Eric Weinstein Demands UFO Secrets From Pentagon Scientist

Our American Alchemists this week are Eric Weinstein and Eric Davis. Sign Up With Our Sponsors Below For Exclusive Alchemy Deals! KetoneIQ: Visit https://ketone.com/ALCHEMY for 30% OFF your subscription order PLUS receive a free gift with your second shipment—or find Ketone-IQ at Target stores nationwide and get your first shot free! iRestore: Unlock your best hair & skin with @iRestorelaser and HUGE savings on the iRESTORE Elite + Illumina Face Mask Bundle with code [JESSE] at https://www.irestore.com/JESSE #irestorepod This is the conversation I have been trying to make happen for years. Eric Davis is the most credentialed investigator of the UFO crash retrieval program alive. Astrophysics PhD from the University of Arizona, 30 years in the field, security clearances through AAWSAP and AATIP, formally deputized by the DIA under program manager James Lacatski. Eric Weinstein is one of the most technically gifted minds outside the classified world, someone Davis himself identified as one of only three people technical enough to engage with this material. I put them in a room and let them go at it. Where they disagree is where this gets historic. -------------------------- Support Our Other Projects Below! Grab Your American Alchemy Merch Here ➤ https://www.americanalchemymerch.com/ Join The American Alchemy Magazine Here ➤ https://americanalchemymagazine.substack.com/ Subscribe To Our Clips Channel (10 Minute Highlights!) ➤ https://www.youtube.com/@UC8ZKTXN9trt5dhixz6b6l6w -------------------------- JOIN OUR WHOP (Early Drops/Ad Free) ➤ https://whop.com/jessemichels Discord ➤https://discord.gg/crHc44m3kF Instagram ➤ https://www.instagram.com/jessemichelsofficial TikTok ➤ https://www.tiktok.com/@itsjessemichels X ➤ https://twitter.com/AlchemyAmerican Spotify ➤ https://tinyurl.com/jessemichelsspotify Clips Channel ➤ https://www.youtube.com/@JesseMichelsClips Apply For Jobs ➤ [email protected] Sponsor Inquiries ➤ [email protected] Media Inquiries ➤ [email protected] Timestamps 00:00 Introduction 05:48 Introducing the Guests 13:12 The Nature of Evidence 23:52 Leadership and Programs 30:33 Bush and UFO Briefings 34:53 Progress in Reverse Engineering 37:56 The Wilson Davis Memo 48:00 The Count of Crashes 50:08 Encounters with Officials 51:27 Personal UFO Experiences 54:00 Exotic Experimental Results 57:46 Theoretical Physics and UFOs 1:05:56 The Limits of General Relativity 1:15:35 The Challenge of Quantum Gravity 1:16:13 Questioning Scientific Progress 1:19:31 The Failed String Theory 1:21:51 The Role of Jasons 1:24:17 The Nature of Theoretical Physics 1:27:11 Gravitational Manipulation 1:30:55 The Energy Requirements 1:36:57 Traversable Wormholes 1:46:25 The Nature of Extended Electrodynamics 1:55:08 Dark Matter and Its Implications 2:05:04 Exploring New Physics 2:11:29 The Need for Theoretical Physicists 2:16:33 The Challenge of Understanding UAPs 2:22:02 The Complexity of Aerospace Research 2:28:43 The Nature of Crash Retrieval Programs 2:35:09 The Legacy Program 2:40:43 Quantum Gravity and Its Challenges 2:47:11 The Role of Institutions 2:49:55 The Epstein Connection 2:51:14 Conspiracy Theories and Reality 2:52:55 Bob Lazar 2:54:39 The Nature of Physics Institutions 2:55:53 The Role of MIT and Lincoln Labs 2:57:24 The Gravity Wave Debate 3:02:01 Jim Simons and Physics 3:06:38 The Economics of Science 3:09:45 Secret Science or Slush Fund? 3:12:58 The Role of Los Alamos 3:16:39 UFOs and National Security 3:18:46 The Nature of UFO Phenomena 3:24:01 The Harvard Math Department Connection 3:35:33 The Old Order is Breaking 3:44:54 Zero-Day Exploits and National Security 3:49:15 The Nature of UFO Interactions 3:52:10 Trust and Blackmail Systems 3:54:30 The Complexity of Epstein's Network 3:57:47 Physics in Crisis: A Call to Action 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

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' health care to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the HouseMajorityPac.com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

• 0:30Speaker 01

  Build your front end and back end together on Base44. Describe the product logic with a managed database, authentication, and hosting included. Spend less time assembling infrastructure and more time getting your product live. Go to base44.com.

• 0:44Speaker 02

  So you're going to create a wormhole on demand?

• 0:47Speaker 03

  You should be able to. That's what my research showed.

• 0:52Speaker 02

  So walk me through, how do I get to Alpha Centauri by engineering a traversable wormhole?

• 0:59Speaker 03

  Well, you're going to create...

• 1:00Jesse Michels?

  Eric Davis, you are kind of synonymous with UFO science. You have an amazing background at Aerospace Corporation, EarthTech, you've worked with NASA Lewis. Eric Weinstein, you are a math PhD from Harvard who has dared to present a theory of everything in physics.

• 1:17Speaker 03

  The alleged Roswell crash was real. There was a there, there, it really happened.

• 1:23Speaker 02

  How is it possible that something this large that involves this many people has zero incontrovertible pieces of evidence?

• 1:29Speaker 03

  Do you dispute the existence of atomic weapons? Because you can't access it?

• 1:34Speaker 02

  I can't access it.

• 1:36Speaker 03

  Oh, you can access it.

• 1:37Speaker 02

  I have no idea what we just did.

• 1:39Speaker 03

  It is a crash retrieval, not human intelligence, not human technology.

• 1:43Jesse Michels?

  How many of those crash retrieval program people have you met?

• 1:46Speaker 03

  I think it's five total. There's no physics in it.

• 1:49Speaker 02

  It doesn't make any sense.

• 1:51Speaker 03

  Say again?

• 1:52Speaker 02

  It defies the laws of physics. We haven't made progress. We have no physicists. How are they doing on this project decades in?

• 2:00Speaker 03

  This thing is not a Manhattan Project. And you know what the Manhattan Project was.

• 2:04Speaker 02

  Not one of these proposals excites me. They're boring as sin. I don't like GR. Why are you not tweaking it?

• 2:12Speaker 03

  I don't have intuition on how I could tweak it.

• 2:17Jesse Michels?

  Are there propulsion modalities that you're high conviction in that transcend chemical combustion?

• 2:25Speaker 03

  Yeah, it goes way beyond even advanced.

• 2:28Speaker 02

  Are you aware of reports that we are being

• 2:33Speaker 03

  Monitored?

• 2:33Speaker 02

  made to know that we do not control our space?

• 2:36Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 2:37Speaker 02

  When you see smoke at this level, the question is, what is the nature of the fire?

• 2:40Speaker 03

  That's right.

• 2:41Speaker 02

  There are different fires.

• 2:42Speaker 03

  But there is a fire.

• 2:42Speaker 02

  Or there's a smoke machine.

• 2:44Speaker 03

  Or there's a smoke machine.

• 2:45Speaker 02

  Right, right. Epstein was running many different programs. It wasn't even Epstein probably running. Look, I believe we can leave. And if you believe you can leave, you have to imagine that you're being visited.

• 2:58Speaker 02

  Ignition sequence five.

• 3:02Speaker 05

  How is this possible? Nothing too unusual about that.

• 3:08Speaker 05

  Death, existence cannot longer be denied.

• 3:20Jesse Michels?

  Before we continue, I want to take a second to thank one of my favorite products in the world, Ketone IQ, for sponsoring today's episode. Ketone IQ is one of the very few things I use that gives me clean, sustainable energy without the crash. It's just this little shot, and I take a drink, and I feel like I'm on fire. No ups, no downs, no nervous system weirdness, just clean, clear mental energy. The reason it works is pretty simple. It gives your brain's ketones, which are almost by definition, its most efficient fuel source. Instead of pushing your system, it actually feeds it. In fact, your body endogenously produces ketones. So when you drink this, it supports deep focus, long conversations, and sustained mental performance.

• 4:05Jesse Michels?

  It was originally developed through a multimillion-dollar military program designed for high-stress environments where cognitive performance really matters. And today, it's used by founders, researchers, podcasters like myself, and people who need their mind to work when it counts. I always take a sip of one of these things before long podcasts. This product is also really personal for me because I've known the founders. Jeff and Michael for over a decade. These guys are awesome and for as long as I've known them, they've tried every supplement, biohack and nootropic under the sun. So it was a pretty good signal to me that they decided to start a company around ketones. I use Ketone IQ regularly. It's like a mental cheat code and it's genuinely one of the cleanest energy sources I've ever found.

• 4:48Jesse Michels?

  So before we get back into the episode, please visit ketone.com slash alchemy for 30% off your subscription order. Plus receive a free gift with your second shipment. Again, that's ketone.com slash alchemy for 30% off your order. Or you can find Ketone IQ at Target stores nationwide and get your first shot free. Seriously, this stuff works. Thanks so much to Ketone IQ for sponsoring today's episode. As you know, we have a new starship. Of course, we have a healthcare center onboard. Ask what my new favorite product in it is? I restore's Illumina face mask. Some billionaires are rejuvenating in underground light pods. I'm doing my own version in my living room. This mask is like a med bed for your face.

• 5:32Jesse Michels?

  It's lightweight, super convenient, cordless and runs red, blue and infrared light therapy all at once. The same type of technology NASA studied for skin healing in space. It's safe for your eyes too, so you don't have to sit there like a statue. You can live your life. I wear it when I'm reading, meal prepping, or investigating life's mysteries without feeling like I'm staring into the sun. 10 minutes of light in my skin looks and feels so good. Finding red light therapy was a revelation for me. I've definitely had a few late nights reading about magnetic pole shifts. But with this mask, I look like I actually slept. Did I? That's debatable. It's warm, wireless, convenient and makes your skin feel super soft.

• 6:15Jesse Michels?

  And I restore's kicking off their spring savings with some very big discounts. Right now you can get the Elite Plus Illumina Face Mask Bundle at an exclusive deal when you use code JESSE at irestore.com. That's Jesse, J E S S E at irestore.com. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Dr. Eric Weinstein, Dr. Eric Davis, this is an absolute honor. I can't believe this is finally happening. I think often in this space in when we're talking about UFOs, UFO legacy, reverse engineering programs.

• 6:51Jesse Michels?

  You have like a wave function that never sort of collapses and you have, you know, different sides saying things that are mutually exclusive and truth, it never collapses into true or false. And I'm really excited to do this because, Eric Weinstein, you probably need no introduction when it comes to kind of a general audience. You are a Mac PhD from Harvard, premier cultural commentator of our generation, who has dared to present a theory of everything in physics. And then Eric Davis, you definitely need no introduction in UFO space, but to maybe a more general audience, you know, some of whom who might have seen you in this recent Age of Disclosure movie.

• 7:37Jesse Michels?

  You're kind of synonymous with UFO science. You have an amazing background at Aerospace Corporation, Earth Tech, you've worked with NASA Lewis, you've worked on various initiatives in exotic propulsion, directed energy. And so, very excited to have you both today. I want to make this kind of two parts. One part is kind of establishing ground truth on Eric Davis's claims, because he's formally investigated this UFO legacy reverse engineering program. So I want to figure out what those claims are for the audience. And then part two, and this is why we have you here, Dr. Weinstein,

• 8:17Jesse Michels?

  is I want to figure out, and this is kind of actually a follow up on this thing we did with Hal Puth off last time. If there is a theoretical physics component to this UFO legacy reverse engineering program, is there physics hiding in private aerospace corporations? Physics you can think of as the rules of reality itself? That would be problematic, to say the least, if that were the case. And so I'm very excited to speak to you both.

• 8:46Speaker 03

  Thank you. Thank you very much.

• 8:48Speaker 02

  Thanks for having me.

• 8:49Jesse Michels?

  Awesome. So Eric Davis, I want to start with you.

• 8:55Jesse Michels?

  When did you become aware of this UFO legacy reverse engineering program? And how did you become aware of it? And how are you so high confidence in it?

• 9:06Speaker 03

  I was working at NIDS. It'd be 30 years this July. And I was the Director of Vero Space Physics and Astrophysics Research at NIDS. That's National Institute for Discovery Science that Bob Bigelow founded in 1995. And I was hired in July of 96 along with Colin Kelleher and George Onet. And John Alexander was already there on the staff, also served as a member of the Science Advisory Board. So I worked for Air Force Research Lab after NIDS and before Hal Puthoff hired me at Earth Tech. Okay, so then during my work at AFRL and then during my 15 years working with Hal Puthoff,

• 9:46Speaker 03

  we got involved with the OSAP slash ATIP and then later on the separate attempt called ATIP and then the UAP Task Force that Jay Stratton led. And using my security clearances, my need to know, my access, including my letter that I'm deputized by Jim Lukatsky as a representative of the Defense Intelligence Agency, I used all that leverage and authority to get into the crash retrieval program. I couldn't get access to C craft bodies or talk to the people, but I was able to get in to the people who handled all of that at a programmatic level and got confirmation that all of that was real, that all of it happened.

• 10:23Jesse Michels?

  And what's your conviction level in, say, Roswell, for example? Like that being a real crash involving non-human biologics?

• 10:32Speaker 03

  It's 100%.

• 10:33Jesse Michels?

  100%.

• 10:33Speaker 03

  It's 100%. And it wasn't in Roswell, New Mexico. It was on the Foster Ranch in Corona, New Mexico, which is 30 miles from Roswell.

• 10:40Speaker 06

  The missile landed at a ranch at Corona, New Mexico, and the rancher turned it over to the Air Force. Army officers say the missile found sometime last week, has been inspected at Roswell, New Mexico, and sent to Wright Field, Ohio for further inspection.

• 10:55Speaker 03

  I had my information I got from Ed Mitchell at a Science Advisory Board meeting about the Greer briefings on the Disclosure Project at the Pentagon and then Admiral Wilson coming back and verifying that the Roswell crash, well, the Corona crash actually really did happen. It wasn't a Mogul balloon. It wasn't a raw wind radar test balloon project. It wasn't a weather balloon. It wasn't anything of that nature. It was a real craft of unknown origin. That was adjudicated to be not of human origin or construct. And it crashed on the Foster Ranch in Corona, in Mexico. And then there's my work with Dave Grush when I was at the Aerospace Corporation. He was at the Aerospace Corporation building in Colorado Springs

• 11:37Speaker 03

  because he worked for their government customer, which occupied one or two floors there.

• 11:41Jesse Michels?

  What was David Grush doing in that capacity?

• 11:44Speaker 03

  Uh, he was, I think, a security contractor or advisor to a program manager. Dave was the NRO liaison officer to the UAP task force. So he took direction from Jay Stratton.

• 12:00Jesse Michels?

  Wasn't he National Geospatial Agency?

• 12:02Speaker 03

  No, I said the NRO, the National Reconnaissance.

• 12:04Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, you said that, but I thought he was National Geospatial.

• 12:06Speaker 03

  No, that was later.

• 12:07Jesse Michels?

  That was later.

• 12:08Speaker 03

  That was later.

• 12:08Jesse Michels?

  Okay, so he's the NRO liaison.

• 12:10Speaker 03

  So during the UAP TF, he was the liaison officer on behalf of the NRO to the task force.

• 12:17Jesse Michels?

  Yep, got it.

• 12:18Speaker 03

  So he worked with Travis Taylor, Jay Stratton. There's some other folks that don't want to be named, I know. So I just know that there's a core group of 40. There's a core group of 40 people, but there was a peripheral body of 1,000 people that contributed. Sometime, some of their time and labor and resources and the other government agencies, DOD agencies, intelligence agencies to feed information to the task force.

• 12:45Jesse Michels?

  A lot of people ask about kind of circular reporting when it comes to UFO, you know, testimonies. David Grush is what a lot of people I think are hinged, hinging their belief on because he's just seems like a very kind of honest, above board guy. He stumbled into a lot of this stuff.

• 13:02Jesse Michels?

  How many of his witnesses, his 40 witnesses are more of kind of the hapless engineer type that just worked on the vehicles versus people who have, you know, kind of second hand or, you know, third hand?

• 13:13Speaker 03

  No, they're all firsthand. It's just that it's something that Eric and I had lots of hours and hours of conversations about two years ago. Not a single of them were physicists.

• 13:25Speaker 03

  Not a single one of these guys were physicists. They had some discipline in engineering in their in their in their profession. They were either electrical engineers, material scientists, aerospace engineers, aero mechanical, aero thermal, thermal control, fluid mechanics.

• 13:40Jesse Michels?

  Save, save that.

• 13:41Speaker 03

  There wasn't a real physicist there. Nobody at the PhD level who is either an applied physicist or an or a theoretical physicist.

• 13:48Jesse Michels?

  Save that thought, please, because that is going to basically be the entire kind of premise for the second part of this. Do you have any questions as I'm sort of, you know?

• 13:57Speaker 02

  Well, you know,

• 14:00Speaker 02

  look, one of the things that I dislike very strongly about the UAP world is that you spend an inordinate amount of time if you're just trying to be an honest analytic person with the, is there any actual tangible incontrovertible proof? And it always seems like there's somehow this tight knit group of people who in general themselves don't have direct proof, but sort of have proof one thing away. And people build entire theories about the names of crafts and who was where. And I just have no idea as a civilian and a technical civilian,

• 14:42Speaker 02

  how to think about this because I don't want to spend our time in the is it real or not? Mode because that basically wastes time and it's also how conspirators get people not to work on conspiracy theories that could work is is that you demonize and stigmatize the behavior. So I usually would prefer in this this situation to just decamp and assume the nature of all of these.

• 15:05Jesse Michels?

  Yes.

• 15:06Speaker 02

  But just to be honest, and it just needs to be said once. I've been looking at this now, I don't know, five years since Jesse first crammed it down my throat. And I would say,

• 15:16Speaker 02

  I was clearly wrong about it. It's an enormous area. There's so many people who claim to have had contact with this program in one form or another. I can't believe that anyone could train an acting troupe at Brando levels of sincerity to lie to me like that. On the other hand,

• 15:34Speaker 02

  I've never seen anything like it where I can't get a single shred of incontrovertible proof and so many people seem to have it, but they all seem to be under some kind of an NDA where they can't give something real. So that just the first frustrating question is, how is it possible that something this large that involves this many people has zero scientifically incontrovertible pieces of evidence so that we can actually, there's no way to predicate a discussion in a way that I know that's that's responsible, just completely eludes the scientific community.

• 16:07Speaker 03

  Yeah, it's because the incontrovertible evidence is kept in the classified realm for for security reasons.

• 16:12Speaker 02

  Well, but

• 16:12Speaker 03

  There you go.

• 16:13Speaker 02

  Again, I don't want to, I don't want to.

• 16:14Speaker 03

  Do you dispute the existence of atomic weapons because you can't access it?

• 16:19Speaker 02

  I can't access.

• 16:21Speaker 03

  Oh, you can access it now?

• 16:22Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 16:22Speaker 03

  Have you actually been to pick up?

• 16:24Speaker 02

  If I look at the teller.

• 16:24Speaker 03

  Utonium core?

• 16:25Speaker 02

  No, I never kept the demon core in my basement.

• 16:28Speaker 03

  Okay. Oh, how about the, how about the?

• 16:30Speaker 02

  But I appreciate the.

• 16:31Speaker 03

  Lithium six fuel and the primary nuclear.

• 16:33Speaker 02

  Oh, we used to do that in high school.

• 16:35Speaker 03

  Oh.

• 16:36Speaker 02

  No, no. What I'm saying is, is that the teller Ulan design is released as a highly redacted report. Right? And so I have an idea from plenty of sources that this program exists. And what's more, in the case of atomic weapons, physicists are not perfectly locked down. It's a high trust community and in general, people are willing to talk, you know, even if they shouldn't about the role of physics and atomic weapons. I have never heard a colleague, not once at a high level in physics, give any credence to this world. In other words.

• 17:15Speaker 03

  Well, that's because they didn't have access. They didn't have need to know. They didn't have a contract where they had to have access.

• 17:21Speaker 02

  Again, it's not, it's not a challenge in that sense. Assume that there is a dividing line, but it means that.

• 17:29Speaker 02

  In the Manhattan Project, right? We called in Feynman and Bohr and Fermi and von Neumann and put them under Robert Oppenheimer and Teller and all these cats.

• 17:42Speaker 03

  And Bethy and.

• 17:44Speaker 02

  And Bethe, right?

• 17:45Speaker 03

  And.

• 17:46Speaker 02

  So, but in so doing, I would say, okay, I would imagine that if this is an existential threat, that there's stuff from someplace we can't understand that moves and breaks the laws of physics and all this, we would call that in. Now, one of the great things that came out of our discussions before is you said this thing, which I repeated on Rogan, because I didn't think it was classified. You said, when it comes to being technical, just at this point, that they don't invite in physicists, you said, you, you said that Eric, you, me and Hal put off are the three most technical people on this. And I said, I'm not on this.

• 18:22Speaker 03

  Yeah, that's, that's the problem. You should be in it.

• 18:25Speaker 02

  Okay, but that makes you Oppenheimer. And von Neumann and Feynman and Bethe and Fermi is Hal or something like that. In other words, or the reverse. But are you and Hal are Manhattan Project?

• 18:42Speaker 03

  No, we're not directly involved. We've been exposed to it officially for the purpose of the OSAP's goals.

• 18:50Speaker 02

  What is the question that I wish to ask? Can you figure?

• 18:53Jesse Michels?

  I think, I think what Eric's trying to ask in that, and I do want to actually continue along the former lines of just asking about kind of core evidence with, with Dr. Davis. But I think the question that Eric is trying to ask is you just mentioned that none of Grush's, you know, 40 witnesses that he, you know, handed over to the Intelligence Community Inspector General are theoretical physicists.

• 19:16Speaker 03

  Right.

• 19:16Jesse Michels?

  And so you have, you know, your physics PhD, Hal's an electrical engineer.

• 19:21Speaker 03

  Well, he's also, well, his. A PhD was in laser physics because when you go to Stanford in the 1960s, you can't get a PhD in physics or a master's.

• 19:30Jesse Michels?

  So, so it's you two and then Eric, who is a, you know, math PhD at the highest level, who can keep up with, you know, any physicist in the country and has his own physics theory of everything.

• 19:40Speaker 03

  Oh, I know.

• 19:41Jesse Michels?

  And so it's, so it's all, all three of you guys, but all three of you are outsiders. He's a real outsider. You two have officially investigated this stuff. And you're saying there are no theoretical physicists on the core program.

• 19:53Speaker 03

  I've never seen one. I've never gotten evidence from the people, from the leadership at, at the two aerospace companies I personally interviewed with.

• 20:02Jesse Michels?

  That's so wild.

• 20:02Speaker 03

  I don't mean interviewed with, but who I investigated and interviewed leadership and a few of the worker bees involved.

• 20:09Jesse Michels?

  Are there propulsion modalities that you're high conviction in that transcend chemical combustion?

• 20:17Speaker 03

  Yeah, it goes way beyond even advanced nuclear and, uh, nuclear in aerospace industry is fission, fusion and matter, antimatter annihilation. Way beyond that. Um, I don't think we have a grasp of it. I haven't heard anybody that I've interviewed, uh, say that they have a grasp of it. And even as recently, uh, unfortunately, um, the one technical person who ended up becoming a senior VP decades later, uh, at the biggest of the aerospace, legacy aerospace companies. Uh, he was a material scientist working on the crash retrieval program after, after getting his doctor, after earning his doctorate and he got hired straight away to work on it for about, uh, roughly two decades.

• 21:01Jesse Michels?

  Who is this? Who is that?

• 21:03Speaker 03

  I'm not.

• 21:04Jesse Michels?

  Okay. Yeah, no worries.

• 21:05Speaker 03

  So, um, uh, so basically he's a material scientist. We've had a lot of classified and unclassified discussions. And I brought these questions up. I asked his questions.

• 21:16Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 21:16Speaker 03

  And, and the answer is no, you know, we, we didn't have theoretical physicist that we could put on this. We're strictly limited in the number of people on the bigot list. The bigot list is the list of people who have need to know and access to a particular classified program. And if you're not on that list, You don't get admitted.

• 21:34Speaker 02

  So this is.

• 21:34Speaker 03

  You don't get invited.

• 21:35Speaker 02

  This is an unacknowledged, waived and bigoted self.

• 21:39Speaker 03

  It's an acknowledged. It's a waived, unacknowledged special access program.

• 21:43Speaker 02

  Right.

• 21:43Speaker 03

  And so I said, so where are your physicists? What are your theoretical and applied physicists telling you? You said, well, we don't have any. We never did. We only were allowed to keep it down to roughly a handful of people in the company to work on this. And that's it. And it's limited to engineering. And there's no physics in it.

• 22:00Speaker 02

  It doesn't make any sense.

• 22:02Speaker 03

  Say again.

• 22:03Speaker 02

  I'm just, I'm just trying to logically think about.

• 22:06Speaker 03

  Okay.

• 22:06Speaker 02

  And, you know, it's, it's like saying, we're having trouble performing Beethoven's Fifth. And we have the finest accountants, optometrists, boxers and cardio trainers. And you're like, well, what about violinists and violists and anybody playing the French horn? And it's like, oh, well, we don't, we don't do that. So of course you're not going to play Beethoven's Fifth. I mean, because you can't engineer your way out of a science problem.

• 22:35Speaker 03

  Yeah. Well, let me tell you, I think you've got a great point about talking about Manhattan, the Manhattan Project. This, this thing is not a Manhattan Project. And you know what the Manhattan Project was? We both do. We read the books. It was multi, how many people? Thousands of people, multi-disciplinary.

• 22:52Speaker 02

  The white badges was the very small core, but the, the whole thing was enormous.

• 22:56Speaker 03

  Yeah. You had industrial engineers, computational engineers, electrical engineers, mechanical.

• 23:02Speaker 02

  Multiple sites.

• 23:03Speaker 03

  Explosives experts, nuclear, ex-nuclear physicists and nuclear engineers. You had everybody of, of all the STEM disciplines there. You had to have mathematicians. And they were involved with that program to build up the, the fuel, design, characterization and manufacture. But this program doesn't, these programs don't have that. They deliberately keep it divided up among different companies to maintain plausible deniability in case there's a leak. And they keep it very small for the reason.

• 23:32Speaker 02

  Okay, but it has to be centralized somewhere. The compartmentalized nature of Los Alamos and the Manhattan Project more broadly.

• 23:40Speaker 02

  Was still overseen by a small group who had universal access.

• 23:44Speaker 03

  That's right. And also note that the Manhattan Project people had their families living with them too, in a closed city.

• 23:51Speaker 02

  That's right.

• 23:51Speaker 03

  That's right. So they don't have an equivalent for this in the crash retrieval program.

• 23:57Speaker 03

  So there's disjointed groups of people, small numbers of people, they're not allowed to know about the other people.

• 24:05Speaker 02

  Okay, those are the, those are the people. And what they're doing. Those are the people who are in the stove piped architecture.

• 24:11Speaker 03

  Right. And the central, the central portfolio owner is a three-letter intelligence agency. So that's who's is centrally in charge. It was Leslie Grove in the United States. Was it the, was Leslie the general of the Army Corps of Engineers? Or was he in a different?

