from this vast, this cosmic distances, right? But it's also a time capsule. It's like light is storing this information, encoding this hologram, if you will, of information about not only the source, but of the material between us and that source or when that source is... But you're doing something even more impressive because you're using this, it's a time capsule

• 20:53Brian Keating?

  in space and a time capsule in time, to be redundant, because it's really sampling a different world. Like, that world doesn't exist anymore. There's no way to recreate the pre-Sputnik world. Let's talk about that. So, the first plates come from 1952, is that right?

• 21:07Speaker 02

  It comes from 1949 or...

• 21:09Brian Keating?

  1949, okay. And so, if you see a star-like flash, that's truly a transient, that doesn't repeat, that disappears in shadows and has other strange properties that you're gonna discuss, the implication is that it can't be man-made or human-made, right? Because the first human-made object that we know about, okay, there could have been other ones, right, but is Sputnik, which was launched in red October in 1957, right? So, and it didn't have solar panels on it. When were the first solar panels deployed in space?

• 21:41Speaker 02

  Oh, I have no idea, I'm afraid.

• 21:44Brian Keating?

  I think it was probably in the early, mid 1960s, perhaps. I mean, it was actually a relatively fortuitous invention that you could get solar energy around that time, as we were in space and needing to have none, you know, not bring up big battery packs with us. So, is, so if you have two different plates, you know, plate A and plate B, same patch of sky, and minutes later, the, the flash of light disappears. Let, let's talk about what this flash of, the dynamics of flashes of light. Everyone's seen the stars at night and they twinkle, right? That's because of turbulence. But you're saying you use that fact that they didn't have adaptive optics, they didn't have atmospheric correction.

• 22:24Brian Keating?

  You can use that to discriminate between natural and artificial, or, or transient versus non-transient? How do you use the atmospheric blurring, blending to, to further refine the case that these are perhaps techno- technology?

• 22:38Speaker 02

  Well, it was a little bit simpler, or a little bit more complicated than that at the same time. The interesting thing that pointed us towards the technological possibility was not the shape of them, because that came later, that came later, but that they were a group of them, appearing and vanishing at the same time. And if it would have been asteroids moving, then if you would compare, let's say, within half an hour, you know, the exposure time is 50 minutes, and we always have two plates that are taken, like, one after the other. If it would have been an asteroid that would move, move so fast that it would be there in one plate and not there in the other, it would have been streaking.

• 23:22Speaker 02

  It wouldn't have left a point source. And the same if you would have some kind of meteorite, it would have been streaking. If it would have been a very slow asteroid, and, or that had created such a transient, then you would have seen the point source both in the first image and in the second image. Uh but this thing that you see the point source there in one image, but not half an hour earlier or later, and you never see it again, it points towards that you're having some kind of flash. And when you have multiple of them, let's say you have ten of them within ten arc minutes, then you know you also have some kind of, you have some kind of synchronicity

• 24:00Speaker 02

  or synchronous behavior. And what that means is that you can set a limit just from the speed of light of how far they have to be. And you know, okay, it's going to have to be inside the inner solar system. So you are watching some objects inside the inner solar system, of course. I'm adding a parenthesis. We were also considering that there may be some very advanced technological civilizations are shooting lasers and they are perfectly to perfectly communicating with us and pointing at us. And it comes at different times or whatever. But the problem is that we actually even use the largest telescope in the world, optical telescope in the world in Canary Islands, pointed at those things and we

• 24:41Speaker 02

  found nothing there. So that hypothesis is is totally off the table. So we

• 24:48Brian Keating?

  That's optical setting. That's my colleague Shelley Wright here at ECST, works on photo avalanche detectors for extremely rapid bursts of light that could signify extraterrestrial technology. So that's a very fruitful avenue of her research.

• 25:02Speaker 02

  So with, exactly. She does beautiful work. And and we tested this thing and it didn't work out. So now we're stuck with inner solar system objects and there are multiple of them. And then there's, there's nothing in the sky today that we know of that produces that signature, except for satellites and flat surfaces, solar panels. And today, when you look at the sky, you see thousands and thousands of these kind of transients, only with the naked eye. You don't even need a telescope, but just with the naked eye, you see thousands of them over the sky every hour. And

• 25:39Speaker 00

  In the world of expense management, SAP Concur is here to help. From cost control slipping to travel chaos, SAP Concur has an integrated travel and expense solution to help you overcome problems like overburdened teams, decisions looming.

• 25:58Speaker 00

  When travel, expense and AP are connected with a single AI-supported solution. SAP Concur keeps you ahead of problems. Visit Concur.com to learn more.

