Proof That NASA Censored Moon Photos (and The Astronauts Knew!)

Our American Alchemist this week is Maaneli "Max" Derakhshani. Check out Max's work here https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maaneli-Derakhshani Sign Up With Our Sponsors Below For Exclusive Alchemy Deals! Dose: New customers can save 35% on your first month of subscription by going to https://dosedaily.co/JESSE or entering JESSE at checkout. ZBiotics: Go to https://zbiotics.com/JESSE and use JESSE at checkout for 15% off any first time orders of ZBiotics probiotics. The Perfect Jean: The Perfect Jean: F*%k your khakis and get The Perfect Jean 15% off with the code JESSE15 at https://theperfectjean.nyc/JESSE15 #theperfectjeanpod Theoretical physicist Maaneli Derakhshani, a Utrecht PhD working on lunar anomalies, discovered that NASA holds two versions of the same Apollo 14 photograph: in one, a blue orb hangs in the sky above astronaut Ed Mitchell, and in the other it has been redacted out. He has found the same across other Apollo missions, and Ken Johnston Sr., a former NASA consultant and pilot who worked with the astronauts, says he was ordered to destroy early negatives showing things that weren't supposed to be there. -------------------------- 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 -------------------------- 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 ➤ https://jobs.gusto.com/boards/american-alchemy-3758eda5-237b-45f1-b043-da80a300714e Sponsor Inquiries ➤ [email protected] Media Inquiries ➤ [email protected] Timestamps: 0:00 - Introduction 2:28 - Maaneli's Background 3:54 - Stony Brook, Renaissance, and Brookhaven 10:45 - Clementine and the Space Act 15:03 - Does NASA Know More? 18:52 - Apollo 17 Blue Lights 21:22 - Sponsors (DOSE) 22:51 - Apollo 17 Metallic Object 25:50 - Cosmic Rays and Lens Flare 28:58 - Buzz Aldrin's Apollo 11 Sighting 35:45 - Cernan and Mitchell's Experiences 39:32 - Enforced Secrecy and Dean Radin 41:11 - Freemasonry Inside NASA 43:26 - NASA Insiders and Gary McKinnon 46:03 - Ken Johnston and Archive Inconsistencies 51:59 - Shuttle Footage and Code Words 57:24 - Wishbone Structure and Lunar Erosion 1:00:37 - Withholding and the Brookings Report 1:02:42 - Brandenburg, Mars, and Carl Sagan 1:05:00 - Sagan's Two Sides and the Face on Mars 1:10:53 - Menzel and Narrative Management 1:11:37 - Villarroel and the Palomar Transients 1:16:23 - Fast Walkers and DSP Satellites 1:20:12 - Armstrong's Ecuador Expedition 1:21:45 - The Phobos Monolith and Arthur C. Clarke 1:26:51 - Mars Anomalies and NASA's Silence 1:29:50 - Blue Book, Condon, and AARO 1:32:27 - Sponsors (ZBiotics) 1:33:44 - Sponsors (The Perfect Jean) 1:35:02 - Compton-Belkovich Heat Anomaly 1:38:58 - Nuclear Sites and UFO Correlation 1:40:49 - Aristarchus Crater 1:44:06 - Lunex and the Secret Space Program 1:48:23 - Is the Moon Hollow? 1:51:21 - Moon Formation Anomalies 1:55:08 - Directed Panspermia and Mars Origins 1:57:53 - The Moon Landing Question 2:01:37 - Jim Keller's Hoax Case 2:03:15 - Getting Into Parapsychology 2:07:32 - The Ganzfeld Protocol and Psi Statistics 2:13:37 - Spacetime Metric Engineering 2:19:02 - Joining the Legacy Program 2:21:01 - Why No Theoretical Physicists? 2:26:17 - Teller, Lazar, and Townsend Brown 2:27:54 - The Galileo iPhone Analogy 2:29:40 - The Cumulative Case for ET 2:33:26 - Closing Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

• 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

  This is Houston. Say again, Seven? We have a call here at 10 o'clock time.

• 0:36Speaker 02

  I think that there are people in NASA who know more. Ken Johnston, Sr., he says he was told to destroy a bunch of first-generation Apollo negatives because they had some anomalies on them and they're not supposed to be there and they don't want to release them publicly.

• 0:56Speaker 02

  You see some bluish metallic-looking streaks that are very bright in a certain area. And if you zoom in, you see that it almost looks like an insectoid-type probe-like metallic object.

• 1:10Speaker 02

  Buzz Aldrin probably knows more than he can say. Edgar Mitchell probably knew more than he could say. They've been observing us and here for quite some time. And he says Ed Mitchell confessed to him that, yeah, we saw these blue orb-like lights following us or from the lunar surface.

• 1:28Speaker 03

  It's really wild how many early astronauts were Freemasons. They were all Freemasons.

• 1:34Speaker 03

  There are all these apocryphal stories of Neil Armstrong saying we were told not to come back to the moon. Armstrong was overheard at a party saying that. Really? Yeah.

• 1:43Speaker 02

  NASA knows a lot more about UFOs or UAP than they're letting on, even still today. They actually have a term for UFOs in space. It's fast walkers. It's a code word.

• 1:54Speaker 01

  Is that the booster or is that an actual sighting?

• 1:57Speaker 02

  What's being shown there is craft of some type exhibiting extrahuman propulsion capabilities.

• 2:07Speaker 02

  It's very plausible that our solar system has been visited by ET visitors in the past.

• 2:17Speaker 02

  And if that's the case and they built some sort of a structure, it would be highly eroded by now.

• 2:23Speaker 02

  There are a number of these images from Mars Global Surveyor showing what looked like they could well be maybe the skeletal structure of fossilized large forms of life on Mars. Wow.

• 2:36Speaker 04

  Ignition frequency five.

• 2:40Speaker 01

  How is this possible?

• 2:42Speaker 05

  Nothing too unusual about that.

• 2:46Speaker 05

  Their existence cannot longer be denied.

• 2:58Speaker 03

  For the audience, what is your background?

• 3:02Speaker 02

  Well, I am a physicist by training. I did a PhD at Utrecht University in the Netherlands and stints at Clemson and Stony Brook University in physics. I also have worked in the area of philosophy of physics, which examines more of the foundational assumptions underlying our mainstream physical theories. And over the years on the side, I've also dabbled in statistical analysis of parapsychology studies, specifically the Ganzfeld approach and the remote viewing approach. So I've published a bit in that area, too. And most recently, I've been very interested in and involved

• 3:43Speaker 02

  in or doing research on evidence of anomalies, anomalous phenomena, structures, formations on the surface of the moon as well as Mars. And I've recently given a number of presentations on that topic, mainly about lunar anomalies and potential evidence of technological signatures, non-human technological signatures on the moon's surface for Ross Colthart and his show on News Nation. So first, if we brighten this image, two anomalous things show up. We see this weird cutout or irregularity in the brightened image. A blue light? And a bluish something, yeah.

• 4:24Speaker 03

  You did an amazing job. And you go through all of these lunar anomalies and from these hazy lights where it's unclear what the source is to heat signatures that seem pretty anomalous to astronaut sightings and encounters, to structures, real structures, on the backside of the moon. So yeah, I'm excited to get into all of that with you. You said something else in your initial background introduction, which is that you were at Stony Brook. Stony Brook, as you may or may not know, is the center of a lot of conspiracies. Sure.

• 5:03Speaker 03

  My former colleague, Eric Weinstein, says that Renaissance Technologies and Jim Simons might be the center of the theoretical physics component of the UFO legacy program.

• 5:15Speaker 06

  You've got Brookhaven National Laboratory. You've got State University of New York at Stony Brook, a mid-level university with an out-of-this-world math and physics program. And you've got a hedge fund that makes more money than anybody can possibly imagine.

• 5:29Speaker 03

  And if it is, then you would have to say that Stony Brook is the feeder for that academically. Is that the case?

• 5:37Speaker 02

  Well, I've been inside Renaissance Technologies campus a couple of times as an undergraduate for some lectures or colloquiums that they would have. And I spoke to Jim Simons a couple of times when he was alive, when I was an undergrad. To me, if it really were the hub of some sort of ultra-top-secret UFO crash retrieval or ET UFO crash retrieval program, with all the top physicists clustered there, my suspicion would be that it would be much harder to actually go inside of the complex or there would be maybe some information would be leaked.