• 24:28Speaker 02

  I don't remember where he was.

• 24:29Speaker 03

  Okay, but he was in charge on behalf of the army. He ran it. He was the military boss and Oppenheimer was the civilian boss of the Manhattan Project.

• 24:37Speaker 06

  Do you take David Gresh at face value that Dick Cheney was the last head honcho of this sort of program?

• 24:46Speaker 07

  And there's not really a mob boss. The closest person we got that I was aware of was unfortunately now deceased Vice President Dick Cheney. Darth Vader himself, not shocking that he was involved in this. And essentially when he left in 2009, that was the last time that these activities really had central leadership.

• 25:07Speaker 03

  I never heard that before. So that never came up in our, in our classified and unclassified conversations. I'm not aware that Dick Cheney had any role.

• 25:15Speaker 06

  To speak to this three-letter, the, the head, the head you cited a three-letter, in our discussion at Seoul in San Francisco, you directly said CIA, D S and T, at one time Glenn Gaffney, et cetera. So was the UFO program portfolio owner. So to Dr. Weinstein's question about technical rigor physicists, did you ever have the opportunity to, to ask anybody near the head of this apparatus, why there wasn't a stronger motivation to have physicists on staff? I mean, from an early era, why was there not that prioritization?

• 25:49Speaker 03

  Well, I would love to talk to the head of the crash retrieval program during that era, but he refused to talk to us.

• 25:55Speaker 06

  And that was, that was Glenn Gaffney?

• 25:57Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 25:57Speaker 06

  Okay. Glenn Gaffney. And who is Jim Ryder?

• 26:02Jesse Michels?

  All SAP was originally intended to.

• 26:04Speaker 05

  To skip out Bigelow Aerospace Facilities in Las Vegas due to a UAP material divestment plan proposal to offset leadership by Lockheed Martin Space Systems Vice President Dr. James Rider, now deceased.

• 26:22Speaker 00

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' healthcare to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the House Majority PAC dot com, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

• 26:53Jesse Michels?

  He's this Lockheed Martin Space Systems guy.

• 26:55Speaker 03

  He was the senior vice president of Lockheed Martin Space and Missiles Company, which is also the Space Systems Company. And his dual hat job was director of the company's Advanced Technology Center.

• 27:12Jesse Michels?

  Did he also work on UFO crash retrieval initiatives?

• 27:15Speaker 03

  Well, I don't want to say that or confirm or deny that because of the consequence to his family. One of his, one of his daughters works there.

• 27:24Jesse Michels?

  Okay, got it.

• 27:25Speaker 03

  It could cause her issues, so.

• 27:26Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 27:27Speaker 03

  So I can't get into that particular detail.

• 27:29Jesse Michels?

  Okay, yeah, no, no problem. I'm so sorry. Through your investigations, like, did you ever encounter technical intelligence that you considered high credibility that seemed like it would have had to have come from direct communication with NHI? Or did it all seem like it could have been through passive investigation?

• 27:47Speaker 03

  I couldn't get to that. There's two things I couldn't get into because I didn't have access. I didn't have the right clearances. And I wasn't allowed to, let's, let's put it this way, there are people I was working with who knew who to contact, but they wouldn't give me the contact because they were not allowed to give out the name and organizational office or program that the individual worked at. And so they were not allowed to share that with me. So I couldn't get into the NHI issue. I couldn't get into the alien or NHI contact issue.

• 28:20Jesse Michels?

  The fact that Rider essentially said, we have no idea how this works, does that imply to you they never had direct, they never had the ability to ask questions of someone with full knowledge of the technology? Did you ever make that connection?

• 28:36Speaker 03

  No, I think Dave Grush was able to make that connection. I couldn't.

• 28:39Jesse Michels?

  It when when you're on age of disclosure and you are saying sort of confidently that Roswell had, you know, a certain number of beings, one of the beings probably survived is.

• 28:50Speaker 03

  That I don't know. You know, I.

• 28:51Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 28:52Speaker 03

  That's that's a point of information I have never gotten in any of my official government interviews or even unofficial off the record interviews is that any of these aliens ever lived. This is coming from a different avenue and I don't recall Dave Grush telling me that that was the case. But I won't dismiss it offhand. It's just that it's not a piece of data that ever came my way after 30 years.

• 29:18Jesse Michels?

  As part of your official investigations in OSAP, you were making sure that your sources were completely uncorrelated, right? They weren't speaking to each other.

• 29:28Speaker 03

  Oh, yeah. Well, they wouldn't. They wouldn't be able to because they were in compartmentalized programs.

• 29:33Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 29:33Speaker 03

  And we had compartmentalized clearances ourselves. So we could only talk to them at a certain level. And even us, we could not get special access program clearance because the VP of Lockheed Martin,

• 29:48Speaker 03

  there was a VP of TRW before it got bought out by Northrop Grumman. These guys, they may know about each other, but they're not read in on each other's programs because that's what compartmentalization meant. It meant that

• 30:04Speaker 03

  they may know about each other through the through the portfolio owner, but they're not allowed to communicate because of that compartmentalization. And so where was I going? I think I lost my train of thought. I'm sorry.

• 30:16Jesse Michels?

  Well, tell me about George H. W. Bush, Bush 41.

• 30:19Speaker 03

  That's separate. That's separate.

• 30:20Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, totally separate. But yeah, just wanted to ask you about your interactions with him because it seemed like from your accounting, he wasn't fully aware of the UFO crash retrieval program, but he became aware of it through some interesting.

• 30:34Speaker 03

  Well, he became Gerald Ford's CIA director.

• 30:39Speaker 03

  So Gerald Ford became president. He nominated Bush and Bush got confirmed and he became the CIA director. So he goes into this for his first briefing as director of the CIA. The first thing that came out of this briefer's mouth was the Holloman landing in April 1964 at Holloman, Air Force Base in New Mexico. So he started briefing Bush on that. And Bush said, what are you talking about? I've never heard of this before.

• 31:02Jesse Michels?

  Describe what this is for the audience.

• 31:04Speaker 03

  So, uh, so to make a long story short, three craft, UAP craft, UFO craft came in. One of them landed not on the runway, but on the tarmac close to a, uh, a hangar. The other two took off and a gangway came down, extended down and down comes a humanoid looking, very tall,

• 31:26Speaker 03

  uh, NHI being, uh, he looked of Northern European descent. So he goes and meets with them and they go into that hangar and that hangar turns out to be the equivalent back in those days of a special access program hangar. It's all secured. They've got guards around it. That's the end of the story. So this film was made of it and this story has circulated at various times. Uh, uh, the Defense Audio Visual Agency under the command of two, uh, retired generals. Uh, I think Jerry Miller was the name of one of them. I don't remember the name of the other. Jacques Vallée talks about them in his book Revelations, I think it is. And, uh, he and Alan Heineck were invited to go to the DAVA and see that

• 32:09Speaker 03

  film, get access to the film and see it. So they got there and apparently they were not allowed to see that video because the, one of those two generals said that they got intercepted or, um, uh, somebody got in the middle of that and, and convinced them not to allow Bela and Heineck to see that film.

• 32:30Jesse Michels?

  You do have this fact pattern over decades of, you know, this sort of luring in of various, you know, UFO researchers and presentation of passage material, which is, you know, um, material that might have some truth in it, but it's also sprinkled with falsities so that, you know, the, the researchers can be discredited. So why now is there this line in the sand where we should trust that there is this real UFO legacy crash retrieval program?

• 32:59Speaker 03

  You know, I'm kind of thinking maybe it all began with, uh, Kellher Nap and Lukatsky's first book, Skinwalkers at the Pentagon. I think that started it off. And then Lukatsky did his first book and then out the second book last year. And I think he's got a third one coming out. And then Lou Elizondo's book came out. And so I think this is a crescendo of things that have come together in the right time, the right place, the right people. And that's why this is happening.

• 33:27Jesse Michels?

  And if you're Stratton and you you're hosting, because he was the guy who ran the UAPTF, the UAP Task Force.

• 33:33Speaker 03

  That's right.

• 33:34Jesse Michels?

  And so.

• 33:34Speaker 03

  But he also was working with Jim Lukatsky on the OSAP. He was at DIA at the time.

• 33:41Jesse Michels?

  So they.

• 33:41Speaker 03

  I don't know if you knew that.

• 33:43Jesse Michels?

  I didn't know that. That's interesting.

• 33:45Speaker 03

  Lukatsky are the ones that built the OSAP program together.

• 33:48Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 33:48Speaker 03

  So it wasn't just Jim Lukatsky alone. It was Jim and Jay and their support staff. There's, you know, the DIA and contractor staff that supported them. So Jay was involved with the OSAP from the very beginning.

• 34:01Jesse Michels?

  And then then we we talk about OSAP, ATIP, these sorts of programs that are, you know, very small dollar amounts, you know, vis a vis.

• 34:09Speaker 03

  Twenty two million dollars, but.

• 34:11Jesse Michels?

  The inflation adjusted Manhattan project.

• 34:13Speaker 03

  Yeah, Harry Reid had an intention on turning into it, turning it into a Manhattan project. He was intending, this was like just to get it started. And then the subsequent fiscal years that would follow. He was intending this to go like maybe a decade with worth a billion dollars, maybe two billion dollars worth of programatics.

• 34:33Jesse Michels?

  But you were simultaneously saying there is an underlying program that is a legacy reverse engineering program that is.

• 34:40Speaker 03

  Yeah, that's this, this.

• 34:42Jesse Michels?

  That has.

• 34:42Speaker 03

  After the fact.

• 34:42Jesse Michels?

  And that that has to be.

• 34:43Speaker 03

  We were trying to get into the crash retrieval program. Our our goal was to get after it and co-opt it. Into the OSAP so we could do what the goals of the OSAP wanted us to do. And I don't think that was necessarily to bring it out in the public domain. That was to keep it classified anyway. But our job was to get access to it because we were not convinced that there was any progress made. And as a matter of fact, the senior VP at at one of the aerospace corporations who I had. Years worth of interviews with before and after he retired confirmed that there was no success in the reverse engineering program after eight decades and it just didn't go

• 35:26Speaker 03

  anywhere. They had modest success, like they understood the materials that craft were made from. They figured out how they were constructed, but we couldn't reproduce any of it. We had no techn- we had no fabrication or manufacturing technology at the time of the crash retrieval programs when they were fully funded and fully operating to figure that out. We could just use our SEM and transmission SEM microscopes and other advanced condensed matter state diagnostic tools and evaluate it, look at it, look at it down into the, into the, you know, almost nano scale and we could see how the materials were assembled, but we could not figure out how to reproduce that process.

• 36:08Jesse Michels?

  If we have made no progress, why aren't we more open with the scientific community?

• 36:13Speaker 03

  That's the security aspect of it. I'm, I'm not involved with that policy aspect. I don't have contact with the people that make the policy on that. So I can't answer that.

• 36:23Jesse Michels?

  But you, you are-

• 36:24Speaker 03

  It's not that I don't want to, I just don't-

• 36:25Jesse Michels?

  No, no, no, I get it. And you're, you're saying confidently that there are billion dollar budgets involved in the actual core UFO legacy.

• 36:33Speaker 03

  I don't know. I don't know that it's that much. It was on that order from my interviews with TRW and Lockheed Martin people, that that was the order of magnitude of the budget expenditures that were given, not on an annual basis, but it was more like maybe over a five to 10 year period. But then the budget would go up and down, just like NASA's budget would go up and down. So the budgets would go up and they'd have, they'd be flush with money, get in, get a few more people in, get some better equipment in lab, and then the budget gets cut and they gotta go to bare minimum operation. People get laid off and whatever.

• 37:14Jesse Michels?

  I wanted to ask you, you know, there's this sort of, not even lore, there is a document called the Wilson Davis memo. You get asked about it all the time. It's- Kind of apocryphal meeting that occurred between you and Admiral Thomas Wilson.

• 37:28Speaker 03

  UFOs or something.

• 37:29Jesse Michels?

  That's right.

• 37:30Speaker 03

  The last gospel of the Bible.

• 37:32Jesse Michels?

  You are famous for your meticulous note taking and apparently this meeting took place in the EG and G parking lot. And it is this, you know, Admiral, who is head of J two Joint Chiefs.

• 37:44Speaker 03

  He was retired at the time.

• 37:45Jesse Michels?

  He was retired at the time. He was.

• 37:46Speaker 03

  Back into active duty for a short period of time because he had to close out a project at Area 51 that he was responsible for under his office at the DIA that he initiated. And it was a complicated project. He couldn't tell me because I didn't have that kind of level of access or anything like that. So he, all I know is he said, I'm back because I've got to go back up into that. He, he wouldn't say Area 51. I knew what he was talking about. He was saying, he used the word back in those days, the undeclared or unacknowledged facility near the Nevada test site. And he had to go back there because they need to close out a major project he initiated when he was active duty DIA director.

• 38:26Speaker 03

  And, and so he was willing to meet with me at the behest of two guys at the National Nuclear Security Agency that I personally knew, John Alexander, and I knew them. We were all members of the Association of Foreigner Intelligence Officers. We were forming a Las Vegas chapter in 2002. So these guys were in Las Vegas because one of them is the Director of Intelligence at the NNSA site in Vegas, in Nevada, and the other one was the Director of Counterintelligence at the NNSA site as well.

• 38:55Jesse Michels?

  And so at least formerly, Wilson was supposed to have all military tech under his purview, under his scope. And he's expressing a lot of frustration to you, right? That he's just met with this private corporation.

• 39:07Speaker 03

  This is back in 97.

• 39:08Jesse Michels?

  This is in 97.

• 39:10Speaker 03

  The summer of 97.

• 39:11Jesse Michels?

  And he's saying, he's saying these, there's this team of people in the hundreds of people. And they have this tech, this material that doesn't seem to be of human origin. And progress is sort of slow and cumbersome, but that he, for whatever reason, wasn't supervising or overseeing it, even though he should have been.

• 39:30Speaker 03

  It's, it's that he, they claimed he didn't have. Need to know, and that's possible. Their budget came from his. In other words, their their funding, I'm sorry. Their funding came from his director's budget, the budget he gets as a director. This was DIA money that he wasn't aware of. He wasn't aware because this this is a WUSAP. He hadn't been read in on it. And so when you deal with budget line items for these things, they're just innocuous budget codes that a comptroller general of the Defense Department or the military services or the US government understands how to read a budget code. And then a a a standard plain English description is deliberately meant to be vague.

• 40:14Speaker 03

  So you can't identify it that way if the budget document gets gets captured by espionage assets from foreign nations, foreign adversaries, they won't understand what the hell it is. So all they're going to see is something they don't, they may or may not even know how to interpret, and some innocuous words. And this could be as as innocuous as aerospace technology review, or, uh, well, let's look at the OSAP, Advanced Aerospace Weapon Systems Application Program. It could be something similar to that or of that nature. You'll see something of that nature. It it it doesn't say UFO, alien, off-world, you know, it doesn't give you any clue or indication as to what it is.

• 40:53Speaker 03

  It's meant for that, for that reason, is to keep our enemies off the track to be able to figure out what we're spending our money on and where. Wilson didn't know that because he didn't have any to know, just like a president in the United States really doesn't have any to know about the crash retrieval program because mostly they have to know to ask about it. And when they ask, that's an order from him that somebody lower down needs to give him a briefing. But if he already doesn't know, he doesn't know to ask.

• 41:18Jesse Michels?

  What happened when Jimmy Carter got briefed?

• 41:21Speaker 03

  Uh, I don't know what the aftermath is, but I know that Alonzo McDonald confirmed to several of us that, um, in our group during that era, the OSAP era, that, uh, He talked to the staff that attended that briefing. He talked to Carter and it happened. He even sent us the June. I don't remember the date in June, but I've got the document, but it's June 1990, 1977. It was an economic meeting in the National Security Council meeting room. But then when it came time for this classified UAP or UFO program briefing, they moved it to the Oval Office.

• 41:59Jesse Michels?

  Do you know what the nature of the meeting was?

• 42:01Speaker 03

  Well, that what we popularly known as Project Aquarius. And so I know that Alonso did not dispute that that was the code name. It might not have been, but it might have been, but he said, this was it. This is the real deal. This really happened. And by the way, I got from, from the Carter Library, the attendee list for that date. And it shows the name of the regular meeting for the Economic Something Council, because that's what Alonso McDonald's job is at the White House. So.

• 42:32Jesse Michels?

  Is that public information?

• 42:33Speaker 03

  The names of the people that attended were there. The only thing is two names and organizations were redacted. Out of all the lists, on two pages, only two got redacted.

• 42:41Jesse Michels?

  Can you send me that?

• 42:42Speaker 03

  Say again.

• 42:43Jesse Michels?

  Can you send me that with the redactions, obviously? That would be amazing.

• 42:47Speaker 03

  So basically Alonso confirmed that it happened. He was then the Principal Staff Director of the White House Staff. I think that was the title back then. Before that, he was Jimmy Carter's Special Representative for Trade, I think to the United Nations. So he had something like an ambassador or an ambassador level title.

• 43:10Jesse Michels?

  Do you know anything that transpired in the meeting itself as far as?

• 43:13Speaker 03

  Well, he talked to Carter and the, and the guys that list named on that list. And he asked him what went, what transpired. Carter told him and the guys who attended told him. And they said, we learned that the United States government has been in contact with. Aliens, UFO beings.

• 43:30Jesse Michels?

  Danny Sheehan says Carter's head was, oh, see, continue, sorry.

• 43:33Speaker 03

  What he does is when he's in a moment of stress or something that's really critical. Alonso told us that Jimmy or Carter, President Carter, has a habit of putting his head down on his table like this and praying. This is how he prays on his desk or at a table, at a briefing table. So that's what he was doing. He was just praying and he was praying about the consequence of this information that he just now learned. It was what it's, what it's a consequence to American society is and maybe to the United States government and our defense of our country against an unknown potential hostile, we don't know, force that we don't have a technology to overwhelm.

• 44:15Jesse Michels?

  Did he learn about, have we had treaties or agreements with any of these beings?

• 44:20Speaker 03

  That I've never heard about. No, that never came up.

• 44:22Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 44:23Speaker 03

  I, I don't recall. I've seen the Aquarius document. Alonso said it was real. People have been saying for years that that was fabricated by Bill Moore and Rick Doty. And it turns out, no, Alonso said those guys had nothing to do with anything. That document, and by the way, I don't think you can find that document on the internet unless you use the Wayback Machine now nowadays. It used to be available as late as 2010 or 11 and then it's just gone. So Alonso read every word of the Aquarius briefing and he said, oh yeah, that's what these guys told me that they did. They, the guys of the, in the briefing got together afterwards, went to a motel

• 45:04Speaker 03

  and they basically wrote down from memory what they recalled about the briefing because they each got briefing documents. When the briefing is orally given, they're reading through it. Then when the briefing's over, they got to give the document back to the CIA guy at the door that gave them the documents because they're going to be destroyed.

• 45:20Jesse Michels?

  Where, where's what they wrote down from memory? Where, where are those documents?

• 45:24Speaker 03

  Well, that's the thing. Those are gone. Um, I'll get to that. So.

• 45:28Jesse Michels?

  How do you know they're gone?

• 45:29Speaker 03

  The White House gets a copy, permanent copy for their records. So that's in a really heavily classified part of the Carter Library, I believe, maybe. And then. The CIA keeps a copy because that's their program. Okay, so these guys had eight by 14 inch, you know, legal pads. And they all meet up in a hotel and they all start downpouring from memory. What they think, what they recall of the briefing document. So they, they did it round robin. So everybody passes their document to the next guy, so forth and so on, all the way around. And so they're going to cross check what they remember against the other guys' notes. And they're going to keep doing this until they find, you know, they're going to disagree on what was said on this little point.

• 46:15Speaker 03

  This language and this terminology and whatnot. They're going to keep doing that until they finally converge on a document that, that strongly resembles the briefing document that they all read. And they all agree on it and they said, yeah, this is more close to what we read. And we collectively, you know, came to this convergent final version. So somebody typed that up on a, on a old fashioned electro thermal printer. And that's what you see in the photographs that Bill Moore took of that document.

• 46:49Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 46:49Speaker 03

  And it was said that the Senior Falcon, Senior Falcon was somebody else. I know his name. I just can't think of it. But it's in one of my, one of my investigation.

• 46:59Jesse Michels?

  Why do all these guys have bird names?

• 47:03Speaker 03

  I don't know. That's just the choice of an admiral at the DIA.

• 47:07Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 47:07Speaker 03

  Nothing to do with the aviary. Aviary is more in the 1990s conspiracy era, or maybe the late 80s even.

• 47:14Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 47:15Speaker 03

  No, this is, Senior Falcon was a DIA officer who was sent to communicate with Jamie Shandair and Bill Moore. He was the one that passed undeveloped 35 millimeter film of the so-called MJ12 documents. These are the first generation documents that were created by James Jesus Angleton's chop shop. His mole hunting document production factory. So that's the connection there is that these documents came from the Defense Intelligence Agency. It was the Directorate of Human Intelligence Collection. And Admiral EA Burkholder, Edward Burkholder was the director.

• 47:59Speaker 03

  And Air Force Colonel Roy Johnkers was his chief of staff. So those documents came out of there. Well, this whole thing about the films, the undeveloped rolls of 35 millimeter film that would go to Bill Moore and Jamie Shandura, that was what that was about. Rick Doty was considered to be the junior Falcon, but he was not a legitimate mediator of information from the DIA to Bill Moore. He was more coming out of AFOSI as a counterintelligence agent, trying to throw him off the track.

• 48:31Jesse Michels?

  Let's just keep it high level, I guess. So you have, you have Roswell in 47, you have Magenta before that in Italy, but then this, this craft crashes there and that gets transferred to US possession. And then how many other crashes between the 30s and today?

• 48:51Speaker 03

  I can't give you the official number because I know that number on a classified basis, I could say it's less than 40.

• 48:57Jesse Michels?

  Okay, less than 40. I think Hal Putoff said on the Joe Rogan Experience, somewhere like we have between 10 and 15 crafts in our possession.

• 49:08Speaker 03

  15, I think he said more than 10, but that's still.

• 49:10Jesse Michels?

  More than 10, okay, got it.

• 49:12Speaker 03

  More than 10, I'll just say less than 40.

• 49:14Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 49:15Speaker 05

  Would you describe the majority as wreckage or intact?

• 49:18Speaker 03

  A mix.

• 49:20Speaker 05

  An even mix, okay.

• 49:22Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 49:22Speaker 03

  And not all of them involved recovery of NHI bodies.

• 49:27Jesse Michels?

  Dr. Davis, what gives you confidence that we haven't made progress with any of this material?

• 49:35Speaker 03

  I can't speak of my confidence level after

• 49:41Speaker 03

  my senior VP source died.

• 49:46Speaker 03

  Because before then, I'm highly confident because he was still connected in. He was, he was still on active duty work up until he got retired in the early 2010s. Then he's retired after that, so he's sharing with me the information that he had all the way up until he retired. And so I'm highly confident at a hundred percent level that what he told me is right. And in fact, he arranged for me to meet one of his coworkers on the crash retrieval program back in the seventies and eighties.

• 50:14Jesse Michels?

  Did you meet them?

• 50:15Speaker 03

  Oh, yeah, it was a woman. I met her. I we he, my source, his wife, uh, took me to her home, picked her up. We went into San Jose to have dinner at a German restaurant.

• 50:25Jesse Michels?

  How many of those people, crash retrieval program people have you met total?

• 50:31Speaker 00

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid and risked 350,000 Virginians healthcare to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the House Majority PAC dot com, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

• 51:01Speaker 03

  Okay, so I think it's five total.

• 51:03Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 51:04Speaker 03

  Five total at that one, at that particular company.

• 51:06Jesse Michels?

  How many have you met total in your life?

• 51:09Speaker 03

  It was just those two from that company and one from TRW.

• 51:12Jesse Michels?

  Okay, wow.

• 51:14Speaker 05

  Did you meet many of the 40 of Dave Grush's firsthand witnesses?

• 51:19Speaker 03

  Say again?

• 51:19Speaker 05

  Did you meet many of the 40 of?

• 51:21Speaker 03

  I didn't even know who they are, really. He never shared that with me.

• 51:24Speaker 05

  I see.

• 51:24Speaker 03

  I have a rough guess, but believe me, don't confuse that 40.

• 51:28Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 51:28Speaker 03

  With the 40 core people on the task force, on UAP task force. They're, they're not.

• 51:33Jesse Michels?

  Totally different. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

• 51:34Speaker 03

  They're totally different. There's no overlap.

• 51:36Jesse Michels?

  No, that, that, that makes, I would hope that there's no overlap.

• 51:39Speaker 03

  Yeah, I don't think Dave was allowed to tell me the names of those people or their organizations and where they're located, because that was at WUSAP level.

• 51:46Jesse Michels?

  Yeah. Final question before I want to get into the, the second section of this discussion where I want you to drive mostly. But, um, uh, how did Admiral Thomas Wilson react, uh, when you, when you met him in 1997? And why, I guess, why did people direct him to you? And then, uh, what transpired in the, in the meeting?

• 52:06Speaker 03

  I can't get into that.

• 52:07Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 52:07Speaker 03

  Can't confirm or deny that we met for the security reasons.

• 52:10Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 52:11Speaker 03

  There are legal issues still involved that are active. So, um, uh, because I can't reveal that in public. That wasn't meant for public. Consumption and that was released from Mitchell's estate.

• 52:23Speaker 05

  Mm hmm.

• 52:23Speaker 03

  And that was supposed to be destroyed one year after Mitchell got a copy of it as a courtesy from, from who generated it. And unfortunate that his kids were sloppy and, and I guess Ed was sloppy in that he didn't give any instructions on what to do with that document if, if he should die, but he was supposed to destroy that as far as I understand.

• 52:45Speaker 05

  I, I would be remiss if I didn't, I, this can be cut if it's not okay to air, but during our discussion in San Francisco, you did confirm that you wrote the Wilson Davis notes by way of a conversation about

• 52:58Speaker 03

  I, I can confirm

• 52:59Speaker 05

  Seeking legal, legal counsel.

• 53:00Speaker 03

  Yeah, they're real, they're legit, they're a hundred percent accurate.

• 53:03Speaker 05

  Okay, thank you.

• 53:04Speaker 03

  But that's the typewritten version, um, that there's a handwritten version, but that's all I can say about it. Um, uh, so.

• 53:12Speaker 05

  Have you, have you ever seen a UFO?

• 53:14Speaker 03

  Oh yeah, my wife and I did in Tucson, Arizona, broad daylight, a boomerang shaped craft, below traffic pattern altitude, uh, looked kind of like halfway boomer, boomerang halfway heel, boot heel type shape, but it was close.

• 53:29Speaker 05

  Have you ever seen a craft in a hangar?

• 53:31Speaker 03

  No.

• 53:32Speaker 05

  Have you

• 53:32Speaker 03

  I wish, I wanted to.

• 53:34Speaker 05

  Have you ever seen any one of one material? So idiosyncratic, never seen before material? Okay.

• 53:40Speaker 03

  Yeah. And the arts parts don't qualify.

• 53:42Speaker 05

  Okay.