• 26:09Speaker 02

  Then you see something that looks like a signature of the stuff that you see on the sky today.

• 26:16Speaker 02

  And you see it in displays from the 50s. And the most fond thing I remember in 2022, when we did this alignment paper, because we started thinking, okay, so let's find better examples because this one might still be, maybe there's some kind of contamination that produces all this. We were wondering like, maybe some kind of atomic bomb tests. We had two different hypotheses, like some kind of contamination that produces this versus that we are seeing reflections of something very flat, very artificial in orbit around the earth. And these were our two leading ideas that we landed in after that we did exclusion method and excluded all the other things. And then I was thinking like a better way of searching for it is to look for alignments as well.

• 27:00Speaker 02

  We found this some alignments and we posted the first pre-print. And then one of these satellite experts writes to me a very annoyed email like, oh, you're just seeing satellites.

• 27:13Speaker 02

  And I'm writing back, there were no satellites in 1957.

• 27:18Brian Keating?

  Thank you for proving my point. What about, I mean, just outlandish, but we use for adaptive optics, we use artificial stars and those are done with lasers. And yes, the laser wasn't invented as far as we know in 1957 or so. But, you know, who knows? What if there, yeah, what if there were, you know, kind of broadcast, you know, came from the earth, from terrestrial, from actually on the earth bouncing? Because that was around the time we developed the first communication satellites, EchoStar. That came very soon after, not 1957 or 19549, but, but who knows? What if there was some Mazer activity or there was some strange, you know, like defense programs? Would they not produce artificial star-like point like exactly like what you see?

• 28:01Speaker 02

  I mean, possibly, but they would vanish in their shadow, which is later what we see for a big fraction of our objects, and that's where it gets fun.

• 28:10Brian Keating?

  Let's talk about the, uh, we already mentioned how your critics have improved your work. Let's, let's let Beatrice be her own harsh referee for a moment. You've got these three claims, the nuclear test correlation, the 22 sigma earth shadow deficit, and the techno signature.

• 28:25Speaker 02

  There are two different ways of watching it, 22, 7.6.

• 28:28Brian Keating?

  So, and the techno signature. So if you're, you know, mean referee, you know, you're referee number two, um, how do you rank them? What, what would you stake your reputation on each of them? Let's give the strongest argument first. What, what do you think is the most strong argument for these being techno signatures?

• 28:44Speaker 02

  So there are those, um, can, can I only mention, um, my team's discoveries, or can I also mention the other people's discoveries? Work with it. Well, the first, uh, well, the earth shadow deficit, I think, is really beautiful to work with. And, uh, I mean, we see a big deficit of these transits in the earth shadow. By the way, uh, when we did this test, I, I didn't expect that result.

• 29:13Speaker 02

  You, you can't imagine the feeling when you get that result and you start redoing it over and over, and no matter what you do.

• 29:21Speaker 02

  Um, yeah, you still see that deficit in the earth shadow. It's, yeah. So, so that's the first thing I would say. Then, of course, the transient nuclear correlation, I find super, super fascinating.

• 29:32Brian Keating?

  And explain quantitatively, that's something like 50% more transients in a, in a few day window or something like that?

• 29:39Speaker 02

  Yeah, like 68% more transient within, uh, plus minus, uh, one day. Actually, the new paper that we have now, the machine learning paper led by Stephen Brule, where they have cleaned up. So what they've done there is tried to clean up the sample from all the plate defects, because all the critics are worried about the plate defects. They think that they might be creating these weird correlations. I don't know how, how plate defects would sense whereas the earth shadow, apparently they're self-conscious. But, uh, when you clean away the plate defects, all these correlations get even stronger. And the funny part there is that they find those strong correlation one day before the nuclear test.

• 30:22Speaker 02

  And.

• 30:24Speaker 02

  And then one gets really confused, but because then of course someone could say, oh, maybe it's just because you're already sending up some balloons or whatever. And I mean, just to observe the nuclear tests is like a one way, but yeah. If if you read a machine learning paper that's Steve Bruel is leading, it's a fascinating result. So that is also super cool. And then the third, I would say, and a really important discovery is the one by Ivo Busco that he posted one week ago. Where he actually essentially shows that some of these transients have to be real. Because first, again, he sees the same and nar- slightly narrower shapes of these transients than

• 31:05Speaker 02

  the normal stars, which are indicative of that they are actually um fast flashes, not normal object, but he also uh shows that they come from light passing through the optics. Because uh sometimes these telescopes, especially if you have a shitty telescope, not the perfect telescope, but it has slightly faulty optics, they produce these aberrations and like, I mean, commas, like shapes that are of the distorted light. And all the stars have these ugly shapes rather than a perfect PSF. And you can see the directionality of them and all kind of weirdnesses of them, you can measure it. And it shows that these transients have the same aberrations as the real stars, which of course

• 31:48Speaker 02

  totally kills, uh, I mean, the hypothesis of of that plate defects uh are responsible for all the transients or that cosmic rays are responsible for all the transients. Yes, we know that among hundred seven thousand uh candidates, there's a lot of dirt there. There will be plate defects, bubbles, hairs, cosmic rays, everything. But the important part is that a significant fraction of this population have, I mean, pass through, are are produced by light that pass through the telescope. And they are vanishing in the earth's shadow. This shows we have a population of objects near the earth that have not been discovered until now. I find it fascinating.