• 6:21Speaker 02

  I mean, I interacted heavily with basically all of the leading professors of theoretical physics at Stony Brook at the time, 2004 to 2008, in the Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics and the math department. I was president of the math club for a couple of years. So I spoke to the various prominent mathematicians. I never came across any hint or trace of any sort of interest in UFOs or their research in fundamental theoretical physics from my vantage point then never seemed to tie into anti-gravity or the possibility of that or faster-than-light travel or warp drives or wormholes or any of that.

• 7:06Speaker 02

  People did, many people did things on like string theory, for example, maybe general relativity. But much more abstract, mathematical. And from my vantage point today as a professional theoretical physicist, I don't really see how their research could sort of tie into that. So I'm generally skeptical that Renaissance Technologies is a hub of that. My suspicion is that if there are these retrieved craft that the US military or other government agencies have, the reason that leading theoretical physicists are not brought into these programs, or it may be like only very few are,

• 7:48Speaker 02

  is because the intelligence agencies, the deep state of the Department of Defense or whatever, they're extremely concerned about secrecy. And many theorists don't have a military background like maybe theorists did 50 years ago or so. Maybe there's a question of their politics and whether or not they can be trusted to keep secrets of a certain kind. My guess is that secrecy trumps the credentials or the abilities. And that's why there's this kind of this separation between the two.

• 8:25Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 8:26Speaker 02

  That's my guess.

• 8:27Speaker 03

  Sure, yeah. And I have no idea if Weinstein is right. I will say a few data points, high level, that maybe point to corroboration for his theory is I think at Renaissance, you sign these super hardcore NDAs for life.

• 8:44Speaker 03

  I believe his idea wouldn't be necessarily that Renaissance itself is the vital, like they're working on craft or something. But I think he had a conversation with Jim Simons once, who was like, you'd be disappointed if he knew how we made our money. They've made 30% year-over-year return since 1989, the Medallion Fund, and it's like $100 billion plus.

• 9:05Speaker 06

  I gave him this entire theory that all of modern neoclassical economics is actually differential geometric. He says, wow, Eric, that's brilliant. If you knew what we were actually doing, you'd be very disappointed.

• 9:19Speaker 03

  And so like, is it like a slush fund where they're like putting the money to work and on some of these things? Brookhaven National Labs, I believe there's a crash, a UFO crash in 1992, where everybody in that town, South Haven, basically saw the National Labs itself recover this craft, collect it and like take it into the National Labs.

• 9:43Speaker 07

  It's about seven o'clock at night and being November, it was full dark and all of a sudden it was lighter out than it is right now.

• 9:53Speaker 03

  Brookhaven National Labs is the site of, you know, the largest particle accelerator in the US as well called Cosmatron. And so it seems like UFOs seem to show up around particle accelerators as well. So I have no idea. And then for the final data point would be David Spiegel, who is head of the Simons Science Foundation, ended up in 2022 on the NASA review panel. He was kind of chairing it. So it, look, I, I have been on the other end of, you know, bullshit conspiracies and I know they're not, you can, I can cherry pick data points for any, anything and say it's real. And so I don't want to say that I, I'm, I'm below 50% even with all of those data points. But do you think there's anything possibly there?

• 10:39Speaker 02

  Guess it's always possible because I didn't actually work at Renaissance. So I wasn't privy to maybe whatever all the secrets they have or, you know. So I have to keep an open mind about that. And I can't really refute the revelations and age of disclosure from people like Hal Puthoff and Eric Davis and others about a legacy UFO program. So I, I think as an honest scientist, I have to keep an open mind that there might be something there. I just didn't see it. But just in terms of what I saw, I didn't see any, I couldn't see a connection or a trace.

• 11:15Speaker 03

  Yeah, yeah, yeah. Tell me about the Clementine mission and tell me about the public facing, you know, messaging around its purpose and then maybe what it was actually for.

• 11:27Speaker 02

  Yeah. Clementine was a joint Department of Defense NASA mission to send a probe to the moon in 1994 or so. It wasn't made publicly widely known that there was this joint mission. And the, the publicly stated purpose of the mission, according to NASA and the DoD, was to scientifically study the surface of the moon, its mineralogy, its morphology and broad things like that. There's still, there are still documents that you can find from NASA and DoD about the Clementine mission's objectives. And that's what you see. And it did apparently

• 12:08Speaker 02

  discover water ice at the poles of the moon as like a first discovery. But that was at least publicly, the only stated objective of the mission is just to do scientific analysis and maybe to test out certain new sensors in space. But one of the former deputy managers, a deputy manager to the like missions manager of the Clementine mission, his name is Dr. John Brandenburg, who I know you've interviewed previously. He is on record in 2014 in a documentary

• 12:49Speaker 02

  called Aliens on the Moon, like the truth exposed. But it was a serious interview with Brandenburg and Brandenburg says that the Clementine mission was basically a photo reconnaissance mission to see if someone was building bases on the moon that we didn't know about and were they expanding them. That's almost a verbatim quote of what he said in that interview. And since 2014, to me, what's interesting is that nobody has come out from Clementine or DoD or from either the NASA or DoD side of the Clementine mission to say that he's

• 13:27Speaker 02

  lying or that he's saying bullshit or anything of that sort. And he had a serious position in the mission as a deputy manager. That's confirmed. That's all publicly available information. And so, and then the fact that the DoD and NASA did this mission together jointly raises questions as to why DoD would be so interested in sending a probe to the moon in 1994 to take images of the surface. And certainly if what he said is true, that would be an obvious like motivation for the DoD to do that. There's also just the observation that NASA and the Department of Defense have always been very tightly linked in law through

• 14:09Speaker 02

  the Space Act of 1958, which created NASA by Congress, the Congressional Act. Essentially, the act says in many, many parts that NASA is tightly overseen by the DoD and its space missions and objectives have to be in the interests of US national security. And if any discoveries are made in its space explorations that could threaten national security, that information can be withheld from the public and from Congress, except those members of Congress that are, you know, qualified to see it. And so essentially NASA is an arm

• 14:47Speaker 02

  or an extension of the Department of Defense in law. And so if there was something that NASA saw, maybe in the Apollo missions or the lunar or the pre Apollo missions to the moon with lunar orbiter, for example, it would make sense that they would want to take a closer look perhaps and do some sort of a joint mission and that they wouldn't tell the public what the true reason was. If anybody from the Clementine mission wants to come out and refute Brandenburg, I'd invite them to do so. But so far I have not seen that. And that to me is what's interesting, combined with the obvious legal incentives to not be

• 15:27Speaker 02

  totally transparent with the public about some type of discovery along those lines.

• 15:33Speaker 03

  Yeah. Do you think NASA just knows a whole lot more about all this stuff than meets the eye? I mean, I sort of go back and forth there too. With this new Department of War drop, with either been kind of a series, but the first batch really focused on kind of space exploration and astronaut encounters and basically forced Jared Isaacman, who's the current NASA admin, to say, yet, you know, we're not talking about, you know, reverse engineering UFOs necessarily, or, you know, confirmed alien bodies, you know, nothing like that. But these sightings were unexplained, which is a huge update because, you know, from 1958 until that point, you know, for, for, for decades, NASA had just been gaslighting

• 16:17Speaker 03

  the public. There was no budging on, on, you know, whether this, they were all, everything had an explanation or everything was sort of to be laughed off. So yeah, do you think NASA knows a lot more about UFOs than meets the eye? Or at least has a lot more data than they're sort of admitting?

• 16:35Speaker 02

  I think that there are people in NASA, probably not the very top, not necessarily Jared Isaacman, but maybe people below him who've been there for many decades, who know more. I mean, I could name probably a few names here and there as my, as to who I suspect probably knows more about this.

• 16:55Speaker 03

  Please.

• 16:56Speaker 02

  I, I don't know if I should because there's some, maybe some effort to talk to them in private and try to get some of this information out.

• 17:03Speaker 03

  Well, I think, I think, I think you're, you naming them only helps with that. Yeah. And I don't think you're calling them out necessarily because there should be some sort of truth and reconciliation process, but can you say?

• 17:16Speaker 02

  What I've heard is that certain people like Pete Worden.

• 17:24Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 17:25Speaker 02

  At NASA, know a lot more about NASA's knowledge about the UFO phenomenon or about astronauts' observations of anomalies in space and.