• 53:42Speaker 03

  We don't know what the provenance of that is. And Hal and I were involved in the TTS meeting at the Pentagon conference room in August of 2024, where we read the full 90 page ORNL, that's the office of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, their 90 page materials analysis report on the arts parts. And there was nothing there, there was no there, there, there's a little bit of ambiguity because here's the ambiguity. The way that material was assembled is not consistent with what we were doing in the 1940 era, when magnesium became a major alloy of interest for the aerospace

• 54:26Speaker 03

  community. And so that's the ambiguity. But the isotope ratios of the materials it contains are earth. They're manufactured.

• 54:35Jesse Michels?

  Part of what I love about you is you are a walking compendium of all these exotic, you know, experiments, physics experiments, and whenever, you know, anybody gets some sort of anomalous result, you are a great evaluator of that. And you've written a book that I will, I'll plug here called Frontiers of Propulsion Science, where you've comprehensively reviewed a lot of these sort of more exotic, you know, propellantless propulsion sort of, you know, modalities. Have you ever seen an exotic experimental result, or an experimental result that's anomalous, rather, that you believe is real and replicable and not?

• 55:16Speaker 03

  No, I wish I did. I haven't.

• 55:18Jesse Michels?

  Nothing that's ever, you know, breaks the sort of standard model or, you know, any?

• 55:22Speaker 03

  No, certainly not.

• 55:23Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 55:23Speaker 03

  I just think that the standard model has done an outstanding job through the avenue of condensed matter theory to come up with some pretty exotic condensed matter states, which have been, you know, theoretical curiosities decades ago. And now we've advanced our laboratory technology in condensed matter physics so well that they're discovered, they're being discovered right now. So they're really wonderful, wonderful exotic states, insulator, topological insulators, metamaterials, all kinds of other stuff, like majorana particles that are supposed to be, I think they're massless, aren't they, Eric?

• 55:59Speaker 02

  If you have a

• 56:00Speaker 03

  The majorana particles.

• 56:01Speaker 02

  If you have a Majorana mass mechanism different from a Dirac mass mechanism, that's only possible if a particle is its own antiparticle.

• 56:10Speaker 03

  Yeah, that's right. That's right. But they, these are not free particles. These are quasi particles because they are, they are

• 56:19Speaker 03

  They're quasi particles because they're created by the collective action of the electrons in the semiconductor or condensed matter system.

• 56:25Jesse Michels?

  I want to cede the floor to my former colleague, Eric Weinstein. I appreciate you indulging all my crazy UFO questions. Just wanted to kind of establish a ground truth around Eric Davis's past experience.

• 56:41Jesse Michels?

  One of my favorite comments on our last discussion with Hal Puthoff was, now I know what a dog feels like when it watches TV. And so if, you know, this is not for the faint of mind, just so you're aware from, you know, for the audience, this will be a really fun discussion, but I, you know, I want to get into what we touched on, which is why are there no theoretical physicists on the program? And what do you think is going on? How do you think maybe what we've talked about with the observables of UFOs might dovetail with some of your theories?

• 57:15Speaker 02

  Okay, well, I don't even know how to begin this. I mean, look, the first thing is, is that in general, I can produce too many explanations through a creative, sometimes undisciplined mind for a certain set of facts. And this is one of the only times, and perhaps the only time, I've ever seen a situation where I cannot come up with a single theory of what's going on that explains all of the bizarre behavior in UFO UAP land. Too many people who seem relatively reasonable with nearly identic memories, talking about particular names, dates.

• 57:52Speaker 02

  It is impossible to me that we have a theater company that has figured out how to create this space opera. And on the other hand, the lack of anything tangible.

• 58:05Speaker 02

  I don't believe in something this, this old, this long, this many events, that we have absolutely nothing to go on. So let me just say from the beginning that this is the odd situation. One of the reasons nobody from my world wants to get involved with it is that. It just makes you look foolish from the point of view of a scientist.

• 58:27Speaker 03

  Well, they can't get involved unless they're working on a contract.

• 58:31Speaker 02

  Well, this is the sky.

• 58:32Speaker 03

  Then they get a clearance.

• 58:33Speaker 02

  Sky is a big place.

• 58:35Speaker 03

  And I disagree.

• 58:38Speaker 02

  You said that you've.

• 58:40Speaker 03

  One of the top government scientists, I can't think of his name, you would know who it is.

• 58:46Speaker 03

  Gosh, he was a physicist and I just how put off knew him and he had all he had a lot of clearances in the Manhattan project, the post Manhattan project. A lot of other high technology projects throughout areas of the DOD.

• 59:02Speaker 03

  And, and so he was a academician and he had clearances, a colleague of mine up at Baylor also has DOD.

• 59:13Speaker 03

  Classifications and he's working on classified stuff that you're not familiar with. You've never heard of, you won't get access to it. If you have a contract that requires a clearance, you will get access to something you don't know about.

• 59:25Speaker 02

  Okay, I understand that there's a lot of stuff that's classified. We have an entire system of national labs. There's no question about that. I'm talking, I'm talking about. Like at the level of ground truth, right? Our two primary theories are the standard model and general relativity. Both of them are relevant here as limitations on what we can understand of the world we see. And if somebody has access to theories beyond those two, uh, and they predicate manufacturing on it. And then we get the gifts of that manufacturing, just assuming that that story is correct. We should be seeing some very weird stuff that is not explicable as if Newton was looking at.

• 1:00:10Speaker 02

  Lorenz contraction, I would say, what the heck is that?

• 1:00:14Speaker 02

  And so I'm just going to begin with things that make me hugely uncomfortable. And again, it's not as a diggers. It's like, I just can't figure this out. So we toss off these humanoid aliens, like aliens that are tetrapods, literally tetrapod body, body plans. We have arachnids, we have insects, we have cephalopods. We have all sorts of intelligent life that doesn't follow a tetrapod body plan. The odd of a humanoid evolving through convergent evolution somewhere else of a humanoid i- is vanishingly small.

• 1:00:57Speaker 03

  But it's not zero.

• 1:01:00Speaker 02

  Yeah, but it's preposterous.

• 1:01:02Jesse Michels?

  But Occam's razor wouldn't be that these beings would be from elsewhere. They would be that they'd be derivative of humans.

• 1:01:08Speaker 02

  Or, or look, you can tell me some other story like these things aren't even really the beings that the real beings have constructed these things to interact with us, not to, not to make us uncomfortable. Okay, I understand.

• 1:01:21Jesse Michels?

  Do you believe that?

• 1:01:22Speaker 03

  That's possible.

• 1:01:23Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 1:01:24Speaker 02

  All right. But any biologist hearing this story is just gonna have the same reaction like tetrapods? This sounds like it came out of a, you know, Buck Rogers thing where you had to, it was too higher, too, too hard to hire an actor to behave as if they had a completely different body plan. So all, all alien, aliens from the golden age of cinema or silent movies, whatever, would going to be tetrapods if they were playing an alien. So that, first of all, really bugs me is that I don't want to hear about that with no mention of, it is stunning that there are two eyes, a mouth, a head, and it walks the same way we do.

• 1:02:07Speaker 02

  I mean, even if you look at like a, I don't know, a camel's legs, you know, where we have a knee, it has an ankle or, you know, something like that. So, so that's, that's the first part. And that's just the biological. The next part is, um, I was very interested looking through some of your physics papers. You seem to live in a world that I really honestly didn't know existed. So I learned something from that. It's sort of like national security physics.

• 1:02:42Speaker 03

  National security physics.

• 1:02:43Speaker 02

  Yeah, that's not like a real thing, but if I look at a lot of your papers, they're focused on

• 1:02:51Speaker 02

  bizarre, how would I put it? Bizarre physics that accepts the standard model in general relativity is ground truth, predicated on some sort of engineering desire.

• 1:03:03Speaker 03

  No, I'm just looking at for my, per my book. I was looking at the physics of what's possible with anti-gravity, gravitational wave propulsion or rockets.

• 1:03:13Speaker 02

  Within what, within what framework?

• 1:03:15Speaker 03

  Say again.

• 1:03:16Speaker 02

  Within GR.

• 1:03:17Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:03:17Speaker 02

  So GR with or without positivity constraints? Or how are you? How are you?

• 1:03:25Speaker 02

  We'll slow it down. First of all, I don't understand if these things are here from out of town. If they're not co-resident with us here on earth. They're not here using the standard model in general relativity. I don't think, I mean, it's not impossible, but.

• 1:03:43Speaker 03

  But I'm not doing UFO physics. I'm doing propulsion physics for interstellar flight. This, I'm not looking at this from a UFO perspective. I'm doing this as part of.

• 1:03:50Speaker 02

  So maybe you can make this. So you're.

• 1:03:53Speaker 03

  Drive wormholes, things like that.

• 1:03:55Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 1:03:57Speaker 03

  Yeah, I'm not doing this because of UFOs. I'm just saying, hey,

• 1:04:02Speaker 03

  if this is valid to any degree and we could expect maybe or pray maybe that in the future we can engineer these things. This could be how UFOs move because we're trying to develop this physics for exploitation as a technology for future interstellar and interstellar missions.

• 1:04:20Speaker 02

  So this is hugely important for me, just to understand the context. If I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't want to push anything that isn't true. I think what you're saying is assume a proof of concept that something can voyage at an interstellar level with intention.

• 1:04:37Speaker 03

  Uh huh.

• 1:04:38Speaker 02

  Okay. Assuming that one piece of information.

• 1:04:43Speaker 02

  Attempt to figure out how that could be done as best you can with the tools we have.

• 1:04:50Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:04:51Speaker 02

  Okay. So then you and I completely polarize, I think, and again, I could be wrong, on one, one issue. I would not be wasting my time. Again, that's judgmental. I would feel that I was wasting my time if I was trying to do this with GR, with general relativity.

• 1:05:10Speaker 03

  Okay.

• 1:05:10Speaker 02

  I might have an Alcubierre warp drive, but I'd think, how much energy do I need to warp space in this particular way? Right? Or, well, I could fall into a spinning black hole. And, you know, maybe I could try to figure out how this would be traversable and non catastrophic. And I could imagine using all of the exotica of GR. Well, I'll just, I'll bet everything on time dilation. And it'll be really expensive to go there and, and home, but I can still get there.

• 1:05:40Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:05:40Speaker 02

  Using Lorentz conversion factors.

• 1:05:46Speaker 02

  None of that has any appeal to me. Clearly, it's had great, a great appeal to you. It's just fine. We're, we can pull, we can polarize on that.

• 1:05:55Speaker 02

  Surely, you don't think.

• 1:05:59Speaker 02

  It's mu- isn't it much more plausible that if craft were true, and we accept that as our premise, that it's basically proof that GR isn't the last world, that general relativity is a constricting framework, and that there's something beyond it that has general relativity as an effective theory?

• 1:06:16Speaker 03

  I agree with that.

• 1:06:17Speaker 02

  And they're using that?

• 1:06:18Speaker 03

  I agree with that.

• 1:06:19Speaker 02

  Okay. So that makes this mysterious, which is why are you using GR?

• 1:06:24Speaker 03

  Because that's the only tool I have that I know of from my graduate education and my research interest. And so I don't, I, I don't have the liberty to, I'm not a pure theoretical physicist. I'm more of like one foot theory, one foot applied.

• 1:06:40Speaker 02

  Okay. So let's, let's take that.

• 1:06:43Speaker 02

  If I had access to anything that seemingly was breaking GR, general relativity, I'd be dreaming about things related to general relativity, because we know that we don't like general relativity at a deep level. It's got a terrible variable in it, which is called the metric, where it's easy to fall into things that are not metrics from the space of metrics. Things, it just doesn't behave well in terms of quantization. We know that we have got these two kinks in spacetime called the initial singularity, which we associate with the big bang, and the Schwarzschild or black hole singularity that we associate with collapsed stars.

• 1:07:24Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:07:25Speaker 02

  And

• 1:07:28Speaker 02

  I don't like GR. I mean, I love it from the point of view of Einstein having pulled it off, but it's 110 years past its sell-by date. And why?

• 1:07:42Speaker 02

  Why are you not tweaking it?

• 1:07:44Speaker 03

  I don't have intuition on how I could tweak it.

• 1:07:49Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 1:07:50Speaker 03

  And I would rather somebody smarter than me do that. I would like to have somebody who tweaks it, and I could look at it and say, hey, it either does or does not predict a potential propulsion mode that could get us where we want to go across interstellar distances without the consequence of G over C to the fourth.

• 1:08:13Speaker 00

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' healthcare to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the HouseMajorityPact.com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

• 1:08:43Speaker 02

  So

• 1:08:47Speaker 02

  how do I interpret?

• 1:08:53Speaker 02

  There are a lot of people who are interested in gravity.

• 1:08:57Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:08:57Speaker 02

  And then none of them on this program?

• 1:09:00Speaker 03

  Say that again. Other people are interested.

• 1:09:02Speaker 02

  Let me start from a different place. There's this 1971 Australian document that I became aware of, where the Australian intelligence officer, Harry, do you remember his last?

• 1:09:13Jesse Michels?

  Harry Turner, who was head of their nuclear division.

• 1:09:16Speaker 02

  Starts writing down, here's what we surmise about our friends, the Yanks, and their efforts in this area.

• 1:09:25Speaker 03

  Okay.

• 1:09:26Speaker 02

  And he names, I don't know, six universities and the Institute for Advanced Study, MIT, Purdue, Indiana. I forget what the complete list is. And he names like Arnawit, Dessar.

• 1:09:40Speaker 03

  Oh, yeah.

• 1:09:41Speaker 02

  Dyson, Oppenheimer. And it sounds like the Manhattan Project for gravity.

• 1:09:46Speaker 03

  Okay.

• 1:09:48Speaker 02

  And this is broadly consistent with this story that I've been,

• 1:09:55Speaker 02

  I think I first did it on Rogan in episode 1945, which they gave me the Trinity date. I love that.

• 1:10:04Speaker 02

  Which is that we have this bizarre thing called the Golden Age of General Relativity.

• 1:10:09Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:10:09Speaker 02

  Which makes absolutely no sense. And it's a story about two people, Agnew Banson and Roger Babson, who appear to be in the language of the intelligence. And again, I'm not a guy who thinks he's seen a bunch of Jason Bourne movies so he can talk the lingo, but they appear to be what I've been told are cutouts. And they're both fitted with stories, it seems, about why they need to contribute in the anti-gravity.

• 1:10:37Speaker 02

  And they find two physicists to work through, one named Bryce Stewart. So Agnew Banson and John Wheeler find Bryce Stewart and set him up at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill at the Institute of Field Physics.

• 1:10:49Speaker 03

  Right.

• 1:10:50Speaker 02

  And then the other one, Roger Babson, out of New Boston, New Hampshire, seems to be somehow linked up with a guy named Lewis Witten, who's a gravitational physicist out of Johns Hopkins for his PhD. And found something that sounds like Bell Labs that nobody's ever heard of called the Research Institute of Advanced Study, or R I A S. And it has Sheldon Glashow within it. It has Rudolph Coleman within it. It has Solomon Lefschetz, the topologist, comes out of retirement to work inside of the Martin. And we always talk about Lockheed, but we don't talk about Glenn L. Martin that became Martin Marietta that became Lockheed Martin.

• 1:11:35Speaker 02

  So it's the Martin that really matters.

• 1:11:37Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:11:38Speaker 02

  And.

• 1:11:40Speaker 03

  And you and I talked about that years past.

• 1:11:42Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:11:42Speaker 03

  I've read the documents or the websites you've sent to me, and I'm already familiar with elements of that.

• 1:11:46Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 1:11:47Speaker 03

  Like that old newspaper clip.

• 1:11:48Speaker 02

  All right. So we've got 18 talent. We've got Sheldon Glashow, Rudolph Coleman, Solomon Lefschetz, Deser Arnowitz, Dyson. This, this begins to feel like, you know, the boys are back in town.

• 1:12:01Speaker 03

  Yeah, this is physics firepower.

• 1:12:03Speaker 02

  Yeah, right.

• 1:12:06Speaker 02

  And then the trail just seems to go cold in the beginning of the 1970s.

• 1:12:14Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:12:15Speaker 02

  So.

• 1:12:16Speaker 03

  And I could never reconcile that. I noticed that back in graduate school during the eighties. And I went to an APS meeting, that's the American Physical Society. So I went to an APS meeting with my dissertation supervisor and I ran into, they have like a booth for the APS, you know, all the books they sell, the, the, the Physics Today Magazine. Well, that was published by somebody else, actually. But they have all that for members, for members services and benefits. And so they've got this advertising booth in the commercials exhibit part of the conference, and they had the APS historian. And I brought

• 1:12:58Speaker 03

  that up with the historian, like, what, 1984? And Bob Forward was still at the Hughes Research Labs in Malibu. He's the one that motivated me to ask that question because he had been looking at anti-gravity when he was at Hughes. And this is before he got his PhD in general relativity under Joseph Weber at University of Maryland in the late 50s.

• 1:13:25Speaker 03

  And the APS historian had no answer for me as to where this disconnect between the, yeah, where, what happened to anti-gravity research? What happened to this golden age of GR? He said, he said something to the effect of similar what you said. It disappeared in the 70s, but he never saw what happened. All of a sudden, roughly the early 80s, now we have superstring theory coming up.

• 1:13:52Speaker 02

  No, there's a, there's an interregnum. So we have this golden age of general relativity. Things culminate in the standard model 73, 74 in particle theory. There is a period where there are two great ideas in physics, supersymmetry and grand unification, which dominate during the 70s. Then there's a pre-string-like craze for something called N equals 8 supergravity. And N equals 8 supergravity was the candidate theory, it's too unique to be wrong, theory of everything. And then right up until 1984, where we get the Green-Schwarz anomaly

• 1:14:34Speaker 02

  cancellation that Ed Witten, Louis Witten's son, directs the entire field to put its energies on one bet. And this is where the phrase, the only game in town, which is, toget, T-O-G-I-T, the only game in town. And toget takes over physics where if you say anything that isn't string during this period, right after 1984, it's a bloodbath. And basically Feynman is upset about it, Glashow is upset about it, Weinberg basically pleads no contest and says, I'm voting with my feet. I'm going to go do this cosmology in Texas.

• 1:15:15Speaker 02

  And years later, we get this very weird meeting about AI, not related to physics, between Marc Andreessen and Ben Horvitz. And they're sat down and told, do not invest in AI startups. AI startups are not going to be allowed to be a thing. We're going to have two or three AI companies and we're going to cocoon them as part of the federal government. And Andreessen and Horvitz are sitting there and Horvitz says, I think they say, well, how are you going to restrict this? You can't do it at the technology level because it's just math and you can't classify math.

• 1:15:54Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:15:55Speaker 06

  So Ben basically said, look, it doesn't make sense because to regulate AI at the technology level, you're regulating math. And of course, we're not going to do that. Like, that doesn't make any sense. And you'll recall that what they said was, no, actually.

• 1:16:06Speaker 03

  We can classify math.

• 1:16:07Speaker 06

  We can classify math. And literally, this is verbatim. This is, we did, we classified a whole entire areas of physics in the nuclear era and made them state secrets, like of the like theoretical.

• 1:16:20Speaker 03

  Physics, yeah.

• 1:16:22Speaker 06

  Science of physics.

• 1:16:23Speaker 02

  Okay, now, quantum gravity. If you look and you do a Google Ngram search, there's basically no hits on quantum gravity until around 1972. And it comes out of nowhere. And we're backfitted with a story where I can get almost any physicist of today to repeat the phrase that quantum gravity is the holy grail of theoretical physics. It's a fictitious history.

• 1:16:52Speaker 03

  I remember that's when Fuling, Davies, Ford, and that group started publishing their papers on semi-classical quantum gravity.

• 1:17:04Speaker 02

  Well, but my point is, the physicists do not know their own history, just the way most academicians believe that peer review goes back to the founding of the Royal Society. And it's very clear that it comes from about 1965 to 1975. So what we've done is we've erased institutional memory.

• 1:17:26Speaker 02

  Of the physicist's origin story from the physics community and this issue of quantum gravity looks like a cock blocking mechanism that it basically binds to the receptor of a physicist's mind and it causes them not to make progress. And so we're 42 years into an unquestionable. It feels like a mass psychosis.

• 1:17:51Speaker 03

  Yeah, we've had all these different approaches that never worked to quantize gravity.

• 1:17:55Speaker 02

  Right, so you have, you have what appears to be a mass delusion, not that it wouldn't be a good theory. I believe that gravity has to be harmonized with the quantum. I'm not disputing the quantum.

• 1:18:05Speaker 03

  Yeah, there's no question.

• 1:18:06Speaker 02

  But the idea that Einstein must be beaten, taken to the ground and forced to submit to the quantum has not been productive.

• 1:18:15Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:18:15Speaker 02

  And

• 1:18:16Speaker 03

  I agree.

• 1:18:16Speaker 02

  Okay. But after 42 years of failure, you would imagine we would hold at least one, two, or 10 conferences saying, what do we have wrong? Why are we not trying to make progress?

• 1:18:27Speaker 03

  And you don't see that.

• 1:18:29Speaker 02

  Well, that's the mirror to your thing that there are no physicists on the program. But in other words, this is an effect that is so dumb. It is so pathologically stupid, so unfathomably wasteful. Why would you not question your own lack of progress? You know, in fact, Leonard Susskind, one of the fathers of modern string theory, was on a show of a sister podcast, Kurt Jaimung's Theories of Everything. And I, or maybe it was with Lawrence Krauss. And then he says, we have to go back to the beginning. We have to question absolutely, we've got this wrong. If we don't go back to the foundations, I'm just thinking like, finally, it's breaking.

• 1:19:13Speaker 02

  He says, the foundations, and he says, of string theory. I said, oh, string theory has failed, so what we need to do is not question the string assumption, but we have to go back to the foundations of string theory and fix string theory. I mean, it's an infinite sequence. So one of the questions that I have is, is physics just, are we, are we not getting the obvious? Somebody figured out that physics is just too dangerous to do in a university setting.

• 1:19:42Speaker 03

  It seems that way to me. It seems that way to me.

• 1:19:46Speaker 02

  Because you see, now we're a joke.

• 1:19:48Speaker 03

  That's right.

• 1:19:50Speaker 02

  But in 1979, 77, you had these two Streisand effect problems. You had a guy named John Aristotle Phillips, who was a junior at Princeton, who chose Freeman Dyson for his advisor for his junior thesis. And he said, look, I'm the Princeton mascot. I'm not really very good at physics. Can we use the fact that I'm not really good at physics to do something novel? Dyson said, like, what? He said, well, I want to design an atomic weapon. And I want you to tell me whether my design would work using my limited understanding of physics. And Dyson said, as long as I give you no information, I simply tell you whether it would work or not. You do it all 100% your own, you're on.

• 1:20:32Speaker 02

  So he submitted his junior thesis. Dyson took one look at it and said, yeah, this will work. They removed page 20.

• 1:20:43Speaker 02

  And I believe it is not found in the Princeton library with all of the other junior theses.

• 1:20:49Speaker 03

  Oh, really?

• 1:20:50Speaker 02

  You never heard this story?

• 1:20:53Speaker 03

  I've not heard that story before. That's news.

• 1:20:56Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 1:20:57Speaker 03

  Well, that's very interesting, very, very.

• 1:21:00Speaker 02

  John Aristotle Phillips is the guy who is in center of that. There's another guy named Howard Morland.

• 1:21:06Speaker 03

  Heard that name.

• 1:21:07Speaker 02

  Who worked for the Progressive Magazine. And he had the assignment, see if you can figure out with no knowledge of physics, the Teller Ulam design for the hydrogen bomb. And he did it. And he did it because all of the

• 1:21:25Speaker 02

  information had been sharted and discarded and declassified. He basically put the pieces of the broken coffee cup back together by being meticulous. So it was an archaeology and reassembly. It was a reverse engineering program from the shredder of theoretical physics.

• 1:21:43Speaker 03

  Yeah, I agree with that. That sounds like it.

• 1:21:45Speaker 02

  Okay, well, that violates restricted data, which is this bizarre doctrine that comes from the 54.

• 1:21:53Speaker 03

  Four.

• 1:21:53Speaker 02

  Four and 46 atomic energy acts.

• 1:21:59Speaker 02

  And the government wanted to

• 1:22:02Speaker 02

  use prior injunction against him because he had no right to free speech in this area. And I think what they found was we can't stop him because we declassified all the information he used. So that gave the government a huge problem, which is it was creating a Streisand effect. And calling attention to the fact that there are no nuclear secrets. I mean, there are probably many, but the core ideas are not, are not the gating function.

• 1:22:28Speaker 03

  That's right.

• 1:22:29Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 1:22:32Speaker 02

  Shortly after that, we get string theory and we become kind of incapable.

• 1:22:37Speaker 02

  Right. It's like the glass bead game or something that amuses people at a very high level. Like we're turning the best physicists into chess players because nobody ever blew something up with a rook. Right? And

• 1:22:51Speaker 02

  I guess my question to you is, are these two sides of the same coin? That we don't make progress beyond the standard model and general relativity? And we don't have any physicists on the UFO UAP claimed crash retrieval program?

• 1:23:05Speaker 03

  I've always thought that the answer is yes to that question.

• 1:23:10Speaker 02

  Do you have any interaction with the Jasons?

• 1:23:12Speaker 03

  No, never.

• 1:23:14Speaker 02

  You know who they are?

• 1:23:16Speaker 03

  They change. They're not always the same group. No, I've never met any of them. I know who, and it, when I, at the time I knew who was in the Jasons, I didn't know any of the people on the committee.

• 1:23:29Speaker 02

  Do you want to describe what they're supposed to be?

• 1:23:32Speaker 03

  They're supposed to solve problems that the DOD gives to them.

• 1:23:36Speaker 02

  And it's supposed to be comprised of high level physicists, mathematicians.

• 1:23:40Speaker 03

  Yeah, engineers too. Yeah.

• 1:23:41Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:23:42Speaker 03

  So there's specific government problems, uh, problem. Yeah. Problems they need a solution for. So they give a contract to the Jasons to study a particular thread of problems over summer. These are academic missions, so they're off from school for the summer. And they devote their time and energy to solving this problem, produce a report, turn it in, they collect the money, they're done.

• 1:24:03Speaker 00

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' health care to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the HouseMajorityPact.com, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

• 1:24:34Speaker 02

  One of the things that I think is really interesting is that there are a tiny number of people at a very high level in theoretical, in foundations of theoretical physics.

• 1:24:46Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:24:46Speaker 02

  And I think most people don't understand what some of these people are. If I, if I show you a violinist who's a soloist, there's no possibility you can convince yourself that that guy knows nothing or that anybody could do that, right? Like, you see something that's so astounding, only a tiny few could do it. I believe that the same thing is true about theoretical physics and pure mathematics, that once you're in the game, you realize how, what a tiny number of people are at the highest level in this game. And it's just very vertical and it's, there's no mercy.

• 1:25:24Speaker 03

  Oh, that's true.

• 1:25:25Speaker 02

  Okay. So here's-

• 1:25:26Speaker 03

  I've done that all the way since I was in middle school. I read enough of physics literature. When I was a kid, I realized that.

• 1:25:34Speaker 02

  So here's my question. If I look at those people, they're so few in number, I could track all of them. And you pretty much know, not exactly, but by their PhD, you have a 75% chance that you've identified deep talent?