• 32:31Brian Keating?

  So I, obviously, it's extremely fascinating. I think, you know, just to, again, in the spirit of, you know, steel sharpens steel, you know, pushing back with respect that, you know, I mean, the first with the, with the, you know, reflective deficit. I think that the nuclear test correlation to me is the most, you know, kind of disturbing, not really because I'm, you know, worried about, you know, something being suppressed or hidden, but, but what could possibly be the correlation factor rather, or causative factor? I mean, there's a lot of things that happen in correlation that aren't causative. So what's your best model for the, for the nuclear test correlation function?

• 33:13Speaker 02

  So if we remove all the other observations, if we just remove all the other observations, you can always say that it could be maybe it's cosmic rays or something, or maybe it's high-energy particles from the atomic bombs. You could, you could say that if you ignore everything else. The problem is that we have, or not we, but another independent scientist, a nuclear engineer, who was a retired nuclear engineer called Kevin Kahn, he played around with the sample and discovers an anti-correlation with geomagnetic storm activity, which totally disagrees with the cosmic rays. Of course, some people will say and argue, yeah, but maybe if you have higher solar

• 33:53Speaker 02

  activity, you're going to block the, you're going to, like, somehow shield the Earth from cosmic rays. But again, they're different kind of cosmic rays. They're cosmic rays that you're going to get from the sun, a lot of particles that are going, they are going to be low energy, and then you're going to have high-energy galactic. And even if you have a lot of high-energy galactic that are blocked out, you still also have a lot of low-energy ones, and which ones are most likely to produce a transient on the plate? It's not the galactic ones that are blocked, it's the low-energy ones that are going to most likely produce, if I think correctly, a point source on the photographic plate, because they are simply easier, or the easier could do something on the plate while the

• 34:38Speaker 02

  high-energy are just going to pass through the photographic plate. And then, you're not expecting an anti-correlation, you're going to expect a correlation between the solar activity and the number of transients. We see the opposite.

• 34:53Brian Keating?

  Hmm.

• 34:54Speaker 02

  Maybe I'm thinking wrongly here.

• 34:56Brian Keating?

  Quick thing before we go on. If you're getting something out of these conversations, you can get closer to them. Members of the channel who join the channel as members get the videos before they go public. They get members only videos that you won't find anywhere else. Occasionally, you'll also get ad free episodes, and this is the one that people love. You get to put your questions to my guests live when we're doing live stream recordings. And we're talking to some of the most fascinating people in all of science. And at the top tier, the cosmic office hours level, you get one hour with me in a group call on Zoom, just us talking about science, the things that matter to you, your pet theory, your favorite hobby horse, whatever you like. It happens every month at the office hours

• 35:40Brian Keating?

  level. That's at $20. So please do consider joining. The links are below.

• 35:49Brian Keating?

  Yeah, let me just summarize what I understood. Again, this is not my field, but I did talk to Avi Loeb this past week on a live stream for other purposes, including his, his new program that he's initiating with, with scientists and philosophers and skeptics and all sorts of interesting people. Not all scientifically, you know, oriented or not all with, with the same level of credentials that you say you have. But nevertheless, quite, quite astounding that he's been able to put it together. And he claims the following. He claims that 60,000 cosmic rays hit a plate, you know, basically in an exposure at that time, and that 10 of them or so land basically perpendicular, which would make them look enough like a point

• 36:33Brian Keating?

  source that someone could mistake it. So he's saying that that accounts for the entire candidate population by that mechanism. So before we get to the modulation, I'm getting, he has a claim about that that we discussed as well. And I'm summarizing, he's not here to defend himself, but, but I hope like we can, we can, you know, shed some light, no pun intended on it. So what do you, how do you respond to that? Why, why is he potentially wrong about that?

• 36:58Speaker 02

  First, I think he was expecting a correlation. And then I pointed it out in his medium essay. And then he's changed the essay. And then he's expected suddenly an anti-correlation. So I think there was a little bit of, maybe it was, we misunderstood each other or something like that when we were.