• 17:38Speaker 03

  What was Pete Worden's position at NASA? Was he?

• 17:41Speaker 02

  I don't remember his official title, but it was a fairly high, I believe, associate administrator position of some sort. But he was heavily involved in the Clementine mission, from what I understand. And there are public documents that also like mentioned this. So.

• 17:57Speaker 03

  Well, he also, I believe, connected Tom DeLonge and General Neil McCaslin. This is public information. So, you know, it seems like he had some sort of interest in UFOs. And I think he had, was involved as an admin in the breakthrough prize as well.

• 18:13Speaker 02

  Right.

• 18:13Speaker 03

  Around sort of, you know, exotic signals and space and stuff. And I think he moved to like Belgium or something, but I, I ordered a book of his that he wrote in like the early 2000s. That was very strange as well.

• 18:29Speaker 02

  I think it was Luxembourg.

• 18:31Speaker 03

  Yeah, maybe Luxembourg. Yeah. Okay. That makes sense. Yeah. It's, it's, it's really interesting. So, so, so he might know a little bit more.

• 18:38Speaker 02

  Yeah, I would suspect that he would be one person. Probably there are past administrators at NASA. I suspect that some astronauts.

• 18:47Speaker 03

  Maybe.

• 18:47Speaker 02

  Maybe Dan Golden, maybe Bill Nelson.

• 18:50Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 18:52Speaker 02

  I suspect Buzz Aldrin probably knows more than he can say. I suspect Edgar Mitchell probably knew more than he could say publicly. I suspect it's, I mean, maybe even Dr. Harrison Schmidt, the, one of the last men to walk on the moon for Apollo 17, Eugene Cernan. Schmidt is alive, by the way.

• 19:14Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 19:14Speaker 02

  And, but he's never commented on any of the NASA UAP file drops.

• 19:19Speaker 03

  Interesting.

• 19:20Speaker 02

  Which is, I would love to see what he thinks. And because also I've found a number of UAP type anomalies in photographs from Apollo 17, taken from the lunar surface, not just the trio of blue lights that was released in the first tranche. I had discovered that also like a year or so, more than a year ago on my own and made it public in certain forms.

• 19:44Speaker 03

  What are those exactly from Apollo 17?

• 19:48Speaker 02

  There's just a photograph from, taken from the lunar surface. I think the frame number is AS 1714722470. And there's a hill, a lunar hill, and then above the lunar hill, a little bit to the left in the black lunar sky. If you zoom in on this photograph and the raw scan is available. So a scan, digital scan of the raw image is available. You see three solidish looking blue lights, almost equally distant from each other, and in a very small area of the lunar sky. And they're just there. And if you

• 20:31Speaker 02

  brighten the image a little bit, increase the exposure to brighten it a little bit, you see that the center region or the region in between gets significantly brighter than the rest of the lunar sky. And that's just that maybe those three bluish lights are perhaps attached to something and not just three independent lights. When NASA released this image in the first tranche, there was a description about it next to the image and they say in the description that the Department of War and NASA have opened a special investigation for this particular image because preliminary analysis suggests that these lights are part of

• 21:14Speaker 02

  probably part of a physical object. And so they said that they've acquired the original film from Apollo 17 of this particular image. And they're going to analyze it and report the results. But there are many more like that and even more, I think, impressive UAP anomalies from Apollo 17 as well as earlier Apollo missions. Images taken from the lunar surface that NASA has not, for some reason, released in the last two tranches. I'm not even sure our Isaacman Administrator Isaacman is aware of them, but there are even more impressive examples.

• 21:51Speaker 03

  Outside of the three, the three blue lights and then what else?

• 21:56Speaker 03

  Before we dive into this wild episode, I want to give a huge thank you to one of today's sponsors. Dose. Dose for your liver is an extremely high quality drinkable supplement. It tastes absolutely delicious. It helps you feel your best and all you have to do is take it once a day. As you might know, I love nerding out and finding the best new health and wellness hacks. And it's super easy to overlook the biggest internal organ in your body, the liver. It's your body's most metabolically active organ. It runs over 500 functions every single day. It processes everything you consume. It filters it daily and it supports your energy levels and your digestion. What I appreciate most about dose is that they actually have serious research behind it.

• 22:41Speaker 03

  Two double-blind placebo-controlled studies showing positive impact on liver enzyme levels and liver function. Having data like that is very rare in the supplement space. And it's the reason I was fired up to work with them. New customers can save 35% on your first month of subscription by going to dosedaily.co/jesse or entering Jesse at checkout. Again, that's D O S E D A I L Y dot C O slash Jesse or J E S S E for 35% off your first month subscription. I want to thank dose so much for sponsoring the show. Now, back to today's episode.

• 23:21Speaker 02

  There are even more impressive examples.

• 23:23Speaker 03

  Outside of the three, the three blue lights and then what else?

• 23:26Speaker 02

  From Apollo 17, they're on the lunar surface. And I forget the exact frame number for this particular one, but I can find it later. They've done a lunar excursion in the lunar rover because you can see the tracks of the lunar rover on the

• 23:49Speaker 02

  on the surface. And up in the black lunar sky,

• 23:55Speaker 02

  you see some bluish metallic looking streaks that are very bright in a certain area. And if you zoom in, zoom in on it, it looks like a physical metallic object of some kind. If you brighten the image a little bit, you see that it almost looks like an insectoid type probe-like metallic bluish metallic object.

• 24:20Speaker 03

  Wow.

• 24:20Speaker 02

  And as you brighten the image further, you see that the rest of the lunar sky becomes this kind of reddish orange-ish bright cascade of like lights or it's very, it just becomes like a noisy reddish orange color. But there's a black envelope surrounding this particular object in the black lunar sky.

• 24:47Speaker 02

  And well, it's sort of surprising and it also

• 24:53Speaker 02

  it really does look like there's a physical thing in the sky that's maybe reflecting sunlight from the correct direction in the, in the image and that

• 25:03Speaker 02

  somehow, for some reason, light does not the way it emits light from the camera produces the sort of envelope-like distortion. I'm not quite sure what it is, but it to me, it looks like the most compelling example. And it's, it was probably photographed either by Eugene Cernan or Harrison Schmidt because they were the only two that went on the lunar surface. NASA has not released that one. In that same image, there's also another similar looking object just above it with the similar enveloping effect when you brighten the image too. And they also both have contrails. When you brighten it, you see that there are these like debris tails in each of them.

• 25:45Speaker 02

  And you see a similar thing about, I think, eight frames later in that same image sequence in the lunar sky, a different metallic looking object. You brighten it, it has an envelope and it has a trail.

• 25:59Speaker 02

  In between, you don't see anything, but we don't know how much time elapsed between the different frames taken. So all of this is a mystery, but it's all there in NASA's public image archives. And NASA doesn't comment on any of these things in the actual image archives. It's just there.

• 26:15Speaker 03

  What's the conventional explanation?

• 26:17Speaker 02

  There's none publicly stated, at least for that one or for many of the others.

• 26:22Speaker 03

  Can you even come up with one? Like if I were to like give this to like a Neil deGrasse Tyson, like what would he say?

• 26:28Speaker 02

  Okay. If you give this to Neil deGrasse Tyson or probably Avi Loeb or Mick West or whoever, my guess is they'll say this is probably

• 26:40Speaker 02

  either some, either a camera artifact of some kind. Maybe like an electrical spark after the camera, after the image was actually taken. That produces this weird optical effect on the frame. Maybe it's a cosmic ray. I know Avi Loeb has actually suggested this as the most likely explanation of the trio of blue lights in Apollo 17. That cosmic rays just hit the, hit the frame or hit the film. I guess in equally distant points on the film in a very small region of the sky. And they produce that effect.

• 27:23Speaker 02

  Those are the two most common or sometimes people say, well, it's lens flare. That's another possibility. So you know what lens flare is? There is lens flare in some of the Apollo images, but to me, they don't look anything like that. As far as cosmic rays, I think that is an improbable explanation for a number of reasons. One is that cosmic rays, and this has been studied by various astrophotographers. NASA has studied this as well.

• 27:54Speaker 03

  Yeah. Why is that implausible? Cause Neil deGrasse Tyson came out with specifically kind of a debunk of Apollo 17 sightings.