• 1:25:51Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:25:52Speaker 02

  So, you know, one of the things I've said to Jesse is if you wanted to figure out that the NSA was there, while it was still no such agency, you'd look at number theory PhDs and you'd ask, what zip codes do number theory PhDs live in when they don't get an academic job that's visible? And you find that they're clustered around Fort Meade.

• 1:26:13Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:26:14Speaker 02

  Okay, do the same thing for this. Imagine that what you need is you need general relativity, the differential geometry that goes underneath it. So let's call that Riemannian geometry. The standard model, the differential geometry that goes underneath that, we'll call Erismoney geometry, and what modern geometric field theory, you know, TQFTs, conformal field theories on up.

• 1:26:41Speaker 02

  Shouldn't we be able to figure out if there is a program that's actually working on this? Where it's located by virtue of the fact that there's almost nobody in this game and we can track their physical movements? In other words, we would have figured out that there was an awful lot of physics firepower at a boys' school in New Mexico.

• 1:27:00Speaker 03

  That's very interesting. So like a little detective search.

• 1:27:05Speaker 02

  I mean, my point is, is that this is the bottleneck. And in the current vogue of saying, you know, the lone genius theory is wrong, then that that wouldn't work. But the lone genius theory is clearly right. I mean, it's just obviously, it's a psyop to say it is. So my claim is, I know a great deal of those people, like personally.

• 1:27:30Speaker 03

  Okay.

• 1:27:32Speaker 02

  I see no indication that they know about any such program. And the only exception I can find is that there's one black hole that you go into and you don't come out of called Renaissance Technologies that hires in these exact specialties.

• 1:27:51Speaker 02

  It's got a level of profitability that doesn't really make sense based on what I know about markets. And it's got a secure campus. It's right next to Brookhaven National Laboratory, and it has the resources of SUNY Stony Brook. And SUNY Stony Brook has a math and a physics presence that is far above its rating as a state university of New York campus, even as a even as a flagship.

• 1:28:19Speaker 03

  I wasn't aware of that. That's on that's in Long Island, correct?

• 1:28:24Speaker 02

  Correct. I mean, I think most people didn't realize that Xi and Yang.

• 1:28:31Speaker 02

  Was the world's greatest living theoretical physicist until very recently. I mean, he was like 104, but that's where he was. He was at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.

• 1:28:40Speaker 03

  I didn't know that. Wow.

• 1:28:42Speaker 02

  So my, my question is, can we figure out whether or not there's a grown up effort? Because I don't think it's really easily possible to reverse engineer these things when your science is lagging.

• 1:29:00Speaker 02

  Like GR is the problem, the standard model is the problem.

• 1:29:03Speaker 03

  I agree with that. Absolutely.

• 1:29:04Speaker 02

  And yet you, your papers.

• 1:29:06Speaker 03

  Well, my papers are separate from that. That's the whole point. It has nothing to do with UFOs. It has to do with Mark.

• 1:29:11Speaker 02

  No, but you see.

• 1:29:12Speaker 03

  Propulsion physics program. I'm just contributing my knowledge.

• 1:29:16Speaker 02

  Those, those designs aren't going to work.

• 1:29:18Speaker 03

  Well, I didn't know that then, but I'm at a point where I know that it's difficult. Well, it's going to be beyond difficult to engineer warp drives and wormholes.

• 1:29:28Speaker 02

  Well, this is what I'm, I'm very glad we're having this.

• 1:29:31Speaker 03

  Configuration.

• 1:29:32Speaker 02

  I took one look at this stuff and I just said, why is he, why is he wasting his time? You know?

• 1:29:37Speaker 03

  It's, it's, it's, it's interest me. It's what I love. And I haven't been able to figure out any way to jump off that track and get on a track to an alternative version that could lead to something as revolutionary as trans medium propulsion that UAP demonstrate.

• 1:29:54Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 1:29:55Speaker 03

  So at a bare minimum, bare minimum, it, we would say GR and the standard model. But I already know that even at the bare minimum, that's probably not even touching the truth.

• 1:30:07Speaker 02

  Right.

• 1:30:07Speaker 03

  I think what's happening is, is I think the UAP craft are manipulating the, uh, the information domain, because I think that there's a sub quantum domain of information. People talk about Shannon, I'm talking about Fisher information that Roy Frieden at the University of Arizona, uh, did a lot of research for 25 years on, published two books through Cambridge University Press on Fisher information, was able to use that to derive all of the major theories and principles of physics, including the Wheeler DeWitt equation from that being observed and the observer. So it's all based on the observer, which is quite a quantum process, uh, quantum statement. So it's a, I don't, I'd have to dig it up out of my phone to be able to read to you

• 1:30:52Speaker 03

  the two key out terms of Fisher information from which physics drives.

• 1:30:58Speaker 03

  New scientist did an article on it, which was just brilliant. It was in the

• 1:31:01Speaker 02

  Yeah, I'm not following.

• 1:31:02Speaker 03

  Late, late 60s, but late 90s, sorry.

• 1:31:06Speaker 02

  So, look, right now, there's a vogue for if physics doesn't work, we can talk about quantum information, information theory, because computers have money. And so it's a way for us to try to get money from people who know computers by making physics like information is the is the basic layer of the world. So I've watched that push for a change of variables, just like, let's make black holes, the new harmonic oscillator, that the test object that we push everything onto. I really don't find that highly compelling. Like, we basically have quarks, leptons, force particles, Higgs. We have this arena called spacetime. It's all a model. The model is extremely good, but we don't live there. We don't live in spacetime.

• 1:31:52Speaker 03

  Oh, I know that.

• 1:31:52Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 1:31:53Speaker 03

  It's not lines, curves, points and manifolds. It's a physical space.

• 1:31:58Speaker 02

  Nobody, it may be a manifold. I'm not saying that it isn't. I'm saying that you know, because of the defects in these theories, that you're looking at an effective theory and you're trying to figure out what the parent theory is. Do you have any guesses about that?

• 1:32:16Speaker 03

  That goes back to some ruminations I've had based on quantum entanglement, quantum entanglement networks. People in Quantum Magazine had talked about the work they were doing on quantum entanglements and tensor networks, where they were able to show in a model how the big bang is actually a unfolding or an emerging of spacetime and elementary particles and the interaction forces from entanglement networks. And I just don't know how long that is, has, how far that has gotten as a theoretical development. But I know that the initial stage of work that was done in the mid 2010s was pretty promising. I just haven't heard, haven't

• 1:32:57Speaker 03

  found any publications to show or inform me on where they've gotten with it.

• 1:33:03Speaker 02

  Well, let's talk about getting a craft across interstellar distances.

• 1:33:11Speaker 02

  You've got some kind of, and I want to be

• 1:33:15Speaker 02

  clear that I think propulsion may even be misleading, but there's something like, is there, is there a method of conveyance? Let's, let's call it conveyance.

• 1:33:25Speaker 02

  Second of all, there's an energy requirement.

• 1:33:28Speaker 03

  Of course. And what I'm looking at, I hate to interrupt you, but what I'm looking at is something that bypasses GR because GR is difficult to use.

• 1:33:36Speaker 02

  Well, let's talk about that in one second.

• 1:33:38Speaker 03

  Around that whole energy requirement that shuts down the ability to engineer and build wormholes or warp drives. We've got to come up with something that gets out of that whole GR.

• 1:33:49Speaker 02

  You're grooved towards this toolkit that's pushed in front of us, right? Like entanglement is a real thing, but we talk about it, in my opinion, sometimes too much.

• 1:34:02Speaker 02

  I think another thing like that is black holes, wormholes. Again, real things, but at some level, we don't know whether the black hole in the sky and the black hole in the model are the same black hole.

• 1:34:13Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:34:14Speaker 02

  And all of these things that we can do lead nowhere, right? We've been around the traffic circle a million times and by the third time you've seen the same 7-Eleven, you're starting to think something's wrong.

• 1:34:29Speaker 02

  Let's talk about GR as a problem.

• 1:34:33Speaker 02

  So in the standard equation in GR, we've got really three terms. We've got the Einstein curvature term. We've got the dark energy cosmological constant term.

• 1:34:43Speaker 03

  Lambda, Lambda G.

• 1:34:45Speaker 02

  Well, Lambda times G mu, the metric G mu nu. And this constant times the stress energy tensor for everything else.

• 1:34:52Speaker 03

  The coupling constant, yeah.

• 1:34:53Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:34:56Speaker 02

  DESI in Arizona has thrown some cold water on the idea that Lambda is a good model for dark energy because it appears that it's not constant.

• 1:35:08Speaker 03

  I've heard that. Yeah, I've seen some news about that coming out. Some, was it just theoretical or was there hints of it from observations?

• 1:35:17Speaker 02

  That's what I'm saying. Dark energy spectroscopic instrument or DESI.

• 1:35:23Speaker 02

  Seems to be recording.

• 1:35:24Speaker 03

  It's showing that it's more, it's actually not.

• 1:35:26Speaker 02

  Variable.

• 1:35:27Speaker 03

  Yeah, it's time dependent. So it's dynamical as opposed to static being a constant.

• 1:35:32Speaker 02

  Which sounds like a Vev, a vacuum expectation value. So that people always make this mistake. You know, what is the temperature of the room? And they say 71 degrees. And you say, well, in which corner? And then the person thinks, oh, well, I'm sure it varies between the, the floor and the ceiling.

• 1:35:49Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:35:49Speaker 02

  Where you are close to the window. And that idea that a thing is mostly constant, but with fluctuations,

• 1:35:57Speaker 02

  is the promotion of a simple number like lambda to field content of something that can vary. Now, there's a thing called Lovelock's theorem.

• 1:36:08Speaker 03

  Oh, unfamiliar with that. He was a mathematician at the University of Arizona.

• 1:36:11Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:36:12Speaker 03

  I went to school. That's why I knew him.

• 1:36:14Speaker 02

  So tell me about Lovelock's theorem and variable dark energy.

• 1:36:19Speaker 03

  Oh gosh, I can't even think of Lovelock's theorem, but I know what you're talking about. Why don't you go ahead?

• 1:36:24Speaker 02

  Well, so the way I remember it, again, this is, I wasn't preparing to do this, but.

• 1:36:28Speaker 03

  Cause keep in mind, it's been 40 years since I had tensor calculus, uh, using Lovelock's manuscript for his.

• 1:36:35Speaker 02

  Would vodka help?

• 1:36:37Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:36:40Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:36:43Speaker 02

  I think what it says is that when it comes to geometry, there are only two tensors you can make that have this property of being divergence free, that are not dependent on anything else. In other words, it's a two dimensional space. And one of them is the Einstein curvature tensor, which is divergence free by property of taking an automatic equation that has to, that has to be satisfied, called the Bianchi.

• 1:37:13Speaker 03

  Bianchi, yeah.

• 1:37:14Speaker 02

  And turning it into a different equation that says that the theory is not bothered by how you put coordinates on a system.

• 1:37:23Speaker 03

  Correct. That sounds familiar.

• 1:37:25Speaker 02

  So that's, that's the idea of the arm you knew. Minus one half scalar times G mu nu, the Einstein curvature tensor is perpendicular to the space of transformations of coordinates.

• 1:37:38Speaker 03

  Yeah, it's like, what, the intrinsic curvature? It looks like intrinsic curvature, right?

• 1:37:43Speaker 02

  Well, it's, it's the Riemann curvature with the Weyl curvature thrown away and a trace reversal of this one piece of the, you've got a 10 components of Ricci curvature, and one component can be broken out and put a minus sign put in front of it.

• 1:37:59Speaker 03

  Right.

• 1:38:00Speaker 02

  That object has an automatic differential equation. The other one that has the same automatic differential equation is lambda times the metric, because if you try to differentiate the metric, that's always going to be zero by virtue of the fact that the metric is constant and it's on Leiblich-Vita connection. But by the product rule, if you put a lambda in front of it, then the derivative of lambda is zero times the metric plus lambda times the derivative of the metric, which is zero for that same reason.

• 1:38:33Speaker 03

  Correct.

• 1:38:34Speaker 02

  That those are the only two simple tensors that have this property. So if you lose Lovelock's theorem, I'm sorry, if you have Lovelock's theorem and you lose the constancy of dark energy, you're starting to actually put general relativity into some peril.

• 1:38:49Speaker 03

  That's very interesting. I hadn't thought about that. Okay.

• 1:38:55Speaker 02

  Depends how you conceive of general relativity. But to continue with this.

• 1:39:02Speaker 02

  I don't believe

• 1:39:07Speaker 02

  that you can engineer these craft within general relativity or standard model in any way other than formally. So the Alcubierre warp drive is a formal solution to the problem because it leaves unaddressed how the weakest possible of all forces, gravity, could be employed at this completely different level to, you know, sandwich space time on top of itself.

• 1:39:36Speaker 02

  I don't think the generation ships make any sense. Eight hundred years.

• 1:39:40Speaker 03

  Oh, I agree with you.

• 1:39:42Speaker 02

  Okay, I don't believe that um

• 1:39:47Speaker 02

  the time dilation makes any sense. It's too expensive because everybody's dead when you get back.

• 1:39:53Speaker 03

  It's the Planet of the Apes scenario.

• 1:39:54Speaker 02

  Yeah, I don't. I don't believe in in traversable black wormholes and black holes and all this.

• 1:40:02Speaker 03

  Well, black holes aren't traversable, but there are wormholes with no singularities and vent rises that are traversable.

• 1:40:08Speaker 02

  Okay. Yes, but I've also heard weirder stuff involving somebody trying to use the information, black hole information paradox to get.

• 1:40:17Speaker 03

  Oh, I think that's just people have stretched an analogy too far. So.

• 1:40:23Speaker 02

  Okay, but my claim is there's a huge suite of not really that inventive ideas. In other words, we're going to accept the science that we have as if we can't do better science. And then we're going to come up with completely implausible ways of using it. And we're going to say those are the leading candidates.

• 1:40:43Jesse Michels?

  Dr. Davis, you should push back if you think traversable wormholes that biological material can go through is a is a real feasible thing.

• 1:40:53Speaker 03

  You mean biological materials going through a wormhole?

• 1:40:55Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 1:40:55Speaker 03

  I don't see anything that prevents it.

• 1:40:58Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 1:41:00Speaker 02

  So you're going to create a wormhole on demand to get where you need to go?

• 1:41:06Speaker 03

  You should be able to. That's what my research showed. There's nothing that I would think that could stop you other than that G over C to the fourth power issue. You you that really gets inverted when you put it over to the curvature side of the equation.

• 1:41:23Speaker 02

  All right.

• 1:41:24Speaker 03

  Then the properties of the matter, it's going to be C to the fourth over G. So it's going to be a gigantic number multiplying the curvature of space time that that matter source creates.

• 1:41:34Speaker 02

  So walk me through how do I get to Alpha Centauri by engineering a traversable wormhole?

• 1:41:41Speaker 03

  Well, you're going to create the mouth or the throat. Well, it that's a good point because even Kip Thorne couldn't describe it. But the best idea is, and this is Thorne's idea, not mine, and I don't endorse it. You create a mouth right at your departure point in space. And you're going to need another spaceship to carry the throat to the destination point. And that's what Kip Thorne came what came up with. I'm thinking when you're creating the throat, that's where all the physics occurs anyway. It's not at the mouth, the exit entrance mouth, it's in the throat. So when you're creating that throat, that should automatically do the

• 1:42:24Speaker 03

  the connection, the hyperspace tunnel connection between two points, two distant points. Earth and Sirius, or our star soul and Sirius as examples, or Earth and Alpha Centauri, one of the planets over there.

• 1:42:39Speaker 03

  I just know that it does not give you recipe for navigating, for being able to target your destination. There are no control navigational control laws built into general relativity. All you could do is build the wormhole and you know, you could do the studies of a geodesic that goes through it, representing either a photon or a piece of matter. And you can represent that you know, it's going to come out the other side. But how you aim it and navigate to another star using it, that's not in general activity. You can't pull that out. You can't pull that information out unless there's more work that needs to be done that nobody has thought of doing.

• 1:43:16Speaker 02

  So again,

• 1:43:18Speaker 03

  But I think you can make a wormhole on demand if assuming you have the negative energy density available to shape it.

• 1:43:29Speaker 02

  Not one of these proposals excites me. They're boring as sin. I'm sorry to say it. You're talking about people raised on sci fi who want to be scientific. And by wanting to be scientific, they don't want to go beyond the two frontier theories that we have. And they've also said, I don't want to be uncreative. So the idea is how do we come up with a wildly implausible story based on stuff that is solid? And

• 1:44:02Speaker 02

  At least with some of the other crazy stuff, I have a feeling at least they're trying to do the new physics so that the implausibility goes down, but the speculative nature of the physics goes up. I think it would be much better to balance those two. Can we talk about one of these weird things? Have you looked at this extended electrodynamics that no one in my world has ever heard of?

• 1:44:24Speaker 03

  I've seen elements of it. I've seen a paper here and there on that on extended electrodynamics.

• 1:44:29Speaker 02

  What do you see that as being?

• 1:44:32Speaker 03

  I don't know what they're trying to get at with it. That's my conclusion. I don't know what they're trying to extend, where it's going.

• 1:44:39Jesse Michels?

  A little context for the audience. This is a term that gets thrown around constantly in UFO discussions. You have even going back to the 90s, Ben Rich saying, there was some math in Maxwell's equations that was a little off, you know, that sort of thing is this recurring sort of theme. And then you have people now saying that it's a more faithful adherence to the, you know, more expanded Maxwell equations versus the heavy side kind of simplification of vector calculus that is extended electrodynamics. Other people say heavy side is the update that makes the extended electrodynamics. No one seems to come up with some sort of Lagrangian. You've pointed out some really inconsistencies with

• 1:45:23Jesse Michels?

  the, you know, gauge invariance. And, but I believe Hal Puthoff, who you have a long work history with and, you know, is a long colleague, he has some interesting work in extended electrodynamics.

• 1:45:33Speaker 03

  Oh, I never worked in it. I don't know that Hal has. The only extended electrodynamics I know of is the Lagrangian that you're going to have for high energy electromagnetic systems. And that would be the Born and Feld Lagrangian, I believe it is.

• 1:45:47Speaker 02

  Okay. Well, you're going back to Yang-Mills theory in the Abelian case.

• 1:45:51Speaker 03

  It's just the nonlinear version of Maxwell's equations that you're going to get out of a Lagrangian that you can formulate, and it will reduce to Maxwell's equations in the low energy regime. So extended, I don't know what they're extending. That's the thing. I've looked at these and I'm trying to figure out what's.

• 1:46:05Speaker 02

  Here's one thing that I've seen.

• 1:46:08Speaker 02

  The Faraday tensor made up of the electric and magnetic fields is naturally a degree two object. It's not naturally about vector fields. That only works if you take a particular slice of space in spacetime where you shouldn't do that because that breaks Lorentz invariance. And then you say, okay, in a three dimensional world, every two tensor is dual to a three minus two tensor, or a one tensor, or a vector field. And then you plot out these lines in the E and B fields as if they're vector. It's naturally a degree two object. So Maxwell's equations reduced to two sets of equations, one of which is just

• 1:46:52Speaker 02

  true automatically when it's geometrically. So if you take d A star, some operator based on A, the gauge, the gauge potential, the connection, it's really the vector and scalar, the four potential.

• 1:47:07Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:47:08Speaker 02

  d A star, that is the adjoint of that derivative, which is itself a derivative, applied to the Faraday tensor, brings it down a degree from two to one.

• 1:47:18Speaker 03

  Right.

• 1:47:19Speaker 02

  And you say that thing is equal to the current J, which is a degree one object.

• 1:47:25Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:47:26Speaker 02

  But d A of F A, which takes a degree two object, one degree up to a degree three object, is guaranteed to be zero for the same thing that makes the Einstein tensor divergence free. The Bianchi identity is an abstract guaranteed differential equation that comes out of the geometric construction of curvature. So you throw one of the, um, these two equations away because it's guaranteed by geometry. So

• 1:47:59Speaker 03

  The boundary, the boundary of zero.

• 1:48:01Speaker 02

  In essence. So d A of F A equals zero represents two of the four Maxwell equations. And you throw it away. And then you're left with the inhomogeneous ones. And that's just d A star of F A equals J.

• 1:48:17Speaker 02

  One of the things I've seen in this world looks to me like d A star equals A. The idea is that the gauge potential is a degree one object. And so you take d A star of a degree two object and that's set equal to a degree one object A. And that doesn't work to somebody who thinks in physics terms, because on one side of the equation is what we would call a gauge invariant object, something with symmetry. And on the other side, there's an object that picks up an affine shift, meaning it isn't gauge invariant.

• 1:48:55Speaker 03

  Yeah, okay. Yeah, I see what you're talking.

• 1:48:58Speaker 02

  So you can't rotate both sides of the equation in the same way at once. Therefore, it's not a legitimate equation, even though they're both degree one.

• 1:49:06Speaker 03

  So is this what extended electrodynamics is attempting?

• 1:49:08Speaker 02

  Well, I don't know, because to be entirely honest, the extended, look, I have had to wrap my head around the fact that we have three bizarre groups of people trying to do physics at least. There's a crackpot group, which writes in red crayon and they just don't, they're nowhere close to the target. There's a professional community, which has gone somewhat insane, but still remembers how to do physics from first and second year graduate intro classes, even if they're researching toy models and they've never seen a quark or a lepton in their research in the last decade.

• 1:49:48Speaker 02

  And then there's this intermediate group, which I just didn't know existed, which I will call fringe physics. And fringe physics is in general, people with sort of like an electrical engineering background. They know calculus, they know integrals, they're often technically quite good. And they get an idea that, you know, gravitation looks a lot like electromagnetism. I wonder if I can contribute something, but they don't have a sense of like all the things that can go wrong.

• 1:50:20Speaker 03

  Yes, I think I know about that.

• 1:50:22Speaker 02

  So they tinker, but sometimes a tinkerer.

• 1:50:26Speaker 02

  Can stumble on something. So for example, you could easily imagine somebody stumbling on the Aronoff Bohm effect, which is one of these hidden features of the world. So our colleague Sabina Hossenfelder has a video not too long ago where she took something that I've only thought about and heard about as physics folklore. So there's only three ways to hide new physics. It's kind of an interesting idea. The first way is that that can be so energetic that you can't afford to see it. So maybe there are particles out there where we can't create enough energy to get one of these particles to pop out of the vacuum. Second thing is that something is so weakly coupled, you can barely detect it. So there are lots of neutrinos everywhere.

• 1:51:10Speaker 00

  Yes.

• 1:51:10Speaker 02

  But they're so hard to get to interact with anything that you don't know that they're there. And then the third thing is the really interesting one for UFO land. Sometimes there's a configuration that you would never think to put things in. Like, let's get the current up to this. We'll spin something around, we'll evacuate a tube. We'll put the following rare compounds that have these particular things. And maybe we'll see an effect that is normally hidden amplified to the point where it becomes absolutely clear. You know, like the Casimir effect, you needed to know that you had to put two plates very close together for something to happen.

• 1:51:46Speaker 00

  Yeah. Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' healthcare to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the HouseMajorityPact.com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

• 1:52:17Speaker 02

  So that's sort of what we're looking for. We're looking for, is there any new thing that we could do that doesn't require too much energy, that's not so weakly coupled that we can barely detect it, but that can be coaxed to show itself, the way the Aaronoff Bohm effect could have been discovered by an experimenter passing a beam of electrons around an insulated solenoid and noticing, oh my God, it seems to be able to detect the current.

• 1:52:46Jesse Michels?

  I believe in a podcast with Anna Brady Estvez, Hal Puthoff openly discussed this idea of extended electrodynamics and him even working with Josephson junctions and this idea of vector and scalar potential. So this idea of extended electrodynamics is that the, you know, Lorenz gauge is, you know, arbitrarily set to zero and the derivatives of the, you know, vector and scalar potentials, you know, should not, you know, necessarily equal zero. And so theoretically, in terms of implications for the audience, instead of having this transverse Hertzian wave, which is going to, you know, propagate at one over R squared, you're going to get electrons pairing off in all sorts of situations. You're

• 1:53:28Jesse Michels?

  going to get this kind of rapid attenuation of the signal. You might have other sort of more exotic configurations of, you know, parallel, like, you know, wave propagation in a magnetic field, or not even the existence of an electron, of an, you know, an E field or whatever with a, with an electromagnetic wave. And I believe Hal has openly discussed this with Anna Brady Estvez on this, you know, former National Science Foundation director on her podcast.

• 1:53:55Speaker 03

  I didn't see the video of that.

• 1:53:56Jesse Michels?

  Okay, okay.

• 1:53:57Speaker 03

  I've never, I never knew there was a video until I think she mentioned it to me last year, so.

• 1:54:04Jesse Michels?

  So you hear, you hear a lot of this stuff in UFO world, like, you know, extended electrodynamics, and then even possible experimental inroads towards that. And do you know anything about that sort of thing? Or no? Okay.

• 1:54:16Speaker 05

  There are a couple of names that came out of that podcast, Dr. Louis de Charo and Dr. Larry Forsley that would be of interest to Dr.

• 1:54:24Speaker 03

  And I know Larry.

• 1:54:25Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 1:54:26Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:54:27Speaker 02

  Well, so one of the things that that comes out of my work is that we may have the gauge potential that you would put into such an equation wrong. And the thought is the following. Every gauge potential, every every connection

• 1:54:47Speaker 02

  has a disease when you gauge transform it. And this disease, if the gauge transformation is called G, it would look like G inverse DG, where D attacks G. So you differentiate the transformation, and then you use the G inverse to pull it back to the origin of the league.

• 1:55:07Speaker 03

  Okay.

• 1:55:08Speaker 02

  That term has no reference to the the connection or the gauge potential A. In other words, it's G inverse DG.

• 1:55:18Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:55:19Speaker 02

  But G inverse AG is perfectly gauge invariant if you put it into a Lagrangian. So in other words, there's a part that works beautifully, and there's the part that spoils the party. But the part that spoils the party has no dependence on A whatsoever.

• 1:55:36Speaker 03

  Uh huh.

• 1:55:37Speaker 02

  So if you had two separate potentials, A and B, you'd get G inverse AG plus G inverse DG and G inverse BG plus G inverse DG. So the diseases are the same. You take a difference between them, and the two diseases kill each other and go away. And you have two terms left over, G inverse AG and G inverse BG added together. So one possibility is that even though this community says a bunch of stuff that makes me very uncomfortable, is that you could have a tinkering community

• 1:56:19Speaker 02

  that is actually stumbling to things that everyone else is too sophisticated to look for, just the way when we thought it was the E in the B fields, nobody was looking for the holonomy effect, which is a classical effect that's discovered quantum mechanically. So the embarrassment of finding the Aaronoff Bohm effect in the late 50s, when we thought we knew everything there was to know about electromagnetism, is the great greatest proof we have that a theory that is supposedly completely picked over and totally explored may have basic

• 1:56:56Speaker 02

  Things that we have wrong about it, well into our sophisticated old age.

• 1:57:02Speaker 03

  Yeah, basically, up until that point, nobody realized or even gave thought that the four vector potential was a physical field.