• 37:14Brian Keating?

  No, you're right. He does say that the, it's an anti-correlation due to what are called coronal mass.

• 37:19Speaker 02

  After I pointed it out, after I viewed his previous argument, then he changed.

• 37:23Brian Keating?

  I didn't know that. I didn't know that. But I'm just looking at the data that's on the, on his medium page now. Yeah. And what we talked about on Monday. He didn't, he didn't mention that.

• 37:31Speaker 02

  No, but that's totally fine. He updated the medium essay then, but I think.

• 37:37Speaker 00

  In the world of expense management, SAP Concur is here to help. From cost control slipping to travel chaos. SAP Concur has an integrated travel and expense solution to help you overcome problems like overburdened teams, decisions looming. When travel, expense and AP are connected with a single AI-supported solution. SAP Concur keeps you ahead of problems. Visit concur.com to learn more.

• 38:07Speaker 02

  He, he's considering all cosmic rays like coming, like he's considering this, like if they're all galactic. He ignores all the low energy cosmic rays that you get from the sun. And I think that one has to consider what is more likely to leave a point source. Of course, you're going to have, the direction will matter, but also the higher the energy, the more likely it's going to pass through. Also, another thing to consider is that CCDs and photographic plates react like differently. And very often, if you have some high energy particles or anything, you're going to have diffuse radiation or you're going to have a lot of streaks and all over.

• 38:46Speaker 02

  But to get a perfect point source, it's probably going to be much easier with a low energy. That's what I think. But I, I suspect that neither me nor Avi have been working on this enough to actually be able to model what is more likely to produce the perfect point source. But I suspect that, that it's more likely those particles that are coming, that are associated with the sun activity. So I would expect a correlation rather than an anti-correlation that way. I, I wouldn't put them all together. I would separate by energy levels and try to model that.

• 39:23Brian Keating?

  Yeah, I guess the the argument that, as I understood in for Monday, was was him saying, you know, that the modulation by the sun affects the cosmic ray flux from the galaxy. And that active sun, you know, mass ejection in the direction of the earth, you know, potentially, or even if it's omnidirectional, will then suppress, you know, globally. But then where we're sitting, it introduces this anisotropy, which is directly being, you know, anti-correlated with the sun-earth axis, which means that it would be in the it would appear to come from the shadow, because you have basically have the shield that's being modulated either up or up stronger or weaker. But then there's a second paper by this Hambley and Behr team, as I understand it, Edinburgh, peer-reviewed, you know, they're they're independent of Avi, of you.

• 40:07Brian Keating?

  They looked at nine of the transients, and they said that they could find these round, stellar-like profiles, but they said they were attributable to what are called emulsion flaws. So that's a different team. So how do you respond in that?

• 40:19Speaker 02

  Well, they did, they they concluded it could be emulsion flaws based on that they were slightly narrower. That was the argument, and because they found so many narrower things on the plate. Of course, a number of objects, you can't say that if it's 10 of them, or if it's 500, that just by by like citing the number, you can't say that is emulsion defects. Of course, they might be emulsion defects, but they used that it's so many, and there are many that are narrow, that it's most likely emulsion defects. However, there is somebody who actually at the at the archive looked at them with microscope. And if you look at them with microscope, again, this like this nine or eight out of

• 41:01Speaker 02

  the nine transients are looking like they're round, they're slightly sharper and rounder, but they look like on the digitized place, essentially. So how are you going to separate that from transients that are appearing due to flashes? Because you have here a so-called ambiguity, or I mean, it can be either or, because both transients associated with short flashes would produce narrow profiles, as well as hypothetically plate defects. And to separate these two, and if you can't do it with a microscope, then you need population statistics. And I think that's why the Earth's shadow is so important. And also one more thing to think about when you talk about the Earth's shadow.

• 41:43Speaker 02

  We don't talk about the night side. We mean specifically the geometric shadow at forty two thousand kilometers altitude, which is eight point seven degrees. And when cosmic rays enter into the atmosphere, they are, I mean, you have all this scattering and you have all the secondary particles. There's absolutely no way how they will remember this little circle of eight point seven degrees and only there have a deficit, but not outside it. So I think that's something very important to remember, that we are not talking about just looking at low Earth orbit. We're talking about uh this shadow at forty two thousand.

• 42:23Brian Keating?

  Mm hmm, right.

• 42:24Speaker 02

  How is any cosmic ray going to remember the geometry there? It's not going to do that because of all this scattering. So only reflections can produce that deficit.

• 42:34Brian Keating?