• 28:03Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 28:03Speaker 03

  Sighting basically that it was like case closed cosmic rays. And, you know, I found it to be smug in tone, but also somewhat substantive and like, I was like, okay, maybe he's right.

• 28:15Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 28:15Speaker 03

  So yeah, why, why do you think that that's implausible?

• 28:19Speaker 02

  When cosmic rays hit digital cameras or enter digital cameras, they produce thin, long streaks typically because they don't come in orthogonally or perpendicular to the camera sensor. They typically come in at an angle. And the effect produces thin, long streaks and NASA has produced many of its own examples of cosmic rays in various digital images and they're thin, long streaks of some kind. They're not these solid bluish dots in the sky.

• 28:53Speaker 02

  Also, radiation tends to produce a fogging effect on film and that's not observed in these Apollo 17 frames.

• 29:02Speaker 02

  And then also just the odds of cosmic rays impinging on the film equally distant in a very small region of the black lunar sky is I would say statistically, a very improbable event. Yet you see a trio of lights like that, not just in Apollo 17, you also see it in Apollo 11. There's a frame showing that as well, a similar such trio.

• 29:28Speaker 03

  Apollo 11 is so weird because you have Buzz Aldrin openly admitting in multiple interviews that you had this thing following them. And it's, it's, he then kind of dismisses it and he goes, oh, I went back to sleep and didn't report it because we would have been looked at as sort of ridiculous. But he's admitting that it was like a UFO, like it was by its very nature inherently unidentified. And he will openly say this as much as he, you know, was sort of, it seemed like kind of trained or like, you know, forced into the orientation of being anti UFOs. He will say, there was a thing following us and I don't know what it was.

• 30:07Speaker 08

  I saw this illumination that was moving with respect to the stars. We were smart enough to not say, Houston, there's a light out there that's following us.

• 30:19Speaker 08

  So technically becomes an unidentified flying object.

• 30:24Speaker 02

  He said this in one interview, he said, I don't know what it was. In subsequent interviews, um, one in particular on Larry King Live in like 2007, where James Fox was there too, and Stanton Friedman, he, he says, well, I'm now almost certain that it was a panel of like the S4B rocket booster that just broke off and was just moving along with us.

• 30:48Speaker 08

  We saw one of the four panels, the 99.999, and these are, uh, three guys who have flown in space twice and have looked out at the stars and all sorts of things.

• 31:00Speaker 03

  But the S4B was 6,000 miles away.

• 31:03Speaker 02

  Yeah. And so he, the, the explanation he seems to propose is that one of these panels, I guess, got free and just kind of drifted along with the Apollo capsule for multiple days as it was moving towards the moon. I don't think that's a plausible explanation.

• 31:17Speaker 03

  It's completely implausible unless it's like its own gravitational source, which it's not big enough to be in free space. That doesn't make any sense.

• 31:23Speaker 02

  Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me, uh, either. And

• 31:27Speaker 03

  Like unless it was super close and like literally like kind of attached or something because it, I, I, it doesn't really make sense.

• 31:34Speaker 02

  No, I agree.

• 31:36Speaker 03

  Um, yeah. And then, and then that Larry King interview was also very interesting because James Fox called them out on another sighting he had had as a fighter pilot over Japan. Cause Faye Ann Potter, his sister had told Fox that he had had two sightings, one on Apollo 11 that was clearly a UFO in her readout, which she had had all these private conversations. That's her brother. And then also like a UFO in, in Japan.

• 32:03Speaker 09

  Quick question. Uh, when you were a test pilot, I think, was it Edwards Air Force Base?

• 32:07Speaker 08

  I, uh, commanded a test pilot school afterward. I was not a test pilot trained.

• 32:12Speaker 09

  Okay. I was, I was told by a very close source of yours that you actually saw something, um, other than

• 32:20Speaker 08

  A lot of people have said things that I saw.

• 32:24Speaker 03

  That doesn't mean that I saw.

• 32:27Speaker 09

  Someone very close to you told me that you had another sighting that you actually chased.

• 32:30Speaker 10

  In your years of flying, as you've, have you seen strange things?

• 32:34Speaker 08

  I was flying a T-33, I guess. And, and I looked out and saw a star out there. But it wasn't a star. It was Venus, but it kept following me all along. And, and you would swear that it's another object out there and you can turn and, uh, I want to congratulate you on your magic show last night with all the illusions because now we're getting a lot more illusions tonight.

• 32:58Speaker 03

  And I really trust James Fox. Like he is so like, you know, he's just very honest. And he chased Buzz Aldrin all, all around the world to get like just a, some statement from him on UFOs. Cause he was so sure that these two sightings were genuine UFO sightings. And he chased him all the way to Monte Carlo and Buzz Aldrin was like, uh, you know, at the very last minute, when he was about to give him an interview, he goes, what would my testimony do anyways?

• 33:26Speaker 09

  Paul Allen just invested in SETI and he got labeled a UFO freak or something. And I can't jeopardize my initiative. I'm working with Congress right now. I'm trying to get money to develop a rocket that's going to help put civilians into space. I, I can't do it.

• 33:40Speaker 03

  He's implying that he has something to say about UFOs, but if he did, it would hurt his reputation.

• 33:45Speaker 09

  Then he said, he said, and how's my story going to change anything anyway?

• 33:50Speaker 03

  And so that's not saying I, you know, I didn't see UFOs. That's saying, you know, this is going to hurt my reputation. And he even cited, he just said, he said Paul Allen, who is, you know, uh, backing SETI. He was the, you know, Microsoft founder. He was getting all sorts of shit for backing SETI at the time, which is kind of conventional, but it's looking for alien signals. So he was like, I don't want to get, you know, similarly criticized. So it's like, it's so obvious.

• 34:20Speaker 02

  Yeah. Um, it seems very likely, very obvious that Buzz knows more than he can say publicly. I've actually tried to approach him, uh, through one of his assistants at Buzz Aldrin Ventures about showing him some of the Apollo 11 imagery of UAP that I've found, uh, and also the Apollo 17 imagery. I got a polite reply saying that unfortunately he's not available to look at any of these images or do any analyses of anything. But, um, I still hold out hope that maybe someday he'll maybe make a confession or at least show some interest in looking at some imagery and just having a public discussion about it. And same with Harrison Schmidt.

• 35:02Speaker 03

  You see him getting visibly embarrassed on Larry King and then, and then he sort of resorts to mockery and he says, well, you guys saw Criss Angel last night at a show. How, how, how much of what he did, could you not explain like?

• 35:16Speaker 08

  And, uh, could you explain everything that happened with, with Criss Angel last night? No, you can't.

• 35:24Speaker 03

  And he gets kind of red in the face. And you're like, oh, you're covering for something, dude. Like it's a behavioral science 101. You were to put any sort of like, you know, lie detector person like up against that guy and they'd be like, that person, he's lying. He's lying. So.

• 35:41Speaker 02

  Certainly how it seems to me. And, um, yeah, I, I, on the one hand, I, I am like you, I'm skeptical of his, uh, explanations. At the same time, I don't want to, um,

• 35:57Speaker 02

  be necessarily too critical of someone in his position because of what, if he knows something and he was told you can't say anything because of certain consequences, then sure. Yeah. It's just one of the unfortunate things about the

• 36:11Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 36:12Speaker 02

  military secrets that we, you know, these people have to hold on to.

• 36:15Speaker 03

  Definitely, but it's, I think it's irrational at this point, especially as the Department of War puts their own stamp of approval on saying these things were unknown. Just say, yeah, I was, I was told I couldn't say it was unknown. I'm at the, I'm at the end of my life. I mean, a, a recent, albeit anecdotal story, but one that was powerful for me is I was in Japan just recently and I interviewed this guy named Takano Jousen, who, uh, has all of these modules and boosters and stuff on loan, a hundred years from NASA. It's like a NASA, it's a full on NASA museum. He also has Soyuz, you know, Russian rocketry there. It's really amazing. And he was personal friends with Eugene Cernan. And he goes, yeah, I was friends with him. And one time we were talking about Apollo 17. And I said, why

• 36:58Speaker 03

  didn't you, why didn't we go back after Apollo 17? And I will say Apollo 18 and 19, I think were canceled before, uh, uh, 17, you know, actually took off. But I guess his reason for there never being anything after that was that when he was on the way to the moon in Apollo 17, he got some sort of telepathic message saying, we don't really want you here.