• 1:57:11Speaker 02

  Well, it isn't in a certain sense. It's a quick. So I give this example that if you know a professional model, they're expected to have a set of things that are called Polaroids. They're just shots of that model in various standard poses so that somebody who wants to hire that model can say, this is what this person looks like without makeup and without fancy clothes. Right? Those different Polaroids are what we would call, I don't know, they're sort of avatars of the same underlying human. And so if somebody says, I want to hire that person in three quarter profile, you say, well, no, you hire the person. That's just the particular shot of the person. The electromagnetic potential

• 1:57:56Speaker 02

  is a equivalence class equivalent to, give me all of the Polaroids to represent the one model.

• 1:58:02Speaker 03

  Okay.

• 1:58:03Speaker 02

  So the big problem comes out when you single out one Polaroid, you say, no, no, that's the field. Because what that is, is that's, that's a particular representation of that field, but they're all representations of the same underlying field.

• 1:58:17Speaker 03

  Okay. Yep.

• 1:58:19Speaker 02

  So that's the problem that needed to get solved.

• 1:58:21Speaker 03

  We don't have anybody in academia that's pursuing extended electrodynamics?

• 1:58:26Speaker 02

  I don't know.

• 1:58:28Jesse Michels?

  No, we do. There's a guy named Lee Hively in Colorado Springs, and he has a colleague named Woodside, who I believe is in Australia. And then there's another guy, I think, Strobel or Lobel or something. So there are a couple, there are a few of these guys, and they've written a paper about extended electrodynamics.

• 1:58:49Speaker 02

  So another thing that really confuses me is I saw a bizarre

• 1:58:56Speaker 02

  video from 1991, which Joe Rogan pointed me to with this guy Bob Lazar seemingly talking nonsense.

• 1:59:04Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:59:05Speaker 02

  Do you recall what he says about the fact that you do this engineering with gravity wave A and gravity wave B?

• 1:59:15Speaker 03

  He, no, not entirely. It's been so long. He doesn't know what he's talking about because he was a radiation health monitor for

• 1:59:26Speaker 03

  Kimber Meyer Company, and they were a logistics service company servicing Los Alamos National Lab in Area 51. He never had security clearances. He never graduated, never, he dropped out of his first year of college, et cetera, et cetera. He's not a physicist.

• 1:59:42Speaker 02

  Well, I know that.

• 1:59:43Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:59:43Speaker 02

  I know.

• 1:59:43Speaker 03

  So I don't remember, but all I know is he, he claims element 115 created antimatter, which somehow had something to do with creating gravitational waves in the, in the propulsion.

• 1:59:55Speaker 02

  Did you hear the Jeffrey Epstein tape with Steve Bannon?

• 1:59:59Speaker 03

  No.

• 2:00:00Speaker 02

  Jeffrey Epstein didn't know what he was talking about either.

• 2:00:02Speaker 03

  No, I'm not.

• 2:00:04Speaker 02

  But you can tell that Jeffrey Epstein was talking to people who knew what they talk, what, what they were talking about. And then he's this garbled version of this. Let's assume the same thing for Bob Lazar. Let's assume that he was janitorial staff and that he just happened to be in a sensitive location. And that he's saying something because it sounds to me like total garbage. Okay?

• 2:00:23Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 2:00:24Speaker 02

  Yeah. Okay. He says this thing, which is crazy. He says, there's gravity wave A and gravity wave B. And you most likely think of gravity as, as gravity wave B. That's the long range stuff with stars and planets. He says, but gravity wave A is different and you associate it with the strong nuclear force. So of course, like I'm just, I want to throw up in my mouth, right? And he says this thing about

• 2:00:53Speaker 02

  QCD, quantum chromodynamics of the strong nuclear force is, is what gravity wave A is all about. And so the idea is going to be that somehow, if you could actually understand that what was going on in QCD had to do with gravity, you would understand that that's the source of strength with the ability to actually do something with space and time. So seems totally stupid, but let me just point out the following thing.

• 2:01:19Speaker 02

  There are only two Lagrangians or actions that I know of that give an Euler-Lagrange equation with the curvature appearing without a derivative in front of it. One of them is the Einstein-Hilbert action, which when differentiated gives you the Ricci curvature minus the scalar curvature over two times the metric. The other one is a thing called the Chern Simons function.

• 2:01:47Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 2:01:47Speaker 02

  Chern Simons action.

• 2:01:49Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 2:01:50Speaker 02

  The Chern Simons action comes from something called the transgression of the Pontryagin class in the Chern-Weh representation.

• 2:01:58Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 2:02:00Speaker 02

  That is part of QCD. In other words, the normal Yang-Mills Lagrangian, we would represent as F inner product F, norm squared of F, where F is the field strength.

• 2:02:16Speaker 03

  From the topology of, what is geometry and topology for physics? And I can't remember who the author of that book was, but I've seen that.

• 2:02:24Speaker 02

  But in, only in dimension four, you can form a different quantity where you take F inner product star F, where star is the Hodge star or complementarity operator. And that thing generates the Pontryagin class, which when transgressed gives you the Chern Simons, which gives you the Lagrangian that is closest to general relativity.

• 2:02:50Speaker 03

  Interesting. I haven't seen that.

• 2:02:52Speaker 02

  Well, because nobody's talked about it ever.

• 2:02:55Speaker 03

  Yeah, okay.

• 2:02:56Speaker 02

  So this is, I think this is the first time I'm, I'm ever mentioning it in public. So the thought that I had is assume that Bob Lazar is an unreliable narrator and he was hanging around water coolers and he was hearing crazy stuff and that it's a mix of bullshit and something. Is it possible, Eric, that what he's talking about is that the theta term from QCD is what he's calling stupidly Gravity Wave A, which no person I've ever heard of has ever used that terminology?

• 2:03:29Speaker 03

  I wouldn't think he'd be consciously aware of that.

• 2:03:34Speaker 03

  I don't know if it's possible. It's too, I can't rely on anything he says because of his history.

• 2:03:41Speaker 05

  Dr. Davis, just to play devil's advocate with Bob Lazar, you were saying there's this longstanding UFO legacy crash retrieval program. You have one guy who's come out publicly and has not changed his story since 89. We didn't really know too much about the existence of Area 51, definitely not S4.

• 2:03:59Speaker 03

  Never been there.

• 2:04:01Speaker 05

  But how would he know about, you know, Janet Airlines, a flight there?

• 2:04:04Speaker 03

  And he worked at the unclassified logistics support facility over on McCarran, over on Sunset Boulevard, next to, not Sunset Boulevard, Sunset Drive, next to McCarran Airport. There's a row of light industrial buildings along Sunset Road. And McCarran is right across the street. So Kimber, Kimber Meyer was there, EG and G Special Projects was like next door. So he didn't go because he didn't have clearances. His job was just a radiation health badge monitor. So people that get on the Janet flight to go to Area 51, he gives them their radiation badges. When they come home from work, they get off that Janet flight, they gotta give them back, give those badges back to him.

• 2:04:47Speaker 03

  And his job is to check those badges every day to make sure that they're

• 2:04:50Speaker 05

  He's not the theoretical physicist, but he does have engineering chops. Like he runs currently United Nuclear. He literally put a jet engine on the tobacco Honda.

• 2:04:59Speaker 03

  Yeah, I know, that's just a tanker. He's a hobbyist. He's also been twice convicted of felonies, including

• 2:05:06Speaker 02

  This isn't, guys.

• 2:05:07Speaker 03

  He's in that case.

• 2:05:08Speaker 02

  I have no interest in Bob Lazar, the person. The key question is, if he was proximate to information that he garbled, is it possible

• 2:05:16Speaker 03

  Could it be possibly not?

• 2:05:17Speaker 02

  To take the garbled message and associate QCD with two sectors, a Yang Mills sector and a Pontchargan sector, and that the Chernvee representation of the Pontchargan sector inside of QCD with, associated with the theta term. Can lead to something which has Einstein like properties, which is that

• 2:05:35Speaker 03

  That would be remarkable.

• 2:05:37Speaker 02

  That would be remarkable.

• 2:05:38Speaker 03

  That would be absolutely remarkable. The vacuum energy of

• 2:05:40Speaker 02

  The thing that I'm

• 2:05:41Speaker 03

  Pendus.

• 2:05:41Speaker 02

  So the thing that I'm, so let's get into vacuum energy and zero point, what the source of energy is for all of these things. I'm very turned off by certain attempts to mine. Like, if you look at the Heisenberg uncertainty relations, one of the great innovations in our time is that they've been associated to the symplectic form on phase space in ordinarily classical Hamiltonian dynamics. In other words, you take the space of configurations of a mug on a table, then you add the momenta, so that doubles the space its size to get, go from configuration space to phase space, position to position and momentum.

• 2:06:26Speaker 03

  Right.

• 2:06:27Speaker 02

  On that space, there's a guaranteed object called the symplectic form that comes just out of the math. The big innovation was to say, you know, that thing is actually the, at the base of a different, different structure called a line bundle. And it's the curvature tensor for this line bundle with a connection whose sections form the Hilbert space in quant, in quantization effectively.

• 2:06:53Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 2:06:54Speaker 02

  In a certain sense.

• 2:06:55Speaker 03

  Do you mean fiber bundle?

• 2:06:56Speaker 02

  Well, yeah, it's a line bundle. Exactly. That that line bundle, its L two sections properly taken, polarized, there's a whole rigmarole.

• 2:07:05Speaker 03

  Right.

• 2:07:05Speaker 02

  Sort of self-quantize the manifold. In other words,

• 2:07:09Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 2:07:10Speaker 02

  That the, the classical mechanics leads naturally to the quantum theory when you realize it's not an isolated degree two object, but a degree two object that comes as the curvature of something else that we had not thought to study. If you try to, if that's the source of the Heisenberg uncertainty relations, that's a curvature you can't get rid of.

• 2:07:33Speaker 02

  So if you try to mine it, I don't really see how you extract.

• 2:07:39Speaker 02

  From something that can't be lessened. On the other hand, were you to try to tap into the dark energy? If that is in fact a VEV, a vacuum expectation value rather than a hard constant, could that be used as a on-demand power source?

• 2:07:56Speaker 03

  Sure could be.

• 2:07:58Speaker 02

  You work on that at all?

• 2:07:59Speaker 03

  No, but I looked at people who've sent me their ruminations on that idea. And it looked pretty intelligent, but it wasn't very well developed, in my opinion. So I think that would be a great direction to go. And I like where you're going here.

• 2:08:14Speaker 02

  Just trying to be constructive.

• 2:08:15Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 2:08:16Speaker 02

  Let me try another one.

• 2:08:16Speaker 03

  I like where you're going. I think you pointed out some stuff I'm not aware of, other than the dark energy aspect, which I'm already aware of, which need to be followed up on.

• 2:08:26Speaker 02

  Imagine for the moment that you embed what we currently call spacetime in its space of all pointwise Lorentzian metrics. So every way you could possibly have of measuring length and angle through a series of three rulers, one watch and six protractors.

• 2:08:43Speaker 03

  Right.

• 2:08:46Speaker 02

  That's a 14 dimensional object that I work with on a daily basis that I call the observers. We don't have to get too far into this. But the point that I want to make is the following.

• 2:08:56Speaker 02

  There are ways of traveling through time and space. And I want to say also that time really should always be times, because the number of actual temporal dimensions, we currently think is one, but it doesn't need to be one.

• 2:09:09Speaker 03

  I agree.

• 2:09:09Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 2:09:13Speaker 02

  We talk a lot about entanglement. We talk a lot about wormholes. We don't talk about pinch to zoom.

• 2:09:20Speaker 03

  We don't talk about what?

• 2:09:21Speaker 02

  Pinch to zoom. Imagine that you pointed at a star that you wanted to visit. And imagine that you could find some way of traveling in 10 transverse dimensions.

• 2:09:34Speaker 03

  Okay.

• 2:09:36Speaker 02

  Where what you're doing is growing the ruler in the direction between you and that star.

• 2:09:43Speaker 02

  Now, once the ruler says one foot, you need the energy to walk one foot.

• 2:09:49Speaker 03

  Right.

• 2:09:49Speaker 02

  Not the energy to walk four light years.

• 2:09:51Speaker 03

  Right.

• 2:09:53Speaker 02

  And then you have to put the ruler back. So you have to shrink the ruler to grow the distance after you've grown the ruler to shrink the distance.

• 2:10:00Speaker 03

  Okay.

• 2:10:00Speaker 02

  So the idea is that this is something like pinch to zoom, which doesn't work on an ordinary table. But if this was a smart table, it would be a, well, it's called a multi-touch gesture. Have you thought about whether multi-touch gestures like pinch to zoom or another one that I call shear to tilt might be built into the object that we confuse for spacetime?

• 2:10:23Speaker 03

  It sounds plausible. I like that.

• 2:10:26Speaker 03

  I've seen hints of something like that in some books I've read back in the 90s, very small hints of it. And I thought there was something to it that I just didn't follow up on. Yeah, I would say that makes sense. That makes sense to me that. Yeah. That's very interesting idea.

• 2:10:48Speaker 02

  Do you think much about dark chemistry?

• 2:10:52Speaker 03

  About which?

• 2:10:53Speaker 02

  Dark chemistry.

• 2:10:54Speaker 03

  Dark chemistry.

• 2:10:55Speaker 02

  Like chemistry with dark matter.

• 2:10:57Speaker 03

  No, I don't.

• 2:11:01Speaker 02

  I see.

• 2:11:02Speaker 03

  I haven't seen anybody use that phrase before. Supposedly dark matter doesn't interact with regular matter, especially at the electromagnetic force level. So.

• 2:11:15Speaker 02

  Well, that's what we mean largely by dark, right?

• 2:11:18Speaker 03

  Yeah, like, because you can't see it. There's no luminosity involved. No exchange of photons that we can visibly see and collect a spectrum for.

• 2:11:28Speaker 02

  Well, we have, we sort of have three long range carriers. We have light, we have gravity, and we have neutrinos.

• 2:11:33Speaker 03

  Right.

• 2:11:34Speaker 02

  That we know about. But let me ask you about a weird phrase that I keep hearing that I don't understand. I keep hearing about interdimensional beings, which causes me to want to throw up in my mouth.

• 2:11:45Speaker 03

  People, I think that's colloquial.

• 2:11:47Speaker 02

  Do you know what they

• 2:11:48Speaker 03

  Interdimensional means you're going between dimensions. So I don't understand the word interdimensional beings. I think it's really beings that could transverse other dimensions or traverse other dimension.

• 2:12:01Speaker 02

  Does it mean something technical that's being

• 2:12:03Speaker 03

  Being that's interdimensional.

• 2:12:04Speaker 02

  Again, let's

• 2:12:05Speaker 03

  We move through three spatial dimensions. So that makes us interdimensional already.

• 2:12:10Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 2:12:11Speaker 03

  And we move through time allegedly in one direction.

• 2:12:13Speaker 02

  So David Grush, I believe, used this phrase in a hearing and they talked about holography.

• 2:12:19Speaker 03

  Yeah, Dave's not a physicist.

• 2:12:21Speaker 02

  I know. I understand that. So what I'm trying to look again, the point isn't to say whether somebody knows what they're talking about, but to say, assume that somebody does, assume that the plumber comes to you and says, wow, I was just at some crazy base. And I don't even know what these words mean, but here's what I heard. Right? So very often I'm just trying to, I'm not, I don't care.

• 2:12:43Speaker 03

  Yeah, I think he's heard that from his briefings given to, from the briefings given to him on the crash retrieval program. I just, you know, he can't tell me that level of information at the classified level because I'm not cleared for it.

• 2:12:57Speaker 02

  Are you?

• 2:12:57Speaker 03

  He can verbally on a superficial level, discuss it in the open, but I don't know what he, if he's, it sounds like he's garbling stuff at times. So.

• 2:13:07Speaker 02

  And if we had an adversary that was aware of multiple temporal dimensions where we're only aware of one. So we have an arrow of time and they would have

• 2:13:18Speaker 03

  Multiple.

• 2:13:18Speaker 02

  Like a right hand rule of time. It would be a, have you thought much about the threat assessment as to what capabilities a

• 2:13:29Speaker 03

  Nobody does threat assessments like that, but I would say that is something worth, worth having a threat assessment done on.

• 2:13:37Speaker 02

  And have you, are you aware of reports that we are being, I wouldn't say menaced, but

• 2:13:49Speaker 03

  Monitored?

• 2:13:50Speaker 02

  Made to know that we do not control our space?

• 2:13:53Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 2:13:54Speaker 02

  Do you find that highly credible?

• 2:13:56Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 2:13:57Speaker 02

  What percentage?

• 2:13:59Speaker 03

  A hundred, because it was definitive. It was, that was told to me definitively, not speculatively. It was, we know this to be true.

• 2:14:07Speaker 02

  So I've been told the same thing by multiple parties who are not related, all of whom seem like credible people. Yet, nobody seems to have direct firsthand.

• 2:14:18Speaker 03

  Yeah. Even I can't get into that level. I mean, Harry Reid tried to get a special access program and he failed because Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn denied it. And that was because Harry Reid did it the wrong way. He did it the wrong way and that's why it got denied. If we did it the proper way, which I'm trained on in the security apparatus, uh, we would have been more successful. So.

• 2:14:42Speaker 02

  Do you remember Dick Feynman's book of stories, like Shirley, You're Joking? And what do you care what other people think?

• 2:14:48Speaker 03

  Oh, yeah. It's been a long time since.

• 2:14:50Speaker 02

  Do you remember a story called Any Questions, in which he goes to Buffalo, New York because as a physics professor at Cornell, he has to teach in an aerospace company?

• 2:15:02Speaker 03

  Yeah, vaguely. I vaguely.

• 2:15:04Speaker 02

  So he gets beat up or something in a, in a washroom or?

• 2:15:08Speaker 03

  Yep.

• 2:15:08Speaker 02

  Over a girl, like, forget what.

• 2:15:11Speaker 02

  Do you have a sense what Richard Feynman was doing with all of this? Because he also has another weird story where he's got patents for sub, nuclear submarines, nuclear planes, nuclear shopping, I don't know what.

• 2:15:26Speaker 02

  Are aerospace companies something that we don't understand where people actually did basic physics research? Not material science, not something that's plane or rocket or drone adjacent, but where people were doing actual?

• 2:15:44Speaker 02

  Frontier research in fundamental physics?

• 2:15:47Speaker 03

  No, they wouldn't do that. Not in that, not in that.

• 2:15:51Speaker 02

  So they wouldn't use it as a shell?

• 2:15:53Speaker 03

  No, they do applied physics research. They're, they're developing technical solutions to the government customers' request to, to answer the government customers' need for a solution to some problem. So it doesn't go to fundamental physics like, should we worry about these type of quirks versus those type of quirks? No, no, no. They're looking at a physics that could be applied to the engineering of a technological solution for the government customer. That's what the aerospace industry does.

• 2:16:22Speaker 02

  Oh, I understand what it's supposed to do. What I'm trying to say is, is it a system of containers? And you can put anything in a container? I mean, in other words, you could imagine that if a container was secure, you could put a, a drug laundering, you know, money laundering, drug operation inside of it. We wouldn't think, oh, that's what you'd expect to find it.

• 2:16:43Speaker 03

  That's right.

• 2:16:43Speaker 02

  That it's like something crawled into that shell. My question is, is it possible that theoretical physics was sort of relocated into aerospace companies? Because this is a partially-

• 2:16:57Speaker 03

  I wouldn't say no to that. That's possible. That's possible.

• 2:17:01Speaker 05

  Uh, when we spoke to Hal Putoff, he said definitively, he said, you know, um, I don't, not sure about fundamental physics being tied up in aerospace corporations. But he goes, topological physics, like, probably. And he said, it, it, it would seem to me that physics generally is held in these aerospace companies. And, uh, you know, that was very, it made your sort of blood boil.

• 2:17:23Speaker 03

  Well, uh, I worked for the aerospace corporation for four and a half years. I was one of only a dozen or so physicists with PhDs in the company.

• 2:17:35Speaker 02

  In El Segundo?

• 2:17:36Speaker 03

  Four thousand employees.

• 2:17:38Speaker 02

  Which location?

• 2:17:40Speaker 03

  Uh, I was at Huntsville, Alabama.

• 2:17:41Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 2:17:42Speaker 03

  Because I was supporting this NASA Space Nuclear Propulsion Program Office. So, uh, I was only one of maybe a dozen, maybe two. I don't think it was more than two, but definitely within two dozen PhD physicists in the whole country, in the whole company. And I'll have to tell you that not a single one, a few of us were doing any physics. We were doing engineering work.

• 2:18:04Speaker 02

  And how many of you were trade in front, trained in frontier theory?

• 2:18:08Speaker 03

  Frontier theory. What do you mean?

• 2:18:10Speaker 02

  Standard model in GR.

• 2:18:12Speaker 03

  Oh.

• 2:18:13Speaker 02

  How far back from the front lines were you guys?

• 2:18:15Speaker 03

  I knew those guys and none of them were. Some of them were trained in astrodynamics, so they know general relativity and Newtonian mechanics. Uh, I'm the only one I know of who's been trained on the standard model in GR. I don't, I didn't know any of those other guys that were. There's one guy at Blue Origin. Yeah. Who went to my university, got his PhD in general relativity theory.

• 2:18:37Speaker 02

  University of Arizona Tucson?

• 2:18:39Speaker 03

  Years after I got my doctorate.

• 2:18:41Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 2:18:41Speaker 03

  And he were, and he's working as an engineer at Blue Origin.

• 2:18:44Speaker 02

  Okay. Last question. I can't wrap my head around this. If I was facing an incursion in my airspace claiming

• 2:18:54Speaker 02

  craft that defy the laws of physics and I didn't have a single top physicist on my team. I would expect to be fired instantly.

• 2:19:04Speaker 03

  Oh, sure, but that's not how they think. They don't think in terms of that. They're thinking in terms of their bottom line and their bottom line will not involve a theoretical physicist. They might have.

• 2:19:15Speaker 02

  So, sorry. What? You have craft, the claim is you have.

• 2:19:20Speaker 03

  I know they're engineers.

• 2:19:21Speaker 02

  Okay, but if you.

• 2:19:22Speaker 03

  They're not thinking in terms of fundamental physics or something beyond the standard model or something beyond generals. If you, they're thinking.

• 2:19:29Speaker 02

  How are they doing on this project decades in? The supposed project, how are they doing on it? What's their level of success?

• 2:19:36Speaker 03

  Is as of my knowledge.

• 2:19:37Speaker 02

  If you're failing at something.

• 2:19:39Speaker 03

  Yeah, they, they have.

• 2:19:40Speaker 02

  That requires new physics. You say defy the laws of physics. We had, we can't make progress and we have no physicists.

• 2:19:46Speaker 03

  That's because they don't.

• 2:19:47Speaker 02

  David, this can't, Eric, this can't, this can't add up. It's, it's a two line proof. It defies the laws of physics. We haven't made progress. We have no physicists.

• 2:19:59Speaker 03

  Okay.

• 2:20:00Speaker 02

  If something defies the laws of physics, who do you call? I, I know. You ask any of us, any of us. Write down 15 names of who you call if you had a craft that defy the laws of physics. Wait a second. Yeah. 12 of those names, 10 of those names would be the same on everybody's list.

• 2:20:17Speaker 03

  Okay.

• 2:20:20Jesse Michels?

  The final thing I would say is if Hal Puthoff was telling us that some physics is held, whether it's even if it's just experimental physics, you have a bunch of people over the last 70 years, the foremost in my mind, Townsend Brown, and you know, this Ning Li at University of Alabama Huntsville, saying that they're getting little weight reduction effects, gravitational shielding.

• 2:20:42Speaker 03

  That's wrong. They didn't. They were incompetent. There is no weight reduction.

• 2:20:46Jesse Michels?

  So simultaneously, Hal's thing of there being-

• 2:20:50Speaker 03

  Look at the two chapters in my book on the Townsend Brown effect.

• 2:20:53Jesse Michels?

  But there's the lead electrostatic scientist from NASA at Cape Kennedy just left to start a private propellantless propulsion company, and he says it's derivative of Townsend Brown's effect.

• 2:21:03Speaker 05

  Those older papers and that older subject matter is probably valid for most of the point. It's unfair to say that it's not. However, without a theory back then to describe it, it was hard for them to miniaturize it, to optimize it, all of those things you want to do to make it a useful force.

• 2:21:22Jesse Michels?

  His name's Charles Bueller.

• 2:21:23Speaker 03

  Talking junk science.

• 2:21:25Jesse Michels?

  Even though he's the electrostatics, yeah. And then the physics chair, who is the lead of Ning Li's department, left to join her company, Larry Smalley.

• 2:21:34Speaker 03

  Yeah, but she was wrong and so was he.

• 2:21:36Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 2:21:37Speaker 03

  Okay, and they made off with $400,000 in Army Research Lab money and didn't produce a producible for it. They didn't deliver anything for that money.

• 2:21:45Jesse Michels?

  So the topological physics effect-

• 2:21:46Speaker 03

  Have you talked to Travis Taylor? He knew all of it. He knew Ning Li.

• 2:21:49Jesse Michels?

  So the topological-

• 2:21:51Speaker 03

  He's a rotten, terrible physicist.

• 2:21:53Jesse Michels?

  So the physics that are held in private aerospace, we just have to sort of guess, like, there's no sense of what any of this stuff is, but they're also not putting any theoretical physicists, you know, like Eric's colleagues on any of this stuff. Like, it just feels sort of-

• 2:22:09Speaker 03

  Here's the thing. The government is going to tell the aerospace company, we, okay, this is hypothetical, but this is how it works according to my two industry sources. Okay, the government says, here's a craft.

• 2:22:26Speaker 03

  We want to know how it works. The industry contractors say, okay, and they think in terms of engineering. We're gonna, we're not, they're not gonna do fundamental physics. They're not, they might have experimental physics. It's not out of the realm to have an experimental physicist working there, but they're not theoretical guys. So they'll have to know some theory, but they're mostly.

• 2:22:46Speaker 02

  You've given no.

• 2:22:47Speaker 03

  Hang on, hang on. So, so they get the tasking that they've got to take apart a craft and they've got to figure out how it's made and how it's worked. That's how it works. That's it. That's the tasking. So that leaves out any need for a theoretical physicist. They don't know that.

• 2:23:05Jesse Michels?

  You would agree that.

• 2:23:05Speaker 02

  Wait, wait, that, that made absolutely zero sense.

• 2:23:10Speaker 03

  That's how they operate.

• 2:23:11Speaker 02

  No, no, no, no, you said, but because of that, that's why they don't know. You absolutely need a theoretical physicist if you're going to take apart a device.

• 2:23:20Speaker 03

  I don't disagree, but that's how they operate. That's what the program manager in the government says. So the program manager in the company is going to say, okay, here's our solution to that problem. So here's our bid. They get a sole source contract. Uh, no, there's no bid. It's a sole source contract. So they get the sole source contract and they've already laid out what the tasking is to be done on that contract. And the tasking is to be done, that needs to be done, is the engineering to take this thing apart, piece by piece, reverse engineer it, put it back together again, and try to figure out if they can make it work or not, and understand how that happens. And, uh, that's all they do. They don't have tasking to hire a theoretical physicist to sit there and start thinking about

• 2:24:03Speaker 03

  the standard model, beyond the standard model, or anything. They don't go there. They don't go there. These are engineering companies. They're not universities. And they don't even, aren't even allowed to talk to universities about this because of the compartmentalization is horrible.