  So I have some questions for my audience as well. Uh someone named Cy Boris says, Beatrice, thank you for your dedicated work, these vanishing objects for the last past seven years. Given the pre-Sputnik timing, in your assessment that these appear to be reflective or metallic objects rather than stars, what do you consider to be the most likely explanation?

• 42:55Speaker 02

  Well, I think there is something very flat and very reflective in orbit around the Earth. Now, if I also, because there are different ways how you can view this problem. You can view it as that you have a mix of different phenomena. There might be one population that is reflective, another population that is correlating with cosmic rays, a third one that is anti-correlating uh with geomagnetic storm activity. Or it can be all exactly the same uh same population. For example, Brian Doherty, he wrote a paper and he looks at it and he sees that if you actually focus on the sunlit transience and remove the others, the nuclear correlation gets even stronger, which argues for that it's actually the same

• 43:40Speaker 02

  population of objects producing the different different features. And if I look at that.

• 43:48Speaker 02

  I'm sorry, but I find it hard not to attribute it to something artificial. And I will be straight, that's what I think. I I I wasn't born with some political bean, so I will just say it straightly. So and also it's even more interesting, he also, Brian Doherty, he he yeah, he does this beautiful machine learning and cleans up the data from all the plate effects and he sees also that they are are avoiding the ecliptic. So obviously they don't behave like your average asteroid. And also in a new paper we are working on, we are seeing that they are all clustering around the equator. And it's even more interesting.

• 44:31Speaker 02

  We we try to like in in this new paper, we're trying to look at the sizes and all the typical op typical features of the objects and they are so similar to the objects reported by astronomers today when they look at space trash. It's just that then we see maybe one transient per square degree per hour and today you have one point seven per square degree per hour. But it seems to be very similar type of objects, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say other than.

• 45:03Brian Keating?

  Uh another question from the audience, could it be like a pulsar that, you know, was a transient pulsar, very bright, flash briefly and then just is no longer aligned with the earth anymore?

• 45:14Speaker 02

  No, it it wouldn't be because of that to see groupings of them. And they are synchronized and that doesn't agree.

• 45:23Speaker 02

  If you have, if I if I can just like speculate, we would have one single example of a, let's say, of a triple transient, but we would have all the other transients, but we would have an empty sky, but somewhere we would see three transients at the same time appearing and vanishing, we could be discussing gravitational lensing by a supermassive black hole. That's a possibility if you have one. Maybe there's an extra supermassive black hole in the Milky Way we didn't know about, but when you have so many as we do, then you're running into trouble.

• 45:56Brian Keating?

  So then there are people that are a little less, you know, kind of supportive of it. And that is, well, let's go to this, this, this recent paper, which I believe is either published or appeared in the archive by Waters at all. And, you know, they talk about the clustering and they talk about the nuclear test correlation. But they claim this one thing, which I found, you know, kind of noteworthy is they talk about, they call it data hygiene, that you rely on this data set V, and that skipped some of the scan artifact removal steps. And Waters estimates 91% of those features belong to a set that wasn't distinguished from catalog object. Can you explain what he's claiming, or they're claiming, rather?

• 46:40Brian Keating?

  And then what is your response to this?

• 46:42Speaker 02

  Oh, I love to talk about, this is fun. So the first thing that they do is that they say, if you have plate defects in your sample, you cannot do statistics. You need to have a validated data set. And here, I find this super fascinating because A, I mean, you look in the particle accelerators, it's not like you're going to have all, that when you search for Higgs boson, you only save the Higgs boson and throw away everything else. I mean, statistics, you know you work with dirty samples, but the most important is if your dirt or contamination is somehow dependent on the variable you are testing or not. And of course, we know that defects are not going to be tracking the sun, earth geometry,

• 47:26Speaker 02

  and follow where is the earth's shadow. The defects don't know this. They might be assembled on the edges of the plates, but they are not going to be tracking the earth's shadow. So it actually doesn't matter. So that's the first thing. I think there's a confusion today between traditional statistical, like inference, like statistical, or traditional hypothesis testing with machine learning, like, machine learning based research, where people talk about validated samples, and people have started conflating the two. So that's the first thing. The second, we have actually tried to remove all the plate effects. But now it gets even more fun. So Waters used a data set.

• 48:10Speaker 02

  Uh, that was public. They didn't email us. They could have sent an email to us and asked. Uh, about like, um, if the, if this data set was good or not. They used a sample of five thousand, uh, transients reported in Solano at all, twenty twenty two. The problem is that these weren't just normal transients. These were those, um, a data set created to search specifically for vanishing stars. Where a lot of additional criteria were added. Essentially, um, one, we did not only look for things that flashed, but one also. Removed anything that existed in any catalog, uh, astronomical catalog across the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

• 48:53Speaker 02

  Which creates a beautiful hole, if I may show you, if screen sharing works.