• 37:38Speaker 03

  Mental download. You know, you might think that's crazy, but there are all these apocryphal stories of Neil Armstrong telling similar stories in Washington DC, saying we were told not to come back to the moon. You think they said, don't come back without permission?

• 37:52Speaker 04

  Well, Armstrong, Armstrong was overheard at a party saying that.

• 37:55Speaker 03

  Really?

• 37:56Speaker 04

  Yeah.

• 37:56Speaker 03

  What party?

• 37:57Speaker 04

  Uh, some party in Washington DC with bigwigs and several people said that, that he said that.

• 38:02Speaker 03

  And then you have Edgar Mitchell on Apollo 14, who literally, uh, apparently privately told somebody that there were like, you know, aliens following them all the way or something. But he also has this like telepathic conversion experience that he's public about. This telepathic kind of parapsychological conversion experience where he, his whole worldview updates.

• 38:24Speaker 02

  Right.

• 38:24Speaker 03

  On the way back from the moon.

• 38:26Speaker 02

  Yeah. He had a mystical experience on his, uh, I think it was his, uh, Apollo mission. And yeah, this, this is, uh, discussed by our, our mutual friend, Ross Colthart and, uh, his book, uh, In Plain Sight, I believe it's called. Uh, he quotes an anonymous source, which he calls the spaceman, who was apparently very close, personal friends with Ed Mitchell. And he says, Ed Mitchell confessed to him that, yeah, we saw these blue orb-like lights following us or, you know, from the lunar surface, flying around above the lunar sky. And, uh, apparently Mitchell said he's not sure if they are extraterrestrial in origin, but we definitely saw them and they're not camera artifacts.

• 39:16Speaker 02

  On the other hand, publicly speaking, Mitchell was very clear that he believed that at Roswell, an extraterrestrial spacecraft had crashed and that the government had recovered it and that there is a legacy, a secret UFO retroengineering program. He was clear about all of that.

• 39:38Speaker 03

  He said there's like a cabal in the government.

• 39:40Speaker 02

  Yeah, but what's odd to me is that he says he himself never publicly, he says he never saw anything on any of his missions or that would count as a UFO of some sort or another. And he and Richard Hoagland actually had a long debate on Art Bell's Coast to Coast show in the 90s. It's on like Rumble, I think. And in that debate, he's very skeptical and even dismissive of Hoagland's ideas about the possibility of structures on the moon, glass-like structures or debris above the lunar surface. And so that's potentially another case of an astronaut who knew something privately, experienced something privately,

• 40:23Speaker 02

  but said the opposite. I note that Dean Radin, he on his latest, in his podcast with Joe Rogan recently, he relays that he was part of the Project Stargate, the remote viewing program that was initiated by the CIA while he was, while it was under Hal Puthoff's direction. And he says that while he was part of Stargate, he couldn't, not only could he not talk about it, but if someone was asking him about remote viewing, or he was in the room and someone brought up the topic, he had to go along with what the mainstream narrative was and say, oh, it's all bullshit and nonsense.

• 41:05Speaker 03

  Right.

• 41:06Speaker 02

  Because he couldn't even say, I can't say one thing one way or the other because that would give too much information away. So that's a clear example of where secrecy forces scientists who are working on something or who know something to disparage a certain idea or topic for the purposes of, yeah, I guess disinformation.

• 41:25Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 41:26Speaker 02

  So it's entirely plausible to me that Mitchell dismissed the possibility of UAPs or structures on the moon that are of non-human origin because he was told that that's what you have to do.

• 41:40Speaker 03

  Yeah, NASA is also much weirder than meets the eye. I want to get into Richard Hoagland and his dark mission and the idea that there are, there are like occult rituals and, and you have Launchpad 33 and the idea that launches are timed at certain, you know, equinoxes and stuff for success. And then you have Diana Pesulka also saying that second century Latin was written, inscribed on, you know, some of these missions, like some of the rockets and stuff. So I don't know what to make of all of that. It's almost like it's this like Gnostic pagan cult or something. Are you familiar with any of that?

• 42:16Speaker 02

  I'm familiar with some of these arguments and evidence. I do know for a fact that, well, Buzz Aldrin says himself in one of his books that he's a 33rd degree Scottish Rite Freemason.

• 42:32Speaker 03

  All of the astronauts were, like almost all, Glenn, all.

• 42:36Speaker 02

  So there's clearly a type of secret society, brotherhood among the astronauts.

• 42:42Speaker 03

  Buzz Aldrin planted, they did like communion and then Buzz Aldrin, like it was a Masonic ritual on the moon. Yeah.

• 42:50Speaker 02

  So when you have things like that and you know that Freemasonry is a secret society and they have secrets, they're not going to tell the public everything. We know that many powerful people in American history were Freemasons. Like a disproportionate large number of the astronauts and also NASA engineers during the Apollo era were Freemasons. I, I think it's entirely plausible that there was some sort of ritualistic aspect maybe to some decisions about when to launch a rocket or where to land perhaps on the moon. And that's all entirely, I think plausible. In terms of how that would tie into, like

• 43:32Speaker 02

  how far it goes exactly, I'm not sure about that myself. Or in terms of what connection that might have to secrecy about any discoveries made of an ET, you know, origin on the moon. I, that part, that connection is not entirely clear to me, or has never been entirely clear to me. But.

• 43:53Speaker 03

  But NASA is much weirder than meets the eye. I think like there's a director at NASA Ames and his name's Stephen Hubbard, I believe. And he wrote a psychic spy manual for the CIA. Like people don't know that, that crossover.

• 44:08Speaker 02

  I didn't know this, actually.

• 44:09Speaker 03

  It's pretty fascinating. Yeah, Kevin Knuth, who's another, you know, obviously studies UFOs, believes in UFOs, was at NASA and felt kind of gaslit on the whole topic. You know, actually brought that up on my show. So he, yeah, it's really wild. You can like look it up. It's public. And then you have Gary McKinnon. I don't know if you're familiar with this story.

• 44:30Speaker 02

  Absolutely, yeah.

• 44:31Speaker 03

  I just interviewed him in, in England and like, he's amazing because he's just like a cool hapless guy. He's in his, you know, you know, he's got some IT skills, you know, at the time. And he's like in his girlfriend's, I think aunt's basement and it's like 3am. And he does some like basic like password phishing techniques to break into Army, Navy, NASA, DoD, DOE, like everything. And gets into NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston. They're building eight. The reason he targeted that is because Donna Hare was this whistleblower

• 45:11Speaker 03

  who had come out with Stephen Greer's Disclosure Project. And she had said that she was basically involved in this kind of scrubbing of photos that were being stored specifically in that building.

• 45:24Speaker 11

  By its very nature, UFO means unidentified. So I did not know what this was. But I realized at this point that it's very secret, that it was kept secret because I asked him, what are you going to do with this piece of information? And he said, we always airbrush these out before we sell them to the public.

• 45:42Speaker 03

  And McKinnon then sees UFO pop up on his screen. He sees a Tic Tac UFO that seems to be orbiting Earth pop up on his screen. So that's another really interesting data point. And then this guy, Takano Jousen, again, this NASA, you know, curator, museum host curator, patron in Japan, who's also, you know, he's been to all these places and he was at NASA Johnson Space Center. And he said he went to a specific building and they showed him photos of UFOs. And did you see pictures and video of UFOs?

• 46:17Speaker 12

  Yes.

• 46:18Speaker 03

  Wow. And it was.

• 46:19Speaker 12

  I found the UFO footage.

• 46:21Speaker 03

  The UFO footage?

• 46:22Speaker 12

  Yes.

• 46:23Speaker 03

  Was it at Johnson Space Center in Houston?

• 46:35Speaker 12

  Yes.

• 46:36Speaker 02

  There's also Ken Johnston, senior, who was one of the pilots who trained the NASA astronauts and was like a backup astronaut for the Apollo missions, if I remember correctly. And he says he was told to destroy a bunch of like first generation or early generation Apollo negatives, because they had some anomalies on them and they're not supposed to be there and they don't want to release them publicly. And he actually saved some of them and put some of his copies online and he.

• 47:08Speaker 03

  Have you seen them?

• 47:09Speaker 02

  Yeah, they're publicly available.

• 47:10Speaker 03

  Do they look?