• 2:24:18Speaker 02

  Sorry. If, if an iPhone fell into the, into the hands of a villager uh, in some far-flung, uh, developing country, the odds of a cobbler or a carpenter figuring out how an iPhone worked is negligible.

• 2:24:36Speaker 03

  Exactly.

• 2:24:37Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 2:24:38Speaker 03

  Exactly.

• 2:24:38Speaker 02

  So the same thing is true on your engineering. I mean, look, the Manhattan Project was an engineering project. There was a deliverable, it was a device.

• 2:24:48Speaker 03

  But they had to have physicists.

• 2:24:50Speaker 02

  For both projects. You're not giving me any understanding of why there were physicists in one and not the other. Wouldn't the same, even if you had a wrong, sorry, it just doesn't make sense, Derek.

• 2:25:02Speaker 03

  That's just what all the evidence goes down to, comes down to, I should say. It's, I haven't met, I asked my sort, my senior VP said, oh, we didn't have any physicists. They had Bernie Heisch working in that company. He is a physicist. He's an astrophysicist. He was a Max Planck Institute fellow. He was a fellow of that company. And he did astrophysics work because that company built spacecraft for NASA.

• 2:25:29Speaker 02

  But an alternate hypothesis is that this is a dummy program masking something. And the last thing you would want ever on such a program is a physicist, because the physicist is going to tear right through this thing and say, there is no Byfield Brown effect here. Let me show you, you know, whatever. So my, my, my, my claim is that avoidance of physicists might be necessary to keep a dummy program going, just the way the presence of physicists was necessary to get a deliverable for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

• 2:26:06Speaker 03

  Interesting. Okay. I, I just on another note, the five people I knew of at that one legacy company, two of whom I met with and dined with and met, and one of whom I met with routinely through the OSAP and after. So the woman was a mathematician, but she worked as a chief of security. There we go. The other one was a material scientist. Okay. And that's a, that's a discipline in engineering. The other three were engineers. One of them was involved with the development of the F-117 fighter. And I don't know what the other guys' roles were, but they were all engineers. That's what they were described to me. And I said, no physicists. He said, no, not really.

• 2:26:49Jesse Michels?

  It's insane. Both you guys, what do you hope for the next year or two of disclosure? I mean, I think it's clear. That you think the the brain dead way in which this is run without the theoretical physicist.

• 2:26:59Speaker 02

  I would like, I would like to meet adults on this project who are not grooved into thinking that we can just repeat things that never made any sense into the future as if they make sense. The idea that we are being visited by crafts that dominate our airspace that we cannot understand, do not know their origin, defy the laws of physics, and we avoid the one specialty that could help us at all costs and that this makes sense to anyone is is a fairy tale that should not be, I think that a mentally retarded golden retriever should not repeat this fairy tale.

• 2:27:35Jesse Michels?

  Dr. Davis, what do you hope for over the next few years?

• 2:27:39Speaker 03

  Well, I'm, I'm actually, what's the word? I'm, I don't want to say I'm, I'm looking for a negative term here and it's, I'm, I'm not enthusiastic, well, it's not enthusiastic, that's not the word. I think the presidential emergency action directives are so strict, they were instituted in the White House, in the Eisenhower White House administration. So Eisenhower instituted that and that's been carried forward on many different topics, but specifically Jim Semivan and I know that they were instituted for this topic that we've been discussing. So I am not hope, I guess that's the word I'm looking for.

• 2:28:19Speaker 03

  I'm not hopeful that there will be meaningful disclosure because of the presidential emergency action directives. And I'm also not hopeful because I don't think that this topic has risen to a level of urgency in the White House as the Epstein files have. And the retribution that Trump wants to execute against his political enemies, those are, those are at the top. He's got his economic agenda, he's got his foreign policy agenda, tariffs and all that. Disclosure of UAPs at this level, it's just not rising to the top.

• 2:28:55Jesse Michels?

  That's your prognosis, but your hope is that we get full transparency.

• 2:28:59Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 2:29:00Jesse Michels?

  Outside of national security trade secrets.

• 2:29:02Speaker 03

  He and I could get the keys to the door with Hal.

• 2:29:05Jesse Michels?

  There you go.

• 2:29:06Speaker 03

  And we can walk in and we can talk to people and say, where the fuck are your physicists?

• 2:29:09Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 2:29:10Speaker 03

  And, uh, or we can say, we're going to volunteer our time, or you can pass to work for you. I would love for both of us with Hal and some others to be able to go in and take a look at the hardware, see it ourselves. I've, I've, I've heard physical descriptions from Jim Lukatsky.

• 2:29:27Jesse Michels?

  Who said that he breached the hull and walked inside of a UFO?

• 2:29:31Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 2:29:31Jesse Michels?

  And you believe him?

• 2:29:32Speaker 03

  Uh, yeah, because there's no reason not to.

• 2:29:34Speaker 06

  You told us, because you were allowed to tell us that our government has a UFO in its possession and has been able to access the inside of it, right?

• 2:29:43Speaker 03

  Yes. I mean, when you work with people like that, we know that we're not trained to lie and make up bullshit.

• 2:29:50Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 2:29:50Speaker 03

  Just for the sake of lying and making up bullshit. Uh, no, we are people with clearances. We are responsible people. Jim Lukatsky was a, uh, missiles engineer, I believe he was. Uh, so, and there are other missiles engineers I knew who worked at the DIA back in the eighties and, no, back in, yeah, eighties, nineties and two thousands until they retired. So there's a lot of engineers in the DIA, not too many physicists that I ever ran across. So anyway, it'd be nice, but so my point is Jim Lukatsky wouldn't say that just, just to pull it out of the air and throw people off. He's telling you the truth.

• 2:30:24Jesse Michels?

  That was during his time.

• 2:30:25Speaker 03

  This is exactly the truth and this is exactly what he experienced working at the DIA. At some point, uh, I don't know whether this happened during the ASAP because he certainly didn't tell us. All of us in the ASAP, Kellaher, Bigelow, Pura, Vali, myself, we never heard this come from Lukatsky before.

• 2:30:43Jesse Michels?

  Was this at Lockheed or when he stepped inside the crack?

• 2:30:46Speaker 03

  Where it was, it's just that.

• 2:30:47Jesse Michels?

  You don't know where he stepped inside the crack?

• 2:30:49Speaker 03

  He didn't say in his book. I don't know if you've read the book or not.

• 2:30:51Speaker 05

  I haven't read the book.

• 2:30:52Speaker 03

  Okay, so he didn't say where he went into that craft or who had it. But I have a general idea based on conversations I've had with Jay Stratten. But the point being is that he was able to get it, touch it. I also know four star general from the Clinton administration who was able to go there, uses authority, his power to go see the program and get inside, talk to the program employees and leadership, touch the craft, look inside the craft. So that's two. And then there's Admiral Wilson, who said, I tried to get into the program. I met the program manager, the corporate security chief, the legal counsel, and the chief scientist. And they told me after a lot of resistance and arguing, they finally said, this is what you're looking for.

• 2:31:35Speaker 03

  It is a crash retrieval, non-human intelligence, non-human technology, off-world. But we can't let you in because you don't have a need to know beyond that.

• 2:31:45Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 2:31:46Speaker 03

  You know, it's like, oh, but that's how it works. I mean, that really does work that way. The head of the NRO doesn't know what the hell a lot of the stuff that's going on beneath them. Cause there was SAPs or SAPs or hidden SCI's. He doesn't have a need to know unless there's a reason that he has to, then they have to brief him.

• 2:32:04Speaker 05

  On that mind blowing, but also baffling note, and I'm glad we ended in a sort of a, you know, collegial way, we share mutual hope that we can, we can, you know, bash down the doors.

• 2:32:14Speaker 03

  And I love this guy's mind. I love the way he was going in the last hour or so.

• 2:32:18Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 2:32:18Speaker 03

  This is, uh, this is really opened my mind a lot more, my eyes on some things I want to start looking at now. Thank you for that.

• 2:32:25Speaker 02

  Thanks, Doc.

• 2:32:26Speaker 03

  Thank you, sir.

• 2:32:28Speaker 05

  That was an interesting conversation.

• 2:32:30Speaker 02

  Wasn't it?

• 2:32:31Speaker 05

  Yeah. What's your, I don't know, do you have kind of a gestalt sense coming away from that as far as an update where you were before the conversation, uh, where you are now?

• 2:32:44Speaker 02

  So first of all, it's interesting to see somebody who believes in aliens and, and, and craft at some deep level and doesn't believe in going beyond the theories that are blessed with holy water by the physics community. And so. You know, I take general relativity and standard model quite seriously, but he takes it almost as a constraint. So I think one of the things I didn't understand is that the physics output is rec seems almost recreational and it seems like, what is the closest you could get to science fiction using known science?

• 2:33:27Speaker 05

  Hmm.

• 2:33:28Speaker 02

  Right?

• 2:33:29Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 2:33:29Speaker 02

  And the idea is that it's all extremely implausible, vague scenario. Like if we could come up with huge amounts of matter and energy, then we could do this Alcubierre space-time solution, or, you know, maybe we could engineer an Einstein Rosen bridge, you know, and like, again, I heard somebody say this thing about, um, maybe the black hole information paradox is a key that because it doesn't fully make sense that that's where the technology is and you should use quantum gravity as a guide. Maybe you go into a black hole and you somehow get shot out some, some, someplace at a speed that you couldn't imagine otherwise. Whatever

• 2:34:14Speaker 02

  these things are, this is garbage. I hate to say it that way, but it's not that he's,

• 2:34:23Speaker 02

  he maybe he's doing the best that you can do, assuming general relativity and the standard model, trying to reproduce something that clearly goes beyond it if it exists at all.

• 2:34:33Speaker 02

  Another thing is, as you said, I was sort of surprised that he wasn't nearly as read in at a primary level. Um, so that he's able to talk because he didn't actually make primary contact with this.

• 2:34:48Speaker 05

  Well, that's the thing we were just commenting on off camera, which is like this funny dynamic of everybody seems to be circling around this program and nobody seems to be in the program. It's a little like the Epstein list or something.

• 2:35:02Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 2:35:02Speaker 05

  Which is not at all, you know, we'll, we'll stop the analogy there, but it is this weird thing where it's like, you know, uh, no, no, no one's gone to the island, but like, you know, or, or not me rather, but everybody else has or whatever. And these are, everybody's demonic or whatever. And in this case, it's this weird thing where everybody's this Mr. Smith goes to Washington character who stumbled into this in this sort of hapless way. Uh, and they have no idea how the thing actually sort of functions and works. And that allows them to talk about.

• 2:35:31Speaker 02

  Or even if. There's a thing as described at all. I mean, I'm convinced that there's a thing. And it has a boundary and it has some structure and there's some money in it, whatever. But I don't know that what's inside that container is what is indicated on its surface to the extent that anyone can even see the boundary.

• 2:35:56Speaker 05

  Yeah, well, that's a question. It's like, you know, does the tip of the iceberg look like, is it actually an iceberg? And are we looking at a tip of the iceberg where you can say, we have a crash retrieval, reverse engineering program, but that's actually some sort of intelligence sleight of hand. And in fact, the body, there are a structure that is underneath, you know, submerged in the water is obfuscated and that changes everything.

• 2:36:22Speaker 02

  Yeah, it's like you have a kelp forest, which has a top which looks like an iceberg.

• 2:36:28Speaker 02

  You know, something like that.

• 2:36:30Speaker 05

  I was just trying to figure out the right analogy.

• 2:36:32Speaker 02

  Well, there is the good.

• 2:36:33Speaker 05

  There isn't a good one.

• 2:36:33Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 2:36:34Speaker 05

  Yeah. And you have unreliable narrators to contend with as well. And you have unprepared ontologies to contend with as well. So you have these voices giving you information. You are Eric Davis in this situation. You have these witnesses or these sources giving you information, but they are a filter unto themselves. They're an ontology filter and they're a reliability filter. How much can you totally bank on what they're saying and use it to build a model for whatever is hiding in this boundary?

• 2:37:03Speaker 02

  So one of the questions that we were discussing is if you believe in the legacy program, and I think all three of us are in a position where we've talked to too many different people with different backgrounds that are talking about a something in common. And, you know, in my worst fear, it's the jackalope where everybody sort of believes the jackalopes are real, because there's an industry around a myth.

• 2:37:35Speaker 02

  But assuming this thing is real, because I can't imagine how you would fake it. What is real is a program with a boundary. So there's something where you're inside the program and there's something where you're outside the program and people have to go back in and out unless you imagine that there's a secret facility which you enter once and you never leave, just physically.

• 2:37:59Speaker 02

  This means almost certainly this thing is hidden in plain sight. I don't mean to say that there may not be deep underground facilities on our bases. I don't mean to say that, but people have to go home.

• 2:38:11Jesse Michels?

  Right.

• 2:38:11Speaker 02

  Right? And you have to have plumbers and you have to have housekeeping staff.

• 2:38:22Speaker 02

  I don't understand

• 2:38:26Speaker 02

  how this thing exists.

• 2:38:29Jesse Michels?

  Well, on that note, you attempted at some instantiation of at least the theoretical physics component of the, whatever we're calling that, this UAP legacy program at Renaissance Technologies. And I thought it was interesting that in 2022 NASA had this, you know, UFO review panel. 16 researchers will spend the next nine months studying the UFOs. They will use unclassified data in their research and release a report to the public next year. And this follows the Pentagon's announcement in July that it would create an office to track reports of UAPs or UFOs. And they were seeing, you know, if there's anything to all this stuff and they were,

• 2:39:13Jesse Michels?

  they were looking into it in an official capacity. And the person overseeing that panel is this guy, David Spiegel. Of course, Jim Simon started Renaissance Technologies and Spiegel was head of his foundation. So I find that to be very interesting overlap.

• 2:39:27Speaker 02

  So there's this concept in Washington of steady hands.

• 2:39:32Speaker 02

  And steady hands, I never really found all the different meanings for it, but one meaning for it was who can we trust when the pressure gets insanely high to do what we expect needs to be done, which may involve obfuscating, lying, evading, prettifying, all of the things that don't have to do with disclosure.

• 2:39:58Speaker 02

  The world of steady hands is often a very small world. So they reuse the same. You'll notice that the same people in Washington DC somehow show up on eight different issues. They're like, because the government knows that they can trust that person in a crisis, not to buckle. They've sort of given their life for the team.

• 2:40:21Jesse Michels?

  Would Fauci be sort of analogous?

• 2:40:23Speaker 02

  Sure. Right? The idea that you're going to stand up to Rand Paul in an open hearing and you're not going to call for your mommy and you're not going to say, okay, I admit it. There was a whole thing and we screwed up and I feel terrible, whatever.

• 2:40:40Speaker 02

  And so maybe the idea is we're dealing with the steady hands phenomenon. That you need people to deny the obvious. You need people to spend credibility. And there are very few people who want to do that job.

• 2:40:58Jesse Michels?

  One other connection I was thinking of, speaking of, you know, the intersection between institutions that are well respected, that nobody can deny have power in the country, like the Jasons, which, you know, they meet in Santa Barbara. It's the elite of the elite when it comes to military industrial complex. And specifically figuring out kind of, it's frontier physics, but it's also weaponization. You know? And so you have that committee that you brought up. And then you have the UFO world, which seems kind of more quacky on the face of it. And you have this guy, Ron Pandolfi, who seems to be a part of the Jason Advisory Committee,

• 2:41:42Jesse Michels?

  but also seems to show up in UFO world constantly. And so I think it's really interesting as a heuristic to look at the intersection between quacky UFO world and more institutional undeniable military industrial complex.

• 2:41:58Speaker 02

  Well, that was why the golden age of general relativity was such an important thing to mine, because that was the last major moment where the lunatic quacks and the super respectable people were seeing each other after hours for cocktails. Right? And

• 2:42:19Speaker 02

  You know, there's a different version of this, maybe where David Kaiser, I think, wrote this book, How the Hippies Saved Physics, about what gets done at Esalen, you know, with entanglement and bell inequalities and all that kind of stuff. So I think that there's this weird way in which the quack world and the respectable world are always intermingled, and we don't really admit to this. I've called the passion for, let's say, string theoretic physics and other official mass delusions, knarks, which is crank spelled backwards.

• 2:43:01Speaker 02

  A knark is a crank inside of the institutions who would be ridiculed for their belief structure, but for the fact that they are upholding the institution. Right? And so we have a, and by the way, the mass delusion isn't the string theory might be interesting. It's that 42 years in, you're still not seeing this, what do we have wrong? Does anyone else have an idea? There is no conference that brings together the critics and the proponents to try to get to ground truth.

• 2:43:34Jesse Michels?

  Well, you have an idea about, I mean, you mentioned this in the interview. You said, you know, we have been beating Einstein to death trying to kind of quantize gravity. You have an idea about gauging gravity and how, you know, maybe we fell into the kind of quantum gravity cul-de-sac when we could have thought about gravity in this other context.

• 2:43:56Speaker 02

  Well, so this is a very strange point. So I just turned 60 and

• 2:44:03Jesse Michels?

  Happy birthday.

• 2:44:04Speaker 02

  Thank you very much. What I realize about myself is that I am the youngest person

• 2:44:12Speaker 02

  To see the transition between old style physics and the string physics in terms of the community. So I got to college in 1982. I started going to seminars essentially immediately, which was unusual. And I was 16 at the time. So that was my claim to saying that that's why I'm the youngest. Things change in 84. So there's really only 82, 83. And I happened by complete accident to be at the first lecture of Ed Witten on string theory at the University of Pennsylvania in 1983, which I didn't know until very recently that that my memory actually is because I fell by accident into the beginning.

• 2:44:51Speaker 02

  They changed the entire culture of theoretical physics, and there's nothing they can do to hide it. If you go back to research articles before 1984, you see an entirely different culture of inquiry as to what are the problems of physics? What might we try to do to solve them? And quantum gravity was just thrust down everybody's throat as the Holy Grail

• 2:45:19Speaker 02

  from 1984 to 87. And by the time of 87, everybody had accepted this. So what you did is you retconned a story where nobody mentions the phrase quantum gravity until 1972.

• 2:45:33Speaker 02

  And you say, well, that's always been the Holy Grail ever since gravity in general relativity in 1915 and the quantum, let's say by 1928, when you have quantum electrodynamics, we're both realized to have this kind of incompatibility. So if the incompatibility between the two is real, but it's not really quantum gravity, what is it? So what I said was, most people don't realize that due to work of Jim Simons and C N Yang, which got written up as Wu Yang, as if Simons was Wu. We know that underneath the standard model is a classical geometric

• 2:46:14Speaker 02

  structure. And we don't talk about the classical differential geometric nature of the standard

• 2:46:24Speaker 02

  And that that is the subject of the Wu Yang Dictionary. So that unearthing of a geometric origin for the particles and fields that are not gravity, but all the all the quantum fields is a very important clue that that geometry has a property, which is that it is gauged, which means that you can keep yourself from being fooled that many different versions. You know that problem with the elephant with the blind men going around and it's all one elephant and the blind men aren't wandering around the elephant stupidly, they're just staying in one place. So a gauge orbit would be, let's get all of the information from all of these people

• 2:47:05Speaker 02

  and decide that it's one elephant and they're just looking at it from different perspectives. So it's kind of a unity of knowledge thing. General relativity can't be gauged.

• 2:47:16Speaker 02

  Now, there's a lie that says, well, that it's a type of gauge theory because there's a different kind of symmetry, which has nothing to do with gauging called general coordinate invariance or diffeomorphism invariance. So we make up a story to pretend that Einstein's theory can be gauged and it can't.

• 2:47:36Speaker 02

  And so now you have this weird question. Why did Ed Witten tell us that the incompatibility between this, the standard model of general relativity was that one was fully quantum and the other never quite grew up and that we had to grow up general relativity. So general relativity and standard model have two separate attributes. Einstein could do two things that the standard model cannot.

• 2:48:00Speaker 02

  These things are called contraction, where you take two indices on either side of a separating barrier called a tensor product and you get them to mate and pair off.

• 2:48:12Speaker 02

  So he contracted the Riemannian curvature to get the Ricci curvature, he contracted that to get scalar curvature, he spun the scalar curvature around 180 degrees, plugged it back into the formula and got rid of this vile curvature. Whatever that operation was, that was the central idea of general relativity.

• 2:48:30Speaker 02

  There's no ability to take the full curvature tensors that occur in the standard model and break them up into components. You can't do this contraction game. And the other thing Einstein had that the standard model didn't is that there's a central reference object called the Levi-Civita connection, and there's no analog for that in the connections that give us photons and W and Z particles and gluons. So in the case of the standard model, you've got, if my arm here is spacetime and this is the data of the particles, the data of the particles can move around without moving spacetime. In general relativity, if

• 2:49:14Speaker 02

  you think about this as the X Y plane, moving the X axis affects the Y axes. Okay? The incompatibility between the advantages of those two different pictures, gauge equivalence in the case of the standard model, and contraction and a specified Levi-Civita connection, that difference gives two sets of advantages to two different theories. Now, my work, the reason it's called geometric unity, nobody ever asked that question, really, is that I said, are there any places where you get to use the advantages of both systems? And the answer turns out to be, well, certainly in general, it won't work. But for some completely

• 2:49:56Speaker 02

  absurdly narrow class of theories, you get all the benefits of both systems. And then you check the particle table of the standard model and you're exactly in that freak class. Hmm. So like, how can you not devote your life to that fact? I just don't even understand it. So that thing is having to do with the fact that we didn't gauge gravity properly. And there's old work about this with Einstein and Cartan, with McDowell and Mansurri, with a bunch of other people who've had versions of this idea. But it all got blown away by quantum gravity.

• 2:50:37Jesse Michels?

  Hmm. Do you think that was by design or emergent?

• 2:50:44Speaker 02

  It sounds insane to say by design, but let me give you something that is insane. Although modern people won't see it as such. It is insane to spend 42 years under the spell of a group of people you call leaders who stagnated a field. In general, you have to ask the question, why is no one allowed to say, what is going on with David Gross, Lenny Susskind, Edward Witten, Andy Strominger? Why are these people still our leading physicists? I mean, this program failed. It's not the first failed program. We had a program

• 2:51:28Speaker 02

  associated with with Reggie called the Reggie calculus that was supposed to do great things and didn't work. There was a guy named Jeff Chu, who had a bootstrap program and the S matrix thing that didn't work. We've had lots of ideas that don't work and it's part of the game. And it's not a question of these are bad people, but they failed scientifically. We can't say that. We can't say that we are slavishly devoted to making sure that we don't offend our leaders and we're going to insult everyone else. And literally, we're just going to professionally insult everyone who's been saying for 42 years, this is not sensible. You saw what happened with Eric is

• 2:52:12Speaker 02

  I sort of had to say, you know, none of these ideas are remotely plausible that you're exploring. It wasn't personal, it wasn't mean. He sort of said, yeah, I know that now. But you can kind of tell at the beginning, none of this is going to work. And so both in string theory and in what he's doing, which is accepting that craft exists and are retrieved and can do miraculous things. And the constraints are, he takes for himself, I'm not going to challenge the standard model of general relativity. What's the closest I can get to science fiction from known science fact?

• 2:52:48Speaker 02

  And the answer is you're a million miles away, buddy. There's no, you're not even, you're not in the right zip code.

• 2:52:54Jesse Michels?

  Is your sense that there is a vital core that does have either geometric unity or some frameworks that are closer to ontological truth than general relativity in quantum field theory?

• 2:53:08Speaker 02

  You know? You can't ask me because my, my feeling is I wouldn't have spent the same 42 years on geometric unity. If I wasn't pretty confident that this is, this is right.

• 2:53:19Jesse Michels?

  Okay. So, so then the question would be, do you think that somebody else or some other entity on the inside of all of this? Cause what's interesting is you have a similar thing going on in UFO world as what seemed to go on with Epstein, where you have this bizarre telephone game of terms being, you have like in UFO world, it's like extended electrodynamics and all these like weird frameworks that nobody knows how to define. And then you read those Epstein emails and he's like, boost your physics. He's like, you know, time is actually just a function of the vibration of cesium atoms. And he's infiltrating the math department at Harvard and somehow has a lot of sway with these people.

• 2:54:03Jesse Michels?

  And is speaking like a person who was maybe told some real stuff?

• 2:54:09Speaker 02

  This is, this is the thing. It's very hard to convey because particularly academics and PhDs don't want to be conned like at all costs. My feeling is this is an extremely dumb way to go through life.

• 2:54:24Speaker 02

  You're going to be conned for sure. Try to figure out who's saying something interesting by listening. And in my estimation, Epstein was saying interesting things to me.

• 2:54:39Speaker 02

  That didn't originate from his mind.

• 2:54:42Jesse Michels?

  Hmm.

• 2:54:43Speaker 02

  It's like they've hired an actor to play a hedge fund manager. I only met him once. It was probably for about an hour or so. But he was an absolutely terrifying person to encounter.

• 2:54:58Speaker 02

  It would be surprising to me if I was alone in that I immediately had the suspicion that I was looking at somebody who had been constructed rather than something that had organically arisen within the financial community. It was like somebody who'd learned a phrase in a foreign language and he was repeating it as best he could. I don't think people really have a clear idea of how crazy that interview he gives to Bannon or the media training he was doing. He gets like eight things wrong in a row and people say, well, Eric, you were wrong. He clearly is a much better spoken, much more informed person. So he founded the Santa Fe Institute in 1990 to 93, when it was founded in 1984 by other people.

• 2:55:40Jesse Michels?

  So bizarre.

• 2:55:41Speaker 02

  Or this was around the time that Murray Gellman was naming quirks from a poem, when quirks were named many years earlier.

• 2:55:51Jesse Michels?

  Says he was a good Wall Street trader because he had calculators. We had Texas instruments back then.

• 2:55:57Speaker 02

  Okay, so, so this is what I saw with like Bob Lazar, you know? Eric latched on to the fact that Lazar is lying. Okay, so fine, he's lying. It doesn't mean it's uninteresting.

• 2:56:08Jesse Michels?

  Not only is it not uninteresting, but it's, I think it's simultaneously, it's a little strange to say, I know that there is a long-term legacy UFO reverse engineering program than the one guy that comes out where I think a lot of his stuff checks, to be honest. And I think you can easily character assassinate the person by saying, you know, he was involved in XYZ, but a lot of his details check.

• 2:56:35Speaker 02

  My point is assume that, assume that he's a schizophrenic, assume that he's got delusions of grandeur. I don't know.

• 2:56:45Speaker 02

  I'd never had the thought before that the topological instanton sector of QCD based on the Pontiaguan class could be transgressed to a Chern-Simmon. And Chern-Simmon is as close to Einstein-Hilbert.

• 2:57:03Speaker 02

  And I only had that because I was just so sickened by what Lazar was saying. As if he's talking, I'm going to explain the world to you, kids. And he starts talking garbage.

• 2:57:11Speaker 05

  When did you hear that and have this idea about the data sector and then look at it?