• 48:58Brian Keating?

  Okay.

• 48:58Speaker 02

  There's, there's this, so if you look at our, like, at the two, uh, data sets. There is the original one of hundred seven thousand. It has its artifacts, et cetera, but, uh, like some, some stripes, empty stripe. But in general, it's a fairly, um, homogeneous data set. The, the sky surveyed by the plates is like, all, all plates, uh, in the northern hemisphere are covered. Then you look at the sample used by Waters and there is this big hole. And that big hole by itself produces, uh, excess in the earth's shadow. Simply because a lot wasn't, uh, observed. So that's the first thing. And then the second thing, they don't even have the timestamps.

• 49:43Speaker 02

  And that's a whole story by itself. I don't know if I should tell it or.

• 49:46Brian Keating?

  Well, what is the timestamp of? What is it stamping?

• 49:48Speaker 02

  You need the time of the observations. That wasn't included in the data set either. So they're trying to do some detective work. And the question is if they did it correctly or not, because the initial, a famous plot that was sent to me earlier forgets the cos- uh, the cosinus deck factor when c- when estimating uh, a parameter that they use for, for like deducing the times. So maybe even the times aren't correct either. So both a big hole, the times are not correct. And then the, or maybe, I don't really know. They are trying to say that they didn't do the error, but they are citing the figure in their acknowledgements. So essentially, so the question is, is it right or not? I don't know.

• 50:31Speaker 00

  In the world of expense management, SAP Concur is here to help. From cost control slipping to travel chaos. SAP Concur has an integrated travel and expense solution to help you overcome problems like overburdened teams, decisions looming. When travel, expense and AP are connected with a single AI-supported solution. SAP Concur keeps you ahead of problems. Visit concur.com to learn more.

• 51:01Speaker 02

  And the third problem is that we have actually looked with machine learning at the number of defects in their so-called aggressively filtered sample versus ours. And their sample isn't cleaner. It's just twenty times smaller. And if you have twenty times smaller sample, it's also a lot more difficult to see statistical correlations. So, I mean, it's, it's, it's a big mess. They just used a completely wrong sample. And that's where it went wrong.

• 51:29Brian Keating?

  And the claim that they make that you have to normalize the number of telescope observation nights, basically, that it's basically an imprint or an artifact of the excess correlation with around nuclear testates is just an artifact of, of some maybe timing or Nyquist sampling, say.

• 51:49Speaker 02

  We have tested that and addressed it in the commentary. That's not, even if you normalize it correctly, you still have actually a correlation. It stays and it even gets stronger.

• 52:00Brian Keating?

  Gets stronger, phenomenal, wow, okay. Now, the other, another thing that they bring up is, and I hope you don't mind me asking these questions.

• 52:07Speaker 02

  Great, I'm happy to talk about it, actually.

• 52:10Brian Keating?

  Yeah, because, I mean, my audience is super technical and they're gonna appreciate this. But they're also gonna like the fact that you're framing this like Richard Feynman. You know, you're looking for evidence, you're not looking for feels or beliefs or wishes or, you know, dreams and fairy tales, right? You really want this to be done scientifically accurately and then we can come to the interpretation. So there's an argument about spatial correlation features that pile up at the plate corners and edges and they form, you know, pockets of voidance where you don't find the physical, you know, samples from optical sources that go through the telescope pipeline. Are these features that people, that you agree on? I mean, are they right about this claim?

• 52:48Speaker 02

  Well, if they're talking about the big hole in spatial distribution, it's only in their sample because they used the one that was completely made for a different purpose. So, but if they're talking about that there might be plate defects, yeah, edges might have more defects. But at the same time, they are not going to be influencing a deficit in the Earth's shadow. So it's irrelevant for the question. You just need to think about, is a defect going to somehow walk around on the plate to follow, like, where is the Earth's shadow? Because the Earth's shadow is moving.

• 53:24Brian Keating?

  One claim that I found kind of resonant with some thoughts I had was the precedent that comes from gamma ray bursts from the, you know, seventies or whatever. A satellite was designed to look for nuclear test band violations on Earth and they ended up catching these extremely energetic explosions in deep space at high redshift. So it took 20 years and they basically looked at a million archival plates, also from Palomar, and they never really confidently confirmed a single optical transient because the emulsion effects would mimic star-like flashes. So it was, it was too confusing, I guess. So why is it, how can you make the case that your search is different? Why is it?

• 54:02Speaker 02

  Well, I would just did what they couldn't do.

• 54:05Brian Keating?