• 47:11Speaker 02

  There's an archive.

• 47:12Speaker 03

  And they're negatives? They're not, okay. So they're real photos?

• 47:14Speaker 02

  He says they're like, like early generation copies of the very original photographs.

• 47:20Speaker 03

  Okay.

• 47:21Speaker 02

  Most of the copies.

• 47:22Speaker 03

  Do they look legit to you? Do they look like they match other NASA? Really?

• 47:26Speaker 02

  Yeah. They have some differences on them for sure.

• 47:30Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 47:31Speaker 02

  And compare, so there is a NASA archive called March to the Moon, which is said to be the latest scans of NASA's original films from the Apollo missions. If you compare what's on those films with what Johnston has shown, or even in other scans, actually from other, other branches of NASA, you find that there are a lot of actually obvious inconsistencies. Lights, UAP type lights or structures of some kind or another are clearly blacked out in some versions, some NASA scanned versions, and they're not in others. So there are provable inconsistencies across different NASA archives.

• 48:16Speaker 03

  Really?

• 48:17Speaker 02

  Same frame.

• 48:18Speaker 03

  Do you have a specific example of like something where you see a photo of a UFO or like some anomalous thing and then it's blurred out?

• 48:24Speaker 02

  Yeah. And in a couple of my interviews with the Ross Coulthard, I give, I show a number of examples of this. You go to one scan from the Lunar and Planetary Institute. This is an archive that NASA has managed since the 1970s. And it's an Apollo 14 photograph with Ed Mitchell standing on the lunar surface. And he's, I guess he's doing something on the surface and one of the other astronauts took a photo of him. You see his long shadow stretched out. And I'm blanking on the exact frame number, but I can pull that up another

• 49:04Speaker 02

  time and show it. Essentially, the lunar sky is completely black in this version. You zoom in everywhere, it's completely black. However, if you look at the March to the Moon version of that same frame, which is managed by Johnson Space Center and Arizona State University.

• 49:27Speaker 02

  There is a blue orb in the lunar sky. Very clearly, it's very obvious above Mitchell. And if you brighten the Lunar and Planetary Institute version of that same frame, you see that there's a weird blackish

• 49:47Speaker 02

  cutout or discoloration in the exact spot where that blue orb is in the more recent frame. And there's also a weird like light anomaly. There's almost like a mushroom like cloud in the black lunar sky that gets unusually bright. And there's like a bright streak here and a bright streak there.

• 50:07Speaker 02

  Which none of that should be there because there's no atmosphere on the moon. There's no dust debris field that can scatter light to produce visible effects. There shouldn't be any sort of unevenness in the lighting and the sun is out of the frame to the right. So it's not even, I don't think it can be lens flare.

• 50:27Speaker 02

  But yeah, there is a clear discrepancy between these two frames. And there are many other examples of that sort that I've found examining different archives. So I find Johnston's claims that the more recent maybe scans don't show everything that's actually on the originals to be fairly plausible just on that basis alone.

• 50:47Speaker 03

  That is wild. They literally pinpoint the blue orb. Yeah. What were you saying?

• 50:51Speaker 02

  I just want to add that Johnston himself in connection to the secret society stuff in NASA. He himself is apparently a 33rd degree Freemason.

• 51:01Speaker 02

  Why is he in such a high position? Kind of whistleblowing about all of this? I don't know.

• 51:09Speaker 03

  Johnston.

• 51:10Speaker 02

  Ken Johnston senior, the guy who says that.

• 51:13Speaker 03

  Maybe defecting from a secret society, or maybe it's a, I don't know.

• 51:17Speaker 02

  Maybe, but.

• 51:19Speaker 03

  No Freemasonry. Look, I sort of, you know, I think a lot of people who talk about Freemasonry, controlling everything are ridiculous people, but with the NASA thing, it's pervasive. It's everywhere. It's really wild how many early astronauts were Freemasons. They were all Freemasons in an anomalous way, even for that time. It wasn't like the founding fathers or whatever, where like a lot of people in elite American society were Freemasons. It's, it's, it's almost bizarre. And then you have the Freemasonic ritual, you have Werner von Braun and Walt Disney making a movie around, you know, the space age that's like this Disney cartoon with 33 being this like recurring symbol.

• 52:01Speaker 03

  You have launchpad 33 Freemasonry was played a part in, you know, the, the creation of the launch program. It's very strange.

• 52:12Speaker 02

  Yeah, it's very, it is. And there might be some sort of an interesting story there, background there that if someone could dig even further, they might be able to come up with or expose something. I don't know, but yeah, I think it's worth looking into further. And there are in connection to Gary McKinnon's

• 52:34Speaker 02

  discovery or this tic tac shaped craft above the earth that he saw in this image that was gradually downloading.

• 52:44Speaker 02

  One of the things that to me lends plausibility to that as well. And also I think reinforces the notion that NASA knows a lot more about UFOs or UAP than they're letting on even still today is that in the 1990s, at least two space shuttle, NASA space shuttle videos were made publicly known by some independent researchers. One is STS 48 from the 1991 STS 48 mission. And the other one is STS 80 in 1996. In both cases, they show UAP type

• 53:24Speaker 02

  objects exhibiting on analysis, if you analyze those, those videos carefully, propulsive capabilities that are clearly impossible with any human propulsion technology of rocketry, jets, or magnetohydrodynamics, or anything we could remotely produce. And yet, when NASA astronauts of those missions were asked about it, they said, oh, we didn't see anything except for just ice particle debris. And then they've put out people like James Oberg saying, oh yeah, it's just ice debris. But that's all it is. There's nothing really to see here.

• 54:04Speaker 02

  And I think it's pretty clear if one carefully analyzes those videos that those explanations are in contradiction with the available facts in the footage. They're clearly false. And so what's being shown there is craft of some type exhibiting yeah, extra human propulsion capabilities. So if that's true, then yeah, it's possible that there is that maybe NASA does have an archive of like some showing some sort of tic tac shaped craft above the earth and that McKinnon just stumbled on it.

• 54:42Speaker 03

  Fascinating. This guy in Japan said that they had, he spoke, he was close with Edgar Mitchell as well. And he said that they had code names, according to Edgar Mitchell. Bogey was one, I believe Santa Claus might've been another. I know moon pigeons was another.

• 54:57Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 54:58Speaker 03

  And so, and then this is funny. I hadn't heard about like the bogey one, for example. And then in the Department of War drop, which occurred after I got back from Japan, I'm hearing Frank Borman and Gemini seven talking about, you know, we've got a bogey.

• 55:12Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 55:13Speaker 03

  And I'm like, holy shit. Like, so it, that seems correct.

• 55:17Speaker 02

  Yeah, they, they use these code words to describe unidentified craft of some kind. And yes, NASA published even a report in the early seventies called Moon Pigeons. And essentially another way of saying UFOs above the lunar surface are seen by astronauts while orbiting the moon.

• 55:36Speaker 03

  Right.

• 55:36Speaker 02

  It was just, I guess, a cover phrase to not create a UFO flap in case maybe the document leaked or someone else. It was a way of talking about that subject without maybe.

• 55:48Speaker 03

  Yeah. And it's, it's funny because Borman kind of downplayed his sighting for the rest of his life. As with all these other astronauts, it seems like there was some blood pact to made or something. But if you actually listen to the audio, it's like, that sounds like a UFO. He's like, I don't know what this is. He's seeing it sounds kind of freaked out.

• 56:06Speaker 01

  Hi Gemini seven here, you have an idea? Loud and clear, seven, go ahead. I have a bogey at 10 o'clock high. This is Houston. Say again, seven? I have a bogey at 10 o'clock high. Gemini seven, is that the booster or is that an actual sighting? Oh, what? Say again, seven? Okay, we have several, it looks like the three are your, your actual site.

• 56:31Speaker 01

  You have any more information, estimated distance or size? We also have the booster in sight. Understand you also have the booster in sight, Roger.

• 56:41Speaker 03

  And then you also have Simpkins in NASA archive UFO. Shout out to Chris Ramsey, actually, for recommending this to me. And I believe this is a real like photo of something from the Gemini 11 archive. Gemini 11 famously, do you want to tell the story? There was like a, like a power outage and there's even audio around this. Do you know about this?

• 57:06Speaker 02

  I don't know the details of this particular story, but I am vaguely familiar with this particular image.