• 2:57:15Speaker 02

  It's an interesting question. Joe Rogan, who's, you know, a friend, wanted me to sit down with Bob Lazar. And, you know, I sat down with Terrence Howard. And I have a great deal of fun with Terrence and Terrence and I get on, although sometimes he threatens me and I hate that. But Terrence, you know, I was, I was praiseworthy in the one or two areas where Terrence was doing something really new. And in general, I had to pour cold water on most everything else he said. And, you know, that's the price of being taken seriously by somebody like me. And in the case of Bob Lazar, Joe once said, let's sit down. Now, I didn't, I wouldn't have done the Terrence episode if I didn't have something to say,

• 2:57:58Speaker 02

  which Terrence, which is positive, which is Terrence found one remarkable thing, at least. He just did. So with one remarkable thing, I'm willing to do it. Otherwise, it's a character assassination. I did not want to sit down with Bob Lazar and do a character assassination. Just characterologically, I don't like going after human beings. I go after institutions.

• 2:58:19Speaker 05

  Well, he would say he's not, he would say, these are frameworks that were given to him.

• 2:58:22Speaker 02

  No, but he said, but he said that he was at MIT, let's say, in the physics department. So immediately, the problem is, is that whenever you get to real academic physics, the world shrinks to a tiny number of people. And I don't think that the outside world either appreciates one of two things about frontier physics. One, it's a tiny world because it's so difficult.

• 2:58:50Speaker 02

  And two, how vertical it is in terms of human ability.

• 2:58:54Jesse Michels?

  Did he say he was in the physics department though? I don't think he.

• 2:58:56Speaker 02

  I think he.

• 2:58:57Jesse Michels?

  I don't think so.

• 2:58:58Speaker 02

  I think Joe, Joe, Joe told me.

• 2:58:59Speaker 05

  There's a statement somewhere where he said he had physics at MIT and Caltech. Going back to the early nineties, that was part of the early.

• 2:59:06Jesse Michels?

  I think it was just MIT, but I think my read on it is that MIT is university affiliated research center, UARC, and they do spooky shit and.

• 2:59:20Speaker 02

  Well, Draper, for example, and Lincoln Labs.

• 2:59:23Speaker 05

  Right. MIT, Lincoln Labs.

• 2:59:24Speaker 02

  Yeah, are, are different sorts of entities.

• 2:59:28Jesse Michels?

  Exactly.

• 2:59:28Speaker 02

  You know, so the, the issue is, are you, are you at, at MIT or are you really at Draper or Lincoln?

• 2:59:35Speaker 05

  Yeah. If you're talking to somebody from MIT Lincoln Labs, you're not talking to MIT faculty.

• 2:59:39Jesse Michels?

  I, I don't know, but my sense is he was put there to work on, um, something defense related.

• 2:59:51Speaker 02

  Again.

• 2:59:53Jesse Michels?

  So like more like functional, not high level theoretical, but.

• 2:59:58Speaker 02

  So you, you're asking me the question, how did I come to think about this thing from Bob Lazar?

• 3:00:03Speaker 05

  Yeah. When did gravity?

• 3:00:04Speaker 02

  So in order, in order for me to sit down with Bob Lazar, according to my own rules for I don't hunt human beings in general, unless they hunt me or unless, unless there's no other option. I don't, I hunt institutions that are failing. I don't hunt people. I just don't like, I don't like the ethos. So in order for me to come on with Bob Lazar, I would have to find one thing credible in what he's saying.

• 3:00:33Speaker 02

  So I went over it and I tried to say, is there any way of making this make sense? And originally I couldn't do it. I couldn't figure out this gravity wave A, gravity wave B, because he and I would get into it and it would be a very short, brutal, you know, it would be Askin versus Musvital. I don't want to do that. Um, and then I found that and that was the thing that was going to allow me to sit down with Bob Lazar is you could be saying something.

• 3:00:59Jesse Michels?

  Problem is, I don't think he'd be able to hang with.

• 3:01:01Speaker 02

  Okay, but it's a it's a formal possibility.

• 3:01:04Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, yeah, yeah.

• 3:01:05Speaker 05

  I also don't think he would try as an author of the material to your point. He would convey these are frameworks provided to me elsewhere. He wouldn't try to take technical ownership of gravity A and gravity B.

• 3:01:17Speaker 02

  Well, the other thing is, is that I would say that even mathematicians and physicists really get this wrong. And the person who didn't get it wrong bizarrely was Jeff Epstein, which means that he's talking to somebody.

• 3:01:28Speaker 02

  In general, we we we do a bad job of counting the degree of a differential equation. So if differential equations are how we tell how the world develops. The standard way of figuring out the degree of a differential equation is saying, take the fields that are in it and count the maximal number of derivatives that are taken of those fields before you get to the equations.

• 3:01:55Speaker 02

  And that would say that the Einstein field equations are second order and the Maxwell's equations are second order. There's a different thing you can do, which is you can say, okay, in fundamental force law, first spot the curvature tensor. And then tell me how many derivatives I take of the curvature tensor. In that case, those are no longer the same. Einstein's theory would be zero with order in that way of writing it. And Yang Mills theory would be first order because you take one degree in Yang, one differential in Yang Mills theory. You take zero difference, you just do linear algebra to the curvature tensor in in general relativity. So

• 3:02:38Speaker 02

  I don't think most people realize the extent to which the Chern Simons and Einstein Hilbert are basically playing very similar roles in the two theories, one of them is Riemannian, one of them is Erasmanian. And the key features that they're both second, they're both zero with order in the curvature. When you take the Lagrange equation, which is very hard to do. That thing, that that property means that there's a very strong tie, which is more broadly accepted between Chern Simons, which currently lives only in dimension three in its most strict sense, and Einstein Hilbert, which can live in any dimension.

• 3:03:22Speaker 02

  So, you know, look, there's a hope. I just don't think that most people think about

• 3:03:30Speaker 02

  geometric physics in this way.

• 3:03:31Jesse Michels?

  Well, interesting connection. Chern Simons is named after who and who?

• 3:03:38Speaker 02

  S S Chern and Jim Simons.

• 3:03:40Jesse Michels?

  And Jim Simons. And that that takes us back possibly to Renaissance Technologies, who what has the largest concentration of differential geometers in the US?

• 3:03:51Speaker 02

  Well, that's so, look, I more or less accused Jim Simons of this shortly before he died.

• 3:03:58Speaker 02

  And I told him, I mean, it was very collegial and very positive. But I said, you do realize that you have the closest Lagrangian to Einstein Hilbert. We don't usually talk about Simons versus Einstein.

• 3:04:12Jesse Michels?

  What did he say?

• 3:04:14Speaker 02

  Well, then we have this completely bizarre interchange. So he wants me to tell him more. So I explained that essentially

• 3:04:22Speaker 02

  in dimension three, your object, which is actually a transgression, misinterpreted as an action or a Lagrangian,

• 3:04:33Speaker 02

  has the closest thing to the characteristics of the Einstein Hilbert action, which is the integral of the scalar curvature integrated over the spacetime manifold. And I said,

• 3:04:44Speaker 02

  in dimension three, you don't have any vial curvature to get rid of the way Einstein had to get rid of the vial curvature and discard it as he filleted the rest of the Riemann curvature tensor.

• 3:04:56Speaker 02

  And you don't have the gauge benefit of your action, you churn Simons in the Einsteinian case, but otherwise they're extraordinarily similar. Did you know that they're both inside of a parent theory? And the parent theory combines Einstein, Hilbert and churn Simons. And new stuff. And that's what geometric unity does. Geometric unity gauges gravity effectively and gives you contraction.

• 3:05:36Speaker 02

  So you're both contracting and gauging, which you're not supposed to be able to do under most circumstances. And I said, you're going to have a role in life that is much closer to Albert Einstein's when this is all done. Not that, not that you're making an Einstein in discovery, but the thing that will replace Einstein will also explain the work that you did. And he said, this is unbelievably fascinating. You have to come to State University of Stony Brook, to the Simon Center for Geometry and Physics and spend a year and teach us this.

• 3:06:10Jesse Michels?

  Whoa.

• 3:06:11Speaker 02

  So I said, okay, I'm moved, but I, I would like nothing better. I said, you're just going to have to understand that I have a family and I have a son who's finishing his last year of, of high school. So I'm going to need a little bit of help with the heavy lifting of relocating the family for a summer, for, for a year at a time when we can't afford a lot of tumult. And he looked at me and he said, okay, well, do you have any idea where you get the money?

• 3:06:47Jesse Michels?

  Isn't he worth $20 billion plus at that time?

• 3:06:51Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 3:06:53Jesse Michels?

  That's crazy.

• 3:06:55Speaker 02

  And I, I looked at him. I couldn't parse it.

• 3:07:03Speaker 02

  It just doesn't add up.

• 3:07:05Jesse Michels?

  So strange. Did you, I mean, you just didn't want to grovel at that point and you kind of.

• 3:07:10Speaker 02

  I'm not going to grow.

• 3:07:11Jesse Michels?

  Yeah. And that's so crazy.

• 3:07:13Speaker 05

  Did you get the vibe that he was genuinely hearing about this technical detail for the first time?

• 3:07:20Speaker 02

  This is the first of two meetings that sound this. The first time I had a meeting with him, I spent three hours.

• 3:07:29Speaker 02

  With him going over Gage theory of modern economics. Now, he happens to be married to an economist. He obviously works in the markets. And Gage theory, just so it's not thought to be intimidating or too cool for school, is really just differential calculus done correctly. And unfortunately, we call it Gage theory and we only teach people who are very high up in pure mathematics or theoretical physics. Nobody else learns Gage theory. We should teach Gage theory in high school. It's just, it's an indispensable way of looking at the world and it's just differential calculus done right. So in economic theory, there was a thing called the marginal revolution, which Tyler Cowen borrowed for the name of his blog.

• 3:08:15Speaker 02

  And that was the penetration of the differential calculus into economics. So what I did, together with Pia Mulaney, was to show that modern

• 3:08:29Speaker 02

  neoclassical economics is a self-evident Gage theory at multiple levels. And that was not taken well by the Harvard Economics Department, particularly by one man named Dale Jorgensen, who was the chairman of the department. And basically went nuts trying to make sure that my wife was unemployable. And the reason that he did that is that he was tasked by Senators Bob Packwood and Daniel Patrick Moynihan with.

• 3:09:00Speaker 02

  Pretending there was a 1.1% overstatement in the

• 3:09:05Speaker 02

  consumer price index to transfer a trillion dollars because all tax receipts and all social security payments are indexed. So tax brackets and you can raise taxes and slash benefits, both at the same time by making a technical adjustment in inflation. You'll notice that many of us are experiencing inflation that's not fully reflected in our statistics. So there was a crime going on, which the Boskin Commission was committing against the American people by putting in a 1.1% overstatement in the CPI by hand at the same moment that Maloney and myself were showing the economics as a gauge theory. And there's a completely different way

• 3:09:49Speaker 02

  of looking at this. And Jorgensen didn't want any competition.

• 3:09:55Speaker 02

  So anyway, I talked to Jim. Jim said, look, this is amazing. I've never thought about this, but you're right about bundle theory and derivatives and projection operators. I said, well, you have to have to ask a question. Your returns are so off the chart. You have to have some explanation for why you're able to do this much of a better job.

• 3:10:21Speaker 02

  And I said, are you, are you using this? Your wife is an economist. You're a differential geometer. You're in the same situation I am. Did you get here first? He took a drag on a cigarette.

• 3:10:35Speaker 02

  It was a very long pause. He said, Eric, if you knew how we actually made money, you'd be so disappointed.

• 3:10:44Jesse Michels?

  What do you think he meant by that?

• 3:10:47Speaker 02

  You can imagine. I have no idea, but there's certainly, look, so far as I know, I'm the first person.

• 3:10:56Speaker 02

  Because I come from a math physics background to say, I'm not really positive that this thing is just a hedge fund.

• 3:11:01Jesse Michels?

  Hmm.

• 3:11:02Speaker 02

  The returns are too impressive. You know, they're like North Korean returns. And then the dear leader, you know, ascended to the mountaintop and wrote the seven most beautiful symphonies before descending on a winged unicorn. It's like, in the early 2000s, I didn't believe the following four funds. Bernie Madoff, Renaissance Technologies, D E Shaw, and Jeff Epstein.

• 3:11:27Jesse Michels?

  Why D E Shaw?

• 3:11:29Speaker 02

  It was a strange thing that I knew people who worked there. They were so highly compartmentalized that they basically had the sense of they had no idea how the whole thing worked. And so it had, as you know, there is a very strange property of government secrecy, which is the only thing people really trust is compartmentalization and stove piping. The general belief is, is that people will always talk and you have to have the people sharted with enough granularity that nobody can put together what's actually going on.

• 3:12:02Jesse Michels?

  Do you think, because, I mean, Brookhaven National Labs is the site of Cosmatron, which is the largest particle accelerator in the US. It is. Do you know that?

• 3:12:14Speaker 02

  No, I didn't.

• 3:12:15Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 3:12:16Speaker 02

  I thought Fermilab would have been.

• 3:12:17Jesse Michels?

  No, it's interesting. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, so, so they, they're doing, you know, they have a particle accelerator that's, you know, pretty powerful up there. They have Stony Brook, which, you know, is definitely punching above its weight class when it comes to physics, which has some interesting also.

• 3:12:31Speaker 02

  Particularly mathematics.

• 3:12:33Jesse Michels?

  Particularly mathematics. Also some interesting architecture up there as well, that you've noted. And then you have this fund, which seems to get 30% year over year, no matter what, you know, up years, down years, you know, it's just always sort of, you know, performing at the same clip. And I guess my question would be, do you think this was sort of a slush fund for secret science?

• 3:12:59Speaker 02

  I think it's not irresponsible. Look, you know, my thing about responsible conspiracy theorizing, which is that you go back in the history of actual conspiracies and you say, your, your new thought about a conspiracy should be within a standard deviation or two of something that's known to exist. So if you take Los Alamos as a good example.

• 3:13:24Speaker 02

  You have a

• 3:13:29Speaker 02

  protected campus in Compound. You have top math physics talent. You have duplicitous filings. For example, they didn't want people to know that plutonium and uranium were the two main radioactive elements that they were focused on, so that I believe Harold Urey may have been sent to promote others. They didn't want people realizing that it was as easy as it turned out to be. So there was a lot of disinformation scientifically because you had to explain why you have all of this focus on chain reactions and then suddenly interest just stops. Okay. So my claim is that if you believe that Los Alamos exists, and if you believe that

• 3:14:14Speaker 02

  the Rad Lab exists, the Radiation Laboratory at MIT, and you believe a bunch of these things, it is not hard. Oh, and you believe like dummy companies and shell companies like Southern Air Transport or Air America, you know?

• 3:14:35Speaker 02

  That's not the problem. The secret squirrels in Washington DC don't want smart Americans turning this into a parlor game. So they've decided that, okay, we're going to spread one idea, which is that everybody who speculates about the secret world is a loser. There's only one reason to speculate about the secret world is that you're fucking stupid.

• 3:14:57Jesse Michels?

  Hmm.

• 3:14:58Speaker 02

  Right? And I really despise this. So what I said was entirely responsible. If you were trying to call the National Security Agency, no such agency back in the day,

• 3:15:12Speaker 02

  that would be bad because I would say, tell me where number theorists go who don't get academic jobs and let's map the zip codes. Oh, look, there's this little cluster. I don't know, Maryland or Delaware, wherever it is, you know? And you'd find Fort Meade. Okay, well, there's a cluster. Renaissance Technologies.

• 3:15:33Jesse Michels?

  Yes.

• 3:15:33Speaker 02

  You know, so are you actually, I'm not telling you what's in it or not. I'm telling you, if somebody told me tomorrow, there is a Manhattan 3.0 and it's about gravity and UAPs and post Einsteinian engineering.

• 3:15:50Speaker 02

  Where is its brain trust? With 95% confidence, I would tell you it's Renaissance technologies.

• 3:16:00Speaker 02

  On the other hand, if you asked, is there such a program? I don't know that, I don't know that my confidence would be so high. If there is a secret program, I'm pretty sure it's Renaissance technologies.

• 3:16:11Jesse Michels?

  Some percentage times 95% or something.

• 3:16:14Speaker 02

  Well, that's the thing. It's a likely, it might be, it might well not be. But you know, if you asked me, um, hey, tell me, what are Feynman beta? John von Neumann doing at a boarding school or at a boys' school in the New Mexico wilderness? I'd say that's a really strange place to find those guys.

• 3:16:39Jesse Michels?

  It's an odd concentration of the country's top physicists.

• 3:16:43Speaker 02

  Oh, well, they're investing in secondary education for young men because they have self-image issues. Okay.

• 3:16:52Jesse Michels?

  Exactly. Well, you also, you know, you've noted that where this isn't even something you've noted. This is something, you know, in the age of disclosure or, and by the way, this movie came out and you have DNI level people, you have James Clapper, you have Brennan.

• 3:17:07Speaker 02

  Wait, wait, wait, one second. I just want to say this thing.

• 3:17:09Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 3:17:09Speaker 02

  I don't want to speculate against Renaissance technologies if they're just really good traders. In other words, I'm not trying to bring darkness to their door. But if we're going to play this cat and mouse game about what's true and what's real, and I'll just get very, very pointed about it.

• 3:17:32Speaker 02

  Do not mess with your expert class.

• 3:17:36Speaker 02

  Right? The current strategy of dealing with the expert class is not read in to whatever this is, is to just pretend that we're all incapable thinkers.

• 3:17:49Speaker 02

  That we've got some personal problem that we're working on.

• 3:17:53Speaker 02

  I want to terminate that program with extreme prejudice. You do not go after your expert class because you were dumb enough not to read them in.

• 3:18:04Speaker 02

  And then they figured out something of what you were doing? Yeah, I don't know. I don't know the specifics, but I'm not, I'm not stupid.

• 3:18:10Jesse Michels?

  Well, the other issue with the way things have gone, if we take Eric Davis at face value on there being no physicists in this vital, secret core program.

• 3:18:20Speaker 02

  How did you react to that, Jesse? Let me turn it around.

• 3:18:24Jesse Michels?

  It's crazy. I mean, it's, it's, um, it's outrageous. It's, uh, if that is the case, it's a, it's extremely irresponsible and it's not being run well at all. It makes no sense. Why would you be operating within a boundary that has been set? Historically, you have, you know, every century or two centuries, you have an overturning of our physical model of reality. And if you're telling me that you are getting slag, discs, you know, whatever it is, material that you are saying, you know, with a hundred percent confidence is not ours.

• 3:19:03Jesse Michels?

  Because it's been atomically bonded or has isotope ratios with heavy elements or any of the stuff that we're hearing before Congress, a lot of these guys saying. And then you were saying, but we're operating within the bounds of the constraints that we've set on ourselves in this century.

• 3:19:20Speaker 02

  No make good dissent, so.

• 3:19:21Jesse Michels?

  It makes no sense. It's absurd.

• 3:19:23Speaker 05

  I'm following my contract. It's like, that's just nonsense.

• 3:19:26Speaker 02

  No, no, no. And, and everybody repeats this as if, as if they're.

• 3:19:33Speaker 02

  I mean, it's, it's like, if you gave the excuse, well, no, because it's, it's Wednesday every week. And everybody said that you, you sort of get a nerd to it, but then you realize, yes, there's a Wednesday of every week. It had nothing to do with any, you have to be highly disagreeable. To basically say, you know, Eric, what you just said, no, no, no offense, makes no sense at all.

• 3:19:52Jesse Michels?

  And what's so weird about it is I'm cynical. I think, I think national security runs the day on all this stuff. And so once something makes sense from a national security standpoint, it just happens. And so if this were this grave national security issue where you think you might be able to do anything with any of this material.

• 3:20:14Jesse Michels?

  Obviously, you'd put your best and brightest on it. Obviously, the stove piping of it would be an immediate urgent issue that you would figure out.

• 3:20:23Speaker 02

  Or you put the best and the brightest on top of the stovepipe system, which is what we did at Los Alamos. The white badges. Look, man, we have cowboys still.

• 3:20:35Speaker 05

  Star racing physics.

• 3:20:36Speaker 02

  You, you, you, yeah. You, you're castrating the people who can do this work.

• 3:20:43Jesse Michels?

  Well, that's, that's the other, you know, thing, which I think is even worse than the program being dysfunctional is you have this narrative of in UFO world of, you know, restricted data. And all of this stuff getting relegated to, you know, your Lockheed to Northrop's and aerospace contractors. Because if they retrieve a thing, it's born secret under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. And this is, you know, it's sort of DOE jurisdiction, right? Then you end up with, uh, you know, 1980s, 1990s world where, you know, not only is that the, you know, whatever program is going on there seems to be sort of inert

• 3:21:28Jesse Michels?

  and neutered and not particularly impressive, all, all the stuff we're talking about right now. But you end up in a world where DOE security is so lax that Epstein can move to, you know, Zorro Ranch.

• 3:21:45Speaker 02

  Well, but nobody.

• 3:21:45Jesse Michels?

  With the explicit intent of being near retired Los Alamos physicists. So he can gain.

• 3:21:52Speaker 02

  You saw that clip I broke out.

• 3:21:53Jesse Michels?

  It's insane.

• 3:21:54Speaker 02

  I broke it out for a reason. Nobody around me. They're going right through that clip.

• 3:21:59Speaker 07

  So why did I buy a ranch in New Mexico, 1993? So that's gives you some sense. So I would have funded it in 1990.

• 3:22:08Speaker 07

  Los Alamos, which was the high energy lab up in New Mexico, was losing all its scientists. And Los Alamos, it was where Oppenheimer and where the, where.

• 3:22:19Speaker 06

  A lot of the nuclear weapons program, the bomb.

• 3:22:22Speaker 07

  That's what Manhattan Project.

• 3:22:23Speaker 06

  Manhattan Project was.

• 3:22:25Speaker 07

  Yes.

• 3:22:25Speaker 06

  That's Los Alamos. And you bought your property out in New Mexico to be near that?

• 3:22:29Speaker 07

  Yes, because the scientists were going to be, they cut the funding for high energy physics.

• 3:22:34Speaker 02

  Look, I'm just gonna be more forthcoming. I have had a thankless job of saying the string theorists are horrible. Get them more money.

• 3:22:44Speaker 02

  People wonder like, it doesn't make any sense. And now I'm going to spell it out because Epstein said the thing that I was trying to. I was trying to be Straussian about it and sort of speak so that it's not evident. He was listening.

• 3:23:00Speaker 02

  At the end of the Cold War, you fucked over your physicists. Who, who, who thought this up? How dumb are you? How dumb are, is the United States of America? I just don't grasp it. On October 30th, 1993, President Clinton signed into law the death blow to the superconducting supercollider. You have all of these deadly ninjas running around. Tell me something. Who are the first people the Israelis killed in Iran when they went in?

• 3:23:32Jesse Michels?

  Nuclear scientists?

• 3:23:33Speaker 02

  Yeah, physicists.

• 3:23:36Speaker 05

  Iranian Leon Liedermans.

• 3:23:38Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 3:23:40Speaker 02

  Now, I was not happy about that. You know, my feeling is don't shoot us with the piano players. But the Israelis made a decision that the first thing you do is kill your scientists.

• 3:23:51Speaker 02

  The thing here is.

• 3:23:54Speaker 02

  If you look at the scientists, they look like a joke. They're playing around with toy models, lying about all the progress they're making. And my claim is, is that until you pay these people, until you stop making them afraid and still you. Until you remove your hands from around their throats with their grants and their respectability. You're not going to get any physics. So the alternate interpretation of this, and I hate to say it, is that somebody soft sunsetted the world's most vital intellectual community, which is frontier theoretical physicists. And basically, these people are now kind of almost buffoonish. The Epstein thing is a giant tangle. And I'm just gonna

• 3:24:38Speaker 02

  say more because I said it before these last, this last tranche. Epstein was running many different programs. It wasn't even Epstein probably running. So call the name of the organization or the project, or whatever you want to call it, Jeffrey Epstein. But that does not mean

• 3:24:56Speaker 02

  that it was Jeffrey Epstein.

• 3:24:57Speaker 05

  He was not a policymaker.

• 3:24:59Speaker 02

  I don't know who he was. And, and one of the things about responsible conspiracy theorizing is is that you don't constantly answer the question, well, if not X, then what? Why? No, I don't know. Get used to, I don't know. There's a lot of I don't know in the story.

• 3:25:16Speaker 02

  I don't think he was running the Jeffrey Epstein Special Access Project, or whatever it was. If it was in the US government, it would be a special access.

• 3:25:26Speaker 05

  Clearly.

• 3:25:27Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 3:25:29Speaker 02

  Somebody was running that thing. They hired the wrong actor because he wasn't that great of a friend. And many different things were going through it at the same time. So that plane of his is not the Lolita Express. It's his, it's the plane that belonged to the project. And it ferry different people for different purposes. And that island is not pedophile island. That island may have had a tremendous amount of pedophilia and horrific things going on. But it's simply a container for whatever was going on through this project.

• 3:26:02Speaker 02

  So now you have the question about to what extent were the scientists implicated? To what extent was Jeffrey Epstein doing one thing, saying he was doing another? So let me, um,

• 3:26:18Speaker 02

  the Department of Energy has counterintelligence assets and directives. You're not supposed to let a super rich guy with no ostensible means of achieving his fortune buy an enormous ranch, a stone's throw from Los Alamos, with the intention of talking to high energy and weapons physicists at the end of the Cold War as they lose their funding. Who blew this?

• 3:26:50Speaker 02

  And, and who blew the fact that in the entire released information, this is the first thing I, I found, you know? I was looking for this, which is the guy set up listening posts. He had another listening post called One Brattle Square.

• 3:27:09Jesse Michels?

  Where was that?

• 3:27:10Speaker 02

  It's in, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02138.

• 3:27:15Speaker 02

  So let, let me explain. Let me spell this out for the kids at home.

• 3:27:24Speaker 02

  The analog of Los Alamos is the Harvard math department.

• 3:27:31Speaker 02

  The analog of nuclear and theoretical physics and high energy physics

• 3:27:38Speaker 02

  is number theory.

• 3:27:42Speaker 02

  The benefits of knowing about this. In New Mexico, it's weapons. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, it might be cryptography.

• 3:27:55Speaker 02

  In New Mexico, you work with Murray Gell-Mann.

• 3:27:59Speaker 02

  In Cambridge, Massachusetts, you work with Martin Noack.

• 3:28:04Speaker 02

  Your base of operations in New Mexico is called Zorro Ranch. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, it's called Office 610 at One Brattle Square.

• 3:28:20Speaker 02

  I have no idea what we just did.

• 3:28:24Speaker 02

  But whoever is supposed to be smart enough to protect our crown jewels has to recognize that just because the, the thinking is, is that he was going to make a, a baby manufacturing facility at Zorro Ranch and that he was doing evolutionary dynamics at Harvard. I see no reason to think that those aren't cover stories.

• 3:28:48Jesse Michels?

  Well, what you just articulated, I think only a specific milieu of people could even strategize for, like, clearly Epstein himself wasn't making that calculation.

• 3:29:00Speaker 02

  Listen to what Bannon asked Epstein. He said, so wait a minute, you bought this ranch.

• 3:29:08Speaker 02

  And he founded the Santa Fe Institute, yeah, around 9093.