  Too bad his name wasn't Vasco. Can you get him to change his name to Vasco, please?

• 54:11Speaker 02

  Yeah, well, he showed that it goes through the telescope optics, thanks to these operation commas. They didn't think of that, but he thought of it. It took a couple of more decades, just because someone didn't manage to do it in the seventies, doesn't mean that someone can't do it fifty years later and gets a good idea. And Ivo Bosko got that a good idea. And I think that's beautiful. He did what they haven't managed to do before. And also, in those times, they didn't work with big catalogs. They worked with like, uh, one by one of objects. They took a microscope, maybe they used a le- um, what is it called, this magnifying glass? And they looked one by one, and they maybe said, oh, we can't say, we can't separate it, it could be plate effects.

• 54:51Speaker 02

  But today, we have population statistics. We have all this, the, the digitization of the surveys, machine learning, uh, big computers. It allows us to do population statistics in a way they couldn't do in those times. And that's the beautiful thing of progress. And of like, all these new tools we have today, so.

• 55:12Brian Keating?

  And I want to be fair to Waters. It, I, I may have misspoken. It's not a published paper, it's just a pre-print. And, and that's fine. A lot of things get, get, uh, uh, get, you know, handled wrong and, and then they get handled a, a better way. Maybe you're gonna comment, maybe the editor, referee, et cetera. Just as people have corrected you by criticizing you, you may criticize him and correct him and benefit him, right? So this could make it all better for the sake of heaven, as he'd like to say. Okay. Now I want to take a big, say again?

• 55:39Speaker 02

  We have a commentary online in response to them, so it's there.

• 55:42Brian Keating?

  Oh, you do? Okay, great. I'll put a link to that in the notes below. So let's just take a big step back. Uh, we just had this movie come out in America called Disclosure Day. We, we've had multiple disclosures, you know, from the, you know, Trump administration. Uh, we've had Avi Loeb, you know, volunteer to take up his eighth job at the White House now, apparently, according to Avi. At least, I'm trying to get confirmation from my sources and media and the White House myself. But, but for now, I trust him and we'll see what, how it comes out, okay? So let's just say there's a, you know, a hundred thousand of these things and, and ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine are fake, okay? They're just artifacts, they're just something, you know, a flock of shiny. Birds and some swamp gas or like there there was there was a laser, you know, we didn't know about the lasers. What's that?

• 56:26Speaker 02

  I I I'm imagining seagulls with tinfoil.

• 56:29Brian Keating?

  Yes, yes. Okay, so let's say there was, you know, some some laser and a tinfoil shot out of a laser with a with a covered on a seagull. Okay. But let's say of all those nine hundred nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine, they're all they're all wrong waters, you know. Uh, avi lobe, everyone could rule it up, but there's one that's real. We can't explain it, Beatrice. That's history, right? So what would that mean? What would that do for our, you know, perception of where where things fall in the cosmos?

• 56:57Speaker 02

  Well, I think it's going to make us much more humble because we as humans have a reason to. Uh, unite in some ways because uh it shows that we are not. The only ones, I mean, not only that we are not the only ones in the universe, we are not even alone here on Earth. It's, I mean, it it has to bring some humility, even to those of us who are not too humble.

• 57:22Speaker 02

  No, but it's um, I think it's going to be amazing, actually. And of course, I would be curious, like, what else do they know? What could we learn from this other civilization? I think it would be amazing. Really amazing. It it doesn't guarantee that we are safe, of course. Because we can't guess the intentions, you know, there's a lot of people that try to guess. Whether they are benevolent or whether they are evil and I just say we have no data.

• 57:47Brian Keating?

  Yeah.

• 57:49Speaker 02

  Really no information to make any qualified guess.

• 57:53Brian Keating?

  I mean, aside from this, what do you think is the evidence for highly technologically advanced life forms outside of the Earth? Do you do you feel like ignore your work? Okay, I need you to do that, but but what what do you think is, I mean, do you, what do you make of these? You know, claims of of, you know, Tic Tacs and and the non-human biologics and interdimensional being. I mean, do you think that any of these hold the candle scientifically that meets your rigorous standards?

• 58:19Speaker 02

  Uh let's say like this, I think there is a lot of evidence that is not accessible to scientists. Because there are really credible people and a lot of credible people who talk about crash retrievals and uh there is. I believe that what is being said there is most, I mean, I believe it's true. I I do find a difficulty in that we cannot judge any evidence. Because there is no evidence out there for us as scientists, which is a problem and which is why I prefer to do my own stuff. If they are not going to give me the evidence, I will do my own searches. We even uh we even have this European crash retrieval initiative that we started.