• 57:12Speaker 03

  So this was airbrushed on, I think. So it's not a real photo because it would be the best photo of all time.

• 57:17Speaker 02

  Right.

• 57:18Speaker 03

  But I think clearly in reference to something we have audio and facts around. And I spoke to Kevin Knuth about, and it seems like there was an actual UFO around Gemini 11 that caused this electromagnetic outage. And so this was like this tongue in cheek joke done by the NASA archivist, probably to like denote this whole event.

• 57:40Speaker 02

  It'd be great to see if we can find a scan of maybe the raw version of that film or maybe prompt Department of War or NASA to release the images of the raw film at some point.

• 57:53Speaker 03

  That would be great. And then you have structures. So you have this wishbone structure on the backside of the moon.

• 57:59Speaker 02

  Right.

• 57:59Speaker 03

  And it looks, I'm not going to lie, it looks pretty weird. But it also looks like it could be some natural geological formation. You use some interesting kind of deductive principles as to why it might not be. So how would you justify that possibly being an artificial structure?

• 58:17Speaker 02

  The thing we have to remember is that if the moon has been visited by extraterrestrials

• 58:26Speaker 02

  at some point in the past, it's very, it's most probable that it happened a really long time ago. Perhaps millions, hundreds of millions, or even billions of years ago. And if that's the case, and they built some sort of a structure, it would be highly eroded by now because of micrometeoroid bombardment. Essentially because you have no atmosphere on the moon, any structures on the moon. If it's like a spire type structure, it would be pulverized in all directions by little micrometeor's and occasionally larger ones. And eventually it would be flattened or smoothed or rounded. So

• 59:07Speaker 02

  over time, you should expect that structures on the moon become very smooth and rounded. And spire like structures can't just persist for a very long time. Moreover, they are unlikely to form naturally on the moon, especially after like three billion years ago or a billion years ago, when volcanic activity ceased and tectonic activity more or less stopped, or at least like intrinsic tectonic activity stopped. So what I basically do is just to say, look, these structures are very unlikely to have been formed naturally by meteoric erosion, erosive processes.

• 59:49Speaker 02

  And other erosive processes are far too weak to and also irregular and random to account for these particular structures. So this, for example, this wishbone structure, some spire structures as well. There are structures in Paracelsus C, another crater on the backside or far side of the moon that also have unusually precise geometries. All of these geometrically

• 1:00:20Speaker 02

  anomalous or geologically anomalous structures or formations are all candidates, serious candidates for ancient ruins on the moon from a past ET visitation. And so the project that I've been pursuing is essentially to identify geologically anomalous objects, structures, formations and phenomena on the moon as potential candidates for

• 1:00:47Speaker 02

  ancient, highly eroded ruins of some kind.

• 1:00:52Speaker 02

  And then the next step, of course, is to send some sort of a probe or robotic rover of some kind, or maybe manned mission to examine the most promising ones much more closely to see if that's the case or not.

• 1:01:07Speaker 03

  To people who think we're crazy too, it's like, what is the rational decision for the government to make? Is it for them to film for all civilians to see the first time they encounter anything on, you know, a new structure, a new planet or a new moon? Obviously not. Like, obviously, they would encounter the thing first. They'd want some asymmetric access to it. If it could confer a tactical advantage, or if it has the potential to freak out the population, you're gonna keep it secret. And so, yeah, like you said, you have the Space Act of 1958 where NASA was explicitly kind of, you know, an extension of the DOD. And then you have Trump saying it's like, you know, an intelligence agency,

• 1:01:51Speaker 03

  you know, last year. And that's just sort of, you know, calling a spade a spade. That's saying it is what it already was.

• 1:01:58Speaker 02

  And even before that, NASA commissioned the Brookings Report in 1959. It was published in 1960. And the recommendations of that report from the Brookings Institution commissioned by NASA was explicitly that it's possible that artifacts from an ET visitation will be found on the moon or Mars in our future space explorations of those planets. And if so, there could be potentially negative, catastrophically negative consequences for societal stability. So there might be, there's reason to consider withholding this information. That's an explicitly recommended consideration to make. So you put that together with the

• 1:02:39Speaker 02

  Space Act of 58. And then on top of this, you get now the Trump administration's executive order saying that NASA will be considered an intelligence agency for, you know, various purposes. The default assumption should be that if NASA discovered anything on the moon or on Mars or elsewhere, more likely than not, because of the national security implications of that, such a discovery, they probably would not have just outright told the public or the scientific community. That should be the default, I think, expectation of.

• 1:03:11Speaker 03

  Yeah, apparently, John Brandenburg, who we brought up earlier, who's a physics PhD, really smart guy, worked at Sandia for a lot of his career, and knows kind of head honchos at a lot of these places. He was, you know, going around theorizing about, you know, ancient structures on Mars, on Sidonia, you know, a lot of this stuff that Richard Hoagland also reports on. You know, lately, we've had this like ridiculous square object that doesn't look at all, you know.

• 1:03:38Speaker 02

  Square on Mars.

• 1:03:39Speaker 03

  Natural, yeah. That's pretty remarkable. And so he actually took it a step further. And he said that Argon 40 and Xenon 129 exist in excess of what you would ever expect with just natural radioactive isotope decay, implying that there was a nuclear holocaust on Mars. And apparently, when he did that, Carl Sagan, of all people, called him up. And he said,

• 1:04:03Speaker 01

  Brandenburg, why are you causing this trouble?

• 1:04:05Speaker 03

  No way.

• 1:04:06Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 1:04:06Speaker 03

  He said, why are you

• 1:04:08Speaker 01

  Causing this trouble?

• 1:04:09Speaker 03

  And we know that Carl Sagan held really high clearances. We know that he was part of Project A119, which was a plan to nuke the moon as a show of force against the Soviets in 1958. So I think what you're saying is correct, that you have power structures at the top that are really, they have to think of themselves as like guardians of the world and like calculating, you know, what can people handle? And there's this, you know, rumored sort of committee around this in the UFO topic called the Majestic Twelve.

• 1:04:43Speaker 02

  Right.

• 1:04:43Speaker 03

  It's very sort of riddled with controversy. It's unclear if that's a real organization. But it makes sense that there would be an organization like that, that is almost containing reality, like they're modern platonic guardians of our reality.

• 1:04:59Speaker 02

  Right. Yeah. And I've also heard rumors of the so-called Collins Elite, if I remember correctly.

• 1:05:05Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:05:05Speaker 02

  It was a Christian group of, or I guess a group of religious Christians who believe that UFOs represent some sort of a demonic phenomenon that perhaps should not be studied closely, or at least maybe information about it should be controlled. So that's another possibility. I should mention

• 1:05:27Speaker 03

  And maybe there's overlap between these two groups.

• 1:05:29Speaker 02

  Oh, yeah. Very, very, very, very likely. Very plausible, I think. In terms of Sagan, I should mention that he was very two-faced about the possibility of UFOs or structures on the moon and Mars when he was alive. On the one hand, in 1963, he published himself a scientific technical paper where he used Drake's equation to estimate the number of probable galactic technologically advanced civilizations in our galaxy and the likelihood of Earth having been visited. And he came up with estimates on the order of probably 10,000 visitations of the Earth have occurred in like the past billion years or so. And

• 1:06:13Speaker 02

  he even said that because of erosion from weathering and whatever other geological phenomena, the moon would be a natural place to put a base if they wanted, for example, to monitor Earth over time, and that future missions to the moon should bear these possibilities in mind. He explicitly says this, and he never retracted his analysis in later papers. He also wrote a 75 paper saying that if we want to look for possible signs of technologically advanced life on other planets, one way to do that is to look at the surfaces and to

• 1:06:53Speaker 02

  find thermodynamic disequilibria, or basically thermodynamically anomalous structures, rectilinear geometrically precise structures that are hard to explain in natural geological terms of the, you know, the planet's geological processes. And so

• 1:07:11Speaker 03

  So on Mars, we found that.

• 1:07:13Speaker 02

  We found that, yeah. I would say on the Mars, I think there are countless examples on the moon, I think also. And so Sagan was suggesting this himself and saying this is a worthwhile thing to explore. And he even had correspondences with Dr. Mark Carlotta, one of the early researchers of the face on Mars, expressing interest in Carlotta's various analyses of the face on Mars. He even said, I agree with you that Gerald Softin, the, I think he was the lead project scientist on the Viking mission, which took the first images of the face on Mars, Softin said, oh, yeah, this is, isn't it interesting what a trick of light and shadow can do? It can make just a simple hill look like a face.