• 3:29:13Speaker 02

  Okay, who founded the Santa Fe Institute? Not Jeffrey Epstein. What year was it founded? 1984? And he says Murray Gell-Mann, at the time that he founded, that Jeffrey Epstein founded the Santa Fe Institute, founded fund, I'm not sure. He did give money, but he's not behind the Santa Fe Institute. Says Murray Gell-Mann was working out the word for quarks around that. Quarks were named much, much earlier. He has no idea what he's talking about.

• 3:29:48Jesse Michels?

  Right, so there's some telephone game at play.

• 3:29:50Speaker 02

  Yeah, and he says, you know, quarks had a certain, they had color, they had flavor, they had a charm. He says, nobody knows what these things mean. Okay, yes, SU3 flavor was a failed scheme for lumping the up, down, and strange quarks into a multiple in complex three dimensional space. Charm and strange are the names of second generation quarks. QCD, we very well understand what a lot of it means, because in part, it has this property of asymptotic freedom, so that it becomes a free theory.

• 3:30:34Speaker 02

  It's one of the, it's the only theory we have that's physical, that extrapolates all the way to the Planck level. This guy had no idea what he's talking about. He didn't have an idea what he was talking about in currency trading.

• 3:30:46Jesse Michels?

  And, and yet, he knew to infiltrate Harvard's math department.

• 3:30:52Speaker 02

  Or somebody did.

• 3:30:53Jesse Michels?

  Somebody, that's what I'm saying. Somebody behind him knew that clearly, because what you just articulated about particle theory and number theory and those two.

• 3:31:03Speaker 02

  But nobody's thinking number theory, because it's, the emphasis is on the program on evolutionary dynamics. Martin Noack doesn't know anything about number theory.

• 3:31:15Speaker 02

  My claim is, is that who started the program in evolutionary dynamics? A different guy named Dick Gross, who's a number theorist. Hmm. And Harvard references an imaginative proposal by Benedict Gross and Jeffrey Epstein. Oh, so his initial contact was a number theorist. How interesting. So strange. And then he's, you know, he's funding Joyito and this, uh, you know, Bitcoin initiative. Well, that's about crypto. I'm just saying, look, I don't know what happened, but I hate saying it this way.

• 3:32:00Speaker 02

  Are there no smart people? Like a hundred of my friends in mathematics and physics should be on this thing. And they've, they've got everyone scared that to utter the words that are obvious to any one of us. Like, why, why were all of these super smart people hanging on Jeffrey Epstein's every word? So weird. Well, no, it's not weird. Have you ever noticed how interesting astrology becomes when it's explained to you by a woman in a really low cut dress? Right? Suddenly it's like, Virgo, I never knew that. Wow. Oh, retrograde, that makes everything make sense.

• 3:32:44Speaker 02

  When, when rich people are around, it has much the same effect. People blow smoke up rich people's backsides all the time. They, that is so insightful. That's what all these people were doing. We were all starved for funding because the Van of our Bush arrangement has been welched upon. And so you've got all of these starving ninjas who have skills that are pretty advanced and dangerous, fawning over this crazy guy because he's got an island and a jet.

• 3:33:21Jesse Michels?

  Where do you think, uh, moving on to higher ground? Where do you think all this UFO stuff goes? Because you have more official disclosures at a very high level going on than ever. You have rumors of Trump saying things. You hear smatterings of people, at least peripheral to the admin, pretty interested in the issue. Donald Trump Jr. interviewed Ross Colthart last year. You know, who's a UFO investigator journalist.

• 3:33:56Speaker 02

  Do you remember how Trump wanted to get to the bottom of the Epstein files?

• 3:34:00Jesse Michels?

  Yep.

• 3:34:02Speaker 02

  You could forgive me for wondering what happened to that zeal.

• 3:34:08Jesse Michels?

  Do you think the same thing will apply to secret physics?

• 3:34:11Speaker 02

  This is what people don't understand about Washington DC. You have all sorts of people who don't understand what Washington DC is or how it works, who outside of the Beltway form beliefs about what they're going to do once they get to Washington. And they change almost instantly.

• 3:34:30Jesse Michels?

  Well, it's like the drain the swamp guy turns out met his wife through Epstein. You know, it's this thing where I think in that world, everyone got tagged. And so maybe this is the same thing that goes on with the UFO stuff. I don't know, but like.

• 3:34:51Speaker 02

  There's something that will cause you not to want to reveal.

• 3:34:55Jesse Michels?

  Right, like it's somehow Trump gets implicated in the UFO thing in some weird way or I don't know.

• 3:35:02Speaker 05

  It's insanely lucrative to control instead of to disclose.

• 3:35:05Jesse Michels?

  Sure, it could be that. Yeah.

• 3:35:07Speaker 02

  Or maybe the idea is that whatever this information is, assume it's the cover story for a weapon system that is easy to create and completely dangerous. Like, I keep giving the example of a thing that doesn't exist. The thing that doesn't exist is a, is an energy beam. That can be focused on the opposite side of the planet at any particular latitude and longitude that you give it. So you point a mythological gun into the ground in a particular direction. You calculate the effect of the earth on the on on the beam that you and then you vaporize it.

• 3:35:50Speaker 02

  So you have somebody's cell phone coordinates. Suddenly that person is no more.

• 3:35:53Speaker 05

  This is like a scaler weapon in the ufology.

• 3:35:56Speaker 02

  I'm not going to talk garbage stuff. I'm just to say, imagine that this existed. Right? So you know that you can transmit energy and hurt something and you know that you can transmit neutrinos through an entire planet and they'll go through. You just don't know how to recombine neutrinos on the other side. Right? So, you know, it's theoretically, I don't want to get into it. Just trying to say, imagine you have some imagination. You say, if I can have a beam of neutrinos, because I could direct a charged particle and then I get a decay. And that gives me the momentum in this particular direction. Now can I refocus the neutrinos and get them to convert on the other side? And protect a particular, is there any way to induce that? That's a theoretical idea. I don't see any way of doing it.

• 3:36:41Speaker 02

  But what if you had such a weapon and it was easy?

• 3:36:46Speaker 02

  Now you'd say, okay, are you telling me that everyone on earth can build their own? And just point it and vaporize stuff? Right? That'd be terrifying. What if you could unhook the the true vacuum of the of the Higgs field? And get some kind of vacuum decay like? We don't know whether hidden in physics.

• 3:37:10Speaker 02

  Our power is so vast that anybody who sees what could happen keeps their mouth shut.

• 3:37:18Speaker 02

  We just don't know. Now, the one thing that I believe, and again, you guys don't have to to believe it. But I believe that if geometric unity is as rich as I say it is, doesn't even have to be correct. Just has to be rich.

• 3:37:35Speaker 02

  It is inconceivable to me that there is no interest in it from the very people who funded

• 3:37:44Speaker 02

  my education.

• 3:37:47Speaker 02

  Office of Naval Research funded my graduate education and the National Science Foundation founded funded my post doctoral position. And I believe I was put on a Department of Energy grant, which is very unusual for a mathematician because Isidore Singer had one. None of those people have any interest whatsoever in what I'm saying, which is fascinating because even if it's wrong, I wouldn't take the chance. It's a studied level of disinterest that doesn't really add up. Like, I can tell you lots of people whose theories are almost certainly wrong. If I were the government, I would want to keep tabs on every last one of the competent people. Doesn't matter whether they're wrong, they're just dangerous.

• 3:38:31Speaker 02

  What if they're right?

• 3:38:34Jesse Michels?

  Do you have a mental model on why this stuff is coming out more now? Post 2017, this New York Times article?

• 3:38:41Speaker 02

  Well, things are breaking. There was a regime that is breaking. Like, I was thinking about posting an interview between Brian Greene and Ed Witten that was done recently without editorial. Just to indicate how crazy the level of string theorist madness is because it's, you know, this phrase in Latin, resipso locut, or the thing speaks for itself. I don't have to throw potshots at it.

• 3:39:13Speaker 02

  The claim

• 3:39:16Speaker 02

  that, you know,

• 3:39:19Speaker 02

  string theory is about to figure it all out is a joke in and of itself. So imagine that that was the cock blocking mechanism to keep people from doing, you know, dangerous physics work as per Andreessen and Horvitz.

• 3:39:34Speaker 02

  It's expiring.

• 3:39:38Speaker 02

  And I think that a lot of things are happening right now because the old order that was set up to manage all this is two generations, three generations out from the architects. We had these genius administrators like Vannevar Bush.

• 3:39:55Speaker 02

  And they set up these structures and the structures worked pretty well. But then they didn't pass the knowledge of what the structures were and how all these tacit understandings and cryptic arrangements worked. So the modern people who've inherited the structures basically don't even understand what they're for.

• 3:40:12Speaker 02

  You know, I talked to the provost of a UC university, major research university. He had no idea how the laws had been changed to secretly benefit universities for doing particular kinds of work. So very often what happens is that the architects die and they they leave a zombie. We seem to be in a zombie era.

• 3:40:34Jesse Michels?

  So a little cargo cult and then you probably have people at the top freaking out, saying, we need to get in front of this and actually reorganize as our multipolar nuclear world gets more and more hot.

• 3:40:49Speaker 02

  But how strange that you can't talk to your own top people.

• 3:40:54Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, it's weird.

• 3:40:55Speaker 05

  And as it pertains to legacy program, the people at the top panicking might also be disappearing such that awareness of the problem could be dying.

• 3:41:04Jesse Michels?

  Well, I'm explaining modern UFO disclosure through this idea of, you know, national security that we would, we would actually try to get this stuff out. But yeah, it is this weird cloak and dagger, tongue in cheek, sort of like it's not over at all. It's still like, like even, you know, you, you mentioned this sort of, you know, theoretical directed energy weapon where you could take anybody out remotely in this perfectly precise way across the world. I don't know if you caught this part of the age of disclosure. Eric Davis says in 1989, we should have brought this up with him. 1989, the Soviets engaged in a UFO crash retrieval where they were able to derive a directed energy weapon from this particular craft.

• 3:41:49Jesse Michels?

  And That's a fascinating claim, right? Like, I don't know what to make of that. You know, how do you know that? A, B? So you are saying some of this stuff is functional and it works its way into weapons that we now know, you know, the Department of War are scaling up publicly. And so like this whole idea that we haven't made any progress is actually kind of bogus, but it's being used in these extremely dystopian ways.

• 3:42:19Speaker 02

  Okay, but let me just ask. How do we reconcile the fact that all three of us have talked to so many people? Which can't all be lying about what they're saying. It's just, I see no world in which that's possible. And nobody has any firsthand incontrovertible stuff that would make this a done deal. It does weirdly feel like the Epstein thing. You know, how is it that there is?

• 3:42:52Jesse Michels?

  Either a lot of people are implicated that are publicly appearing around this topic, who are talking about it and they're implicated, but they don't want to say they're implicated. Or the tip of the iceberg doesn't look like the rest of the iceberg. And intentional vagueness is being used with words like crash retrieval and biologics. And I don't err on that side of things, given how, just how high up the people are saying this stuff, how overwhelming the circumstantial evidence seems to be.

• 3:43:20Speaker 02

  It's overwhelming.

• 3:43:21Jesse Michels?

  It's overwhelming. But you have to think probabilistically. And I, you know, I always try to, you know, put a healthy check on people who are hardcore in UFO world, who are sure about discrete, you know, org charts in the reverse engineering program. Like, how can you be sure of anything? You know, I think you have to think probabilistically about all this stuff.

• 3:43:42Speaker 05

  This is not the most imaginative solution, but another alternative to reconcile that fact is that some of them are lying and they are firsthand.

• 3:43:49Jesse Michels?

  Well, that's what I was just saying.

• 3:43:50Speaker 05

  Because that's the red line, maybe.

• 3:43:52Speaker 02

  I think there might be. Telling stories that are like more than one about what could be going on so that we don't.

• 3:43:59Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, let's do it.

• 3:44:00Speaker 02

  That we don't get committed to one.

• 3:44:02Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 3:44:02Speaker 05

  Excellent idea.

• 3:44:03Jesse Michels?

  So. I think the taking everything at face value story is that there is this decades-long UFO crash retrieval and reverse engineering program. It probably existed prior to 1933, but it became formally instantiated in the 33 Magenta crash in Italy. This is all hypothetical. In the Magenta crash in Italy, and then that was transferred to the US under FDR. You had Roswell in 47, you had Trinity in 48. You have these sort of sequential nuclear-related UFO crashes. You have the Office of Global Access under the CIA in the early 2000s, under Doug Wolf,

• 3:44:43Jesse Michels?

  doing rapid response retrievals all over the world. And this kind of convoluted org chart structure where the Lockheed and Northrop's are the tip of the, you know, kind of the fingertips and CIA, you know, science and technology and DOE and, you know, DoD are kind of at the top. And so you could have that entire narrative and just take that at face value. I think another possibility would be something like aerial phenomena show up around nuclear weapons and energy grids. And that is this clear pattern.

• 3:45:27Jesse Michels?

  It's global, it's ubiquitous, it exists in the US, but it also exists totally outside the US. Those aerial phenomena also seem to be provoked by weird high-energy physics experiments. So lasers, high-energy lasers, you know, high-voltage experimentation, particle accelerators, things of that nature seem to attract this weird aerial phenomena. We don't really know what the aerial phenomena is. We actually have some prosaic, you know, human terrestrial physics breakthroughs that have led to novel propulsion modalities. From some of these kind of, you know, topological physics anomalies that we figured out mid-century.

• 3:46:12Jesse Michels?

  And we actually do have propulsion based on them. So we have, you know, real craft that seem like they fly like UFOs, but we're running this tech protection thing by intentionally conflating this aerial phenomena that is very, you know, bizarre and worthy of scientific inquiry, but we just don't understand. We are conflating that with just this, you know, kind of more exotic, black, um, you know, uh, not reverse engineering program, but, uh, uh, craft program that is, that is human craft. So that would be number two. And then number three is like Mick West territory or something where it's like, you know, there is no aerial phenomena around nuclear sites. You know, there are no anomalies there.

• 3:46:57Jesse Michels?

  All the topological physics, you know, Byfield, Brown, Ning Li stuff is all BS. Uh, you know, all, you know, conventional physics models, you know, are going to run the world for forever. And, um, you know, this is all a psyop. Like it's literally all like, you know, this crazy sort of, you know, government lunacy thing. I don't know. Would you guys say there's an option four or five that you'd like to add?

• 3:47:22Speaker 02

  Hard to say. So one possibility is let's imagine, let's imagine that the atomic weapons were not developed during war, but during peacetime inside of a national lab. It'd be a question about should we reveal that this is possible? Right? There would be a huge debate as to how to, how to do work on this thing. And whether we should reveal it to the world or should reserve it as a zero day exploit?

• 3:48:02Jesse Michels?

  So that would be option four.

• 3:48:04Speaker 02

  I guess, new taxonomy.

• 3:48:08Jesse Michels?

  Is that option agnostic of where the technology came from?

• 3:48:11Speaker 02

  Well, so imagine, for example, that the government figured out something in physics that isn't the whole thing. But it's powerful enough to do one or two things that haven't been done before. And we wanted that in reserve. You can imagine that the entire system would say, would you please stop digging? We want to keep the zero day exploit. It's a matter of national security. Don't make us reveal this.

• 3:48:37Jesse Michels?

  That thing, though, would need to be neatly adjacent to UFO crash retrievals. They would need to intersect.

• 3:48:44Speaker 02

  I don't want to talk about crash retrievals until I've been to one.

• 3:48:48Jesse Michels?

  But you know what I'm saying?

• 3:48:49Speaker 02

  No, I don't know what a crashed retrieval is.

• 3:48:51Jesse Michels?

  What I'm saying is if that's being used as passage material for some other secret weapons program, the two probably need to surface level look alike somewhat for that to be an effective cover.

• 3:49:04Speaker 02

  So that's, that's the thing, right?

• 3:49:09Speaker 02

  So you remember when we attacked Iran, we sent one squadron of B2 bombers in one direction, one another? That was my principle, an example of whenever we do something cool, we do something fake. So invasion of the Operation Overlord and D-Day and the beaches of Normandy was cool. And Operation Bodyguard and Fortitude were fake because we never actually invaded Norway, as we said we were going to do.

• 3:49:39Speaker 02

  This could be the fake program to something super cool.

• 3:49:45Speaker 02

  And another aspect of this, if we're going to just talk about crazy stupid theories, is there's a strategy with, I think, like malaria mosquitoes or where you release a bunch of sterilized males into the world. And sterilized males effectively mate with the females, but leave no offspring.

• 3:50:08Speaker 02

  And it's a way of controlling mosquitoes. One possibility is that one of the reasons we kicked all of the Americans out of our physics programs and science programs is that we wanted to sterilize the world so that it didn't catch up to us what we'd already done.

• 3:50:27Speaker 02

  It's a crazy idea, but why else should you be, you know, having 27% of your PhDs granted to Chinese nationals in sensitive areas? It just doesn't make any sense. So one possibility is that we use string theory to sterilize India. Let's say there are lots of Indian string theorists and they're not making any progress and they're extremely arrogant about string theory.

• 3:50:51Speaker 02

  You know, these are crazy ideas. Another possibility is somebody once said to me, or somebody said to me relatively recently, you know, Eric, you don't need to rely on the government. You can just go up and look for yourself. The keep idea being that you just need to get adjacent to sensitive places and you'll see these things everywhere.

• 3:51:13Speaker 02

  Like this isn't that big of a deal. They're always there.

• 3:51:16Jesse Michels?

  Well, that's what I always find so frustrating is for the, you know, the Mick West option, the Mick West scenario, the super skeptic thing.

• 3:51:27Jesse Michels?

  You spend like a few days on this or literally like you probably walk around one of these sites or something. You go to the bar near one of them. Something's going on. The amount of smoke without fire is insane.

• 3:51:40Speaker 02

  No, no, no. The question is, when you see smoke at this level, the question is, what is the nature of the fire? There are different fires.

• 3:51:46Jesse Michels?

  But there is.

• 3:51:47Speaker 02

  Or there's a smoke machine.

• 3:51:48Jesse Michels?

  Or there's a smoke.

• 3:51:49Speaker 02

  Right, right. Like in other words.

• 3:51:51Jesse Michels?

  Or there's a really good spoofing technology that we're all not aware of or something.

• 3:51:56Speaker 02

  Well, exactly. And so, you know, my feeling unfortunately is that the UFO world is so polluted that I just don't want to deal with it at all.

• 3:52:06Jesse Michels?

  Sure.

• 3:52:12Speaker 02

  Look, I believe we can leave.

• 3:52:16Speaker 02

  And if you believe you can leave, you have to imagine that you're being visited.

• 3:52:23Speaker 02

  So it makes sense for me that I'm being visited.

• 3:52:28Speaker 02

  I can't understand why they keep interacting with governments and nobody can get good footage. And we don't have more. But on the other hand, I would have to say that the Epstein story was pretty contained.

• 3:52:46Jesse Michels?

  And you were seen as a little kind of crazy. If you created a worldview out of the Epstein, like the, the, the, the pizza gate people seemed ridiculous. Four or five years ago.

• 3:52:57Speaker 02

  No, no, no, they didn't.

• 3:53:01Speaker 02

  Pizza gate looked to me like an amalgam.

• 3:53:07Speaker 02

  Something real, something fake. Like, for example, the particular pizza parlor.

• 3:53:15Speaker 02

  And the guy who shot up the roof and all that, you know, was perfect. You don't be like the guy who brings a gun into a pizza parlor and shoots the roof, thinking that he's tracking pedophiles. Also, what does it really mean pedophile? Like, do, do we even think about this? Is there such a clamoring to do horrible things to children and that these people are natural leaders of the world?

• 3:53:38Jesse Michels?

  Well, now we're getting into weird territory because not only was pedophilia, which alone is just disgusting, disgust in the context of Epstein, but like weird, like conditioning rituals and things to like dissociate.

• 3:53:58Speaker 02

  This isn't weird at all. This is normal. You see.

• 3:54:05Speaker 02

  It used to be that homosexuality could play the role of pedophilia. That two gay guys would be so terrified of having their secret revealed that they'd be willing to do almost anything to avoid that revelation.

• 3:54:29Speaker 05

  It's a stain that can be used, weaponized.

• 3:54:32Speaker 02

  Well, but I would say utilized.

• 3:54:34Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 3:54:34Speaker 02

  Like hazing rituals, it's easy to see them as brutal, but that's not the function they serve. It's like people don't understand what the mob is. The mob is a contract enforcement service for enterprises that cannot use the courts. It's not violent because it's recreationally violent. It's not violent because these people love violence. The idea is you have to enforce a drug contract or a loan sharking contract, you know, or gambling, somebody has to pay up.

• 3:55:05Speaker 05

  So the notion would be pedophilia was used as an enforcement system.

• 3:55:09Speaker 02

  Pedophilia is trust.

• 3:55:11Speaker 05

  Right.

• 3:55:12Speaker 02

  And nobody wants to say that, but that's what I think it is.

• 3:55:15Speaker 05

  You force people in that circle to commit these crimes and then...

• 3:55:19Speaker 02

  How do I know, how do I know I can trust person A? It's always a question. Do we come from the same ethnic group?

• 3:55:26Speaker 05

  That's not trust, that's black, that's low trust.

• 3:55:28Speaker 02

  No.

• 3:55:28Speaker 05

  It's blackmail.

• 3:55:29Speaker 02

  No.

• 3:55:31Speaker 02

  It's consequence. It's shared consequence. And the key point is shared consequence is a resource and a ritual. And all of these things are used to direct that resource. What you're seeing in the Epstein world is a high trust network.

• 3:55:50Speaker 05

  I think it's, yeah, I guess it's an enforcement network. It's like a, you know, made man mafia system.

• 3:55:55Speaker 02

  Correct.

• 3:55:56Speaker 05

  There's an email from the girlfriend that alleges that he got in deeper than he meant to. He was told to do this. He didn't really mean any of it. It just came out in the latest trench and it speaks to this notion of an enforcement campaign, an enforcement infrastructure.

• 3:56:13Speaker 02

  But my claim is, is that in general, most of us are unfamiliar with how effective silent systems work.

• 3:56:23Speaker 02

  If you think about the Volacci papers and, you know, how the mob lost Omerta and the innovation of the Rico acts and all that kind of stuff. That was about, I think that the rule was that you killed every informant up to second cousins.

• 3:56:41Jesse Michels?

  Jesus Christ.

• 3:56:42Speaker 02

  Yeah, like completely over the top and insane.

• 3:56:45Jesse Michels?

  Fuck.

• 3:56:46Speaker 02

  But that's how it worked.

• 3:56:49Speaker 02

  And what was the, what was the way that these people referred to each other as men of honor? Honor is the proxy system. Of course, I'm going to honor you and you're going to honor me because it's too dangerous. It's too dangerous to contemplate anything else. My guess is, is that right now, there's no one that can be hung out to dry because the first person who gets hung out to dry, so Bill Clinton saying, of course, I'd love to talk to Congress, bring them on.

• 3:57:14Jesse Michels?

  It's crazy.

• 3:57:16Speaker 02

  Well, why is that? I don't think he wants to talk to Congress. What I think he wants to do is to say, if you make me the fall guy, think about, think about what you're saying.

• 3:57:25Jesse Michels?

  Hmm, it's a little shot across the bow.

• 3:57:28Speaker 02

  I think it, I think Trump's, Trump's dump of these documents was three million shots across the bow.

• 3:57:34Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, I think so too. Also, we should note, this was probably the sanitized version of these documents.

• 3:57:43Speaker 02

  No, no, no, this isn't even the sanitized version of those documents. They've also set up the idea of, okay, well, these three million of the last year are going to ever go, but the other, the three million. So then what, what is everybody going to do? They're going to chant, we want the other three million. Okay, okay, fine, fine, we'll give you the last of them. And you just fell into the trap.

• 3:58:03Speaker 02

  Who said there were six million documents?

• 3:58:05Jesse Michels?

  Right.

• 3:58:06Speaker 02

  Tell me something. If this guy ran a hedge fund, that was a multi-billion dollar currency trading hedge fund, how many documents does a hedge fund throw off just due to compliance?

• 3:58:19Jesse Michels?

  Right.

• 3:58:21Speaker 02

  Nobody's making any sense at all.

• 3:58:25Speaker 02

  What you're seeing is a bunch of deeply grooved people not thinking for themselves.

• 3:58:31Speaker 02

  And they're, they're happy to repeat the heterodox version of the script that they're handed, but it's not the heterodox who are writing that.

• 3:58:42Jesse Michels?

  It's really crazy. Well,

• 3:58:45Jesse Michels?

  I'm officially demoralized and depressed.

• 3:58:48Speaker 02

  Don't do that, Jesse.

• 3:58:49Jesse Michels?

  No, I appreciate, I mean, sometimes, you know, the, the truth sucks and you're a very incisive thinker. And you have a way of elucidating things. Sometimes they're dark truths and realities that others don't. So I, I really appreciate your brain and um.

• 3:59:07Speaker 02

  But can we just finish it positive?

• 3:59:09Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, let's do it. Yeah. How do we do that?

• 3:59:11Speaker 02

  Well, if you don't mind, imagine that we threw off this UFO yoke. And imagine that we just pushed on one, one particular place, which is Eric Davis saying, we have things that defy the laws of physics and no physicists.

• 3:59:29Speaker 02

  Imagine that the UFO community got really smart instead of doing what it always does and said, we're going to push on this one thing. How can you be threatened by craft that do not obey the laws of physics? And make sure that the one type of person who could possibly help with this is to be found nowhere on the scene. Right? So the opportunity is, is that if Tulsi Gabbard or J D Vance or any one of these people sees this and says, I could change that tomorrow. I could snap my fingers and get an allocation of several million dollars. I could get a few theoretical physicists.

• 4:00:12Speaker 02

  Would change absolutely everything because one of the top theories has to be that the reason you can't have a theoretical physicist on this is that there are no craft that defy the laws of physics.

• 4:00:24Jesse Michels?

  I hope they put that to the test because Eric Davis is actually on record as part of James Fox's last movie saying, if you give me blanket immunity, I will say everything I know. And so I, I, I hope that they are able to just, you know. Dress these people down nicely.

• 4:00:42Speaker 02

  We could, in a, in a, in a better world that we're not that far from, push to have the one group of people who could crack this case for us, the detectives of our choice inserted. They were trained on our dollars. They're supported on our dollars. We have an arrangement with them. It's basically like not calling Delta Force when you've got a hostage rescue situation.

• 4:01:04Jesse Michels?

  Can I up the ante?

• 4:01:05Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 4:01:06Jesse Michels?

  An interdisciplinary symposium where maybe the physicists are at the top. They're hanging out, but you also might have some other people.

• 4:01:15Speaker 02

  Don't bring in the mushrooms and the consciousness. Let's just do theoretical physics and leave the rest for Burning Man.

• 4:01:24Jesse Michels?

  Fair enough. Well, to be continued. That's its whole other debate we can have or whatever. But I agree with the Burning Man issue. Okay. Well, thank you, Eric. This was awesome. Jack, appreciate you. It's a lot of fun. I think this is going to be a historic episode.

• 4:01:39Speaker 02

  Thanks, Jets.

• 4:01:40Jesse Michels?

  All right.

• 4:01:41Speaker 02

  Cool.

• 4:02:14Speaker 00

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' health care to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the HouseMajorityPac.com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.