• 58:59Speaker 02

  Where we have been uh requesting the public to give us uh tips for uh crash saucers. Because for me, it's not enough that someone tells me that there are, uh even if if I believe them, I still want to see the evidence before I. State that this is the case. You can have an excellent, uh I mean, all the excellent leads, but I still want to have it in my hands before I say there are crash saucers there.

• 59:24Brian Keating?

  I'm a pilot and I I fly little planes, you know, propellers around. Um but, you know, they're not very stealthy, um and and certainly not to have, you know, I want to be seen by the air traffic controller, so I don't hit another plane. These objects, they weren't doing much to hide, uh let's say stipulate that all of them are extraterrestrial technology. Seems like they A wanted to be found or didn't care if they were seen, which seems kind of dangerous, especially if they're avoiding nuclear tests, you know. Maybe they if they're detected, they could get shot down. So it seems like maybe their judgment's not so great, or maybe they're bad drivers. I I don't really know.

• 59:56Speaker 02

  Or maybe sensitive, because you see that there there are fewer of them during geomagnetic storm, higher geomagnetic storm activity, maybe they are very fragile. Maybe they're.

• 1:00:06Brian Keating?

  And the other question I have is, what happened to them? Like, why why aren't they here now?

• 1:00:11Speaker 02

  Uh who has thought that they are not here now? I see lots of these things in the sky still. I mean, there are papers that are reporting the same kind of flashes. So I think they might be here. I think uh there's a lot of UFO reports. Even if the most of it, like ninety seven percent of all the UFO reports are just like misidentifications. You still have some three percent that can't be explained and can't be explained despite access to data. And you still have cases like the Nimitz case that are highly fascinating. You still have the Washington flap that you can't just explain away, just like that. I think it's a highly credible case. The problem, again, with all these really interesting, high-quality cases is that it's

• 1:00:56Speaker 02

  classified. Once something is really good, it gets classified and we scientists can't access it.

• 1:01:02Brian Keating?

  Well, that's where, you know, I think Avi is coming into play and wanting to declassify it based on his relationships with powerful Congresswomen like Anna Paulina Luna here in the United States. I have just one last topic before we wrap it up. I know it's super late for you and I really appreciate you. Another viewer on my channel, if you're a member of the channel, you can ask questions of my guests and I like to do that to engage my audience with brilliant scientists. So, this person, I was gonna say this entity, but their name is EntityUnknown, which I was gonna use for one of my kids' names, but I decided against it. So EntityUnknown says the following, Beatrice, he says, "Stay safe."

• 1:01:46Brian Keating?

  Are you worried about your safety?

• 1:01:48Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 1:01:49Brian Keating?

  Why is that?

• 1:01:50Speaker 02

  I don't want to explain all the details, but there have been a number of incidents and it's, let's say, I do have support for it.

• 1:02:02Brian Keating?

  Okay. Well, I want you to stay safe. I want you to visit here. I want to take you to Mount Palomar. You'll come along with me and my kids. We love to go camping and hang out up there and we'll collect some special, let's say, non-technological artifacts, like pine cones and rocks and things like that. I'd love to give you, and actually, give you one of the plates that I collected from my late, great colleague Margaret Burbidge. I think she'd be proud to know you. And of course, my friend and colleague Shelley Wright would love to talk with you and we have a lot to talk about. So I think, let us think of this as the first of many conversations, okay?

• 1:02:37Speaker 02

  Absolutely. Thank you so much.

• 1:02:39Brian Keating?

  Be well. Thank you for joining us. I know you all found Beatrice as fascinating as I do, and if you want to see more of her, let me know in the comments. Would you like me to moderate a debate between her, Avi Loeb, and Michael Shermer, noted skeptic? And also, click here and watch the video I just did with Avi Loeb.

• 1:03:10Speaker 04

  When you shop Kroger delivery, you can expect the savings you love and fresh groceries delivered right to your door. From delicious produce to everyday essentials, enjoy the convenience of delivery and the trusted selection you've come to know from Kroger. Because bringing you fresh, quality groceries is what we do best. Right now, enjoy free delivery on orders of $50 or more with your digital coupon. Restrictions apply. See site for details. Kroger. Fresh for everyone.

• 1:03:40Speaker 05

  We just moved into our new house and I didn't realize just how close we were to the neighbors. That's when my friend told me about Blinds.com.

• 1:03:48Speaker 06

  Blinds.com isn't a medication, but it can improve how you feel about your home. Customers who shop at Blinds.com experience excellent customer service, from consultation to installation. Side effects include increased privacy and better sleep. Talk to your partner today and see if Blinds.com is right for you. Shop Black Friday all month long at Blinds.com. Don't miss huge deals dropping every week.