• 1:07:57Speaker 02

  And Sagan agreed that what Softin said is actually mistaken because the face still looks like a face when it's imaged under other lighting conditions. And he even said this was like an unfortunate thing. And he even said that, yeah, it's worthwhile if we're gonna go to Mars, we should take a look at the face on Mars at some point, send a manned mission there. But publicly, he ridiculed people like Richard Hoagland and Carlotta and Brandenburg. But privately, in communications, he was quite receptive to what they were doing and even supported some of their

• 1:08:32Speaker 03

  Apparently, in his early, in his early diaries, he'd write about UFOs all the time. He was clearly interested. And he would debate his mentors, saying, keep an open mind. And then he sort of flipped when J. Allen Hynek went the opposite way. It's very, very interesting. Yeah, it's almost like he was sort of this citadel scientific spokesman who had to like kind of manage the narrative in some way. And

• 1:08:55Speaker 02

  That's, yeah.

• 1:08:56Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:08:57Speaker 02

  Plausible explanation of his contradictory kind of behavior on this.

• 1:09:02Speaker 03

  Well, because he, I mean, look, he wrote Pale Blue Dot, and he wrote Contact, and like, both seem like he knows more than he lets on about the topic. Even in Contact, you have the first transmission to Earth being Adolf Hitler.

• 1:09:16Speaker 02

  Right.

• 1:09:17Speaker 03

  And making a speech, which is really

• 1:09:19Speaker 02

  I remember, yeah.

• 1:09:19Speaker 03

  trippy and weird. But I think he's talking about these long delay echoes, which are this phenomena that occurred in the 1920s and 30s at the invention of the radio, where you would send a signal out and then you'd get the same signal back with a little bit of delay. And so, you know, really, really trippy.

• 1:09:38Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:09:38Speaker 03

  Interesting phenomena. But it seems like he always just knew more than, than met the eye.

• 1:09:45Speaker 02

  I think so. I mean, Hoagland has also relayed, Richard Hoagland relayed a story to me directly once about Sagan, that after some sort of a hearing, I believe it was, it was either congressional hearing or some sort of other

• 1:10:02Speaker 02

  Public hearing, uh, Sagan apparently came up to him and put his hand on his shoulder and said, "Keep up the great work," like whispered into his ear and then, uh, walked off. And, uh, so, and Hoagland says, "Yeah, he knew Sagan personally. They were friends." And well, if that's true, and that's what, uh, Sagan said, then that says it all, doesn't it? And you said he had top secret clearances.

• 1:10:27Speaker 03

  And he's calling Brandenburg and he's saying, "Why are you causing so much trouble?"

• 1:10:31Speaker 02

  And he was interested in Brandenburg's work about the face on Mars, too.

• 1:10:34Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:10:35Speaker 02

  He said, "Oh, can you send me images of this other face that you've seen too?"

• 1:10:39Speaker 03

  Totally. And then I think Brandenburg went into a meeting, uh, or maybe this was actually my buddy, uh, Science Bob McGuire was, uh, in a, in a meeting about, you know, with, um, the top scientist, uh, on Venus, on the planet Venus. And there was some anomaly or something they were looking into there. And Sagan was in the meeting with like the White House Science Advisor or something like that.

• 1:11:02Speaker 01

  Carl Sagan was sitting in the room.

• 1:11:04Speaker 03

  No way.

• 1:11:05Speaker 01

  Yeah, Sagan was sitting.

• 1:11:06Speaker 03

  Wait, this is crazy. So it's clear that Sagan was somehow like super deep. I always thought he was deep on the inside because he-

• 1:11:12Speaker 01

  You know, but I'll tell, I, I don't mind telling you, he's, he's passed. I don't mind. He had a contractor green badge with a picture on it. You don't get that if you're casual.

• 1:11:23Speaker 03

  And so he's just was, yeah, as cleared as it gets, really high up. And it seemed like he was kind of meant to like disseminate or trickle out information, like Don Menzel.

• 1:11:32Speaker 02

  Right.

• 1:11:32Speaker 03

  Who was caught destroying astronomical plates.

• 1:11:35Speaker 02

  Right.

• 1:11:36Speaker 03

  Uh, by his, um, kind of a assistant who was an astronomer in her own right at Harvard, uh, Dorit Hofleit. And he was sort of meant to kind of manage the narrative, too. It seemed like he knew more than he kind of let on about UFOs. He held very high clearances. And then he just was dogmatically opposed to any sort of openness to the topic. He would always say, you know, weather phenomena, temperature inversions, you know, things, things like that. Um, and then now we have Beatrice Villarreal. Are you familiar with her?

• 1:12:08Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 1:12:08Speaker 03

  She's at Stockholm University and she's found all of these on the Palomar Observatory, which is one of the most prominent observatories in use at the time in Mount Wilson and San Diego, uh, California. She, there, there are 10,000 plus transients, these light reflecting what seem like mirror-like metallic objects a year for eight years from 1949, 1957, before we ever put Sputnik up in space. And then she was like, "I looked into it and I spoke to NASA and they were like, "Oh yeah, we call those uncorrelated targets." Like they just sort of like try to reduce all the noise around this stuff. And then she was, she looked into it further and somebody told her, "Oh yeah, Space Force tracks those."

• 1:12:52Speaker 13

  They remove this background of uncorrelated targets from the total, uh, number of things that they see in order to calculate the number of objects in space. However, I think that they're, uh, they don't do it themselves. It's done by militaries and it's classified at least. So it's kind of becoming a little bit more far. And I'm trying to look into this right now.

• 1:13:12Speaker 02

  Well, uh, in fact, um, it's US Space Force, uh, Northcom, Space, um, NORAD, they actually have a term for UFOs in space, which it's, uh, fast walkers. It's a code word.

• 1:13:26Speaker 03

  Mm-hmm.

• 1:13:26Speaker 02

  And slow walkers too. And, um, John Greenwall Jr. of the Black Vault, uh, he has tried to, uh, submit FOIA requests for all of, uh, US Space Force's documents, the DoD's documents referring to fast walkers and slow walkers. And the response he got was that all such documents are actually exempt from FOIA disclosure under some special, you know, uh, subsection of the FOIA Act. And, and so, um, yeah, then also like, I think last year or two years ago, Arrow was, um, appointed to head some sort of a space tiger restudy team to examine UAPs in space of some kind or another.

• 1:14:10Speaker 02

  Um, so there is clearly evidence there that's, uh, exempt from declassification, even to the degree like they don't even want to release documents and redact them. They're even beyond that. Um, I would say, uh, Villarreal's, uh, research on these, uh, transients also lends further credence to the hypothesis that these lights and orbs seen these Apollo images from the lunar surface could well be of extraterrestrial origin. Perhaps the common, there's a common cause explanation, both for those and for these transients, uh, seen in these photographic plates in the 50s and whatever.

• 1:14:51Speaker 03

  And her study is remarkable because it correlates the transients showing up with nuclear. It's 16% more likely to show up within 24 hours of a nuclear detonation, which is wild because we all know that UFOs are connected with nuclear weapons, ala Robert Hastings' work, where you have nuclear bases all over the US and all of these guys who are, you know, um, cleared to, you know, pretty insensitive stuff. And, you know, they're on the PRP program where they have to report if they're taking ibuprofen and they see Tic Tac saucers often messing with the nukes. That he has 167 of these whistleblowers. So the fact that there's a correlation there is fascinating. And she's working with this other scientist at Vanderbilt, uh, Dr. Stephen Bruhl, who's, you

• 1:15:34Speaker 03

  know, doing the stats on this stuff. And like, I don't get any grifty vibes from either of them. Like they seem pretty legit. And you have Sabina Hossenfelder, Brian Keating, you know, being like, "We don't know how to explain this." Like, you know, you, this requires further inquiry. And I think she just updated the public that one of her colleagues in Germany, I think his name is Ivo Busco or something, I'm blanking on his name, but he, um, you know, has all sorts of impressive astronomical space experience. He, uh, uh, basically figured out that, that, so the, the number one debunk on her work was that these were like issues with like chemical staining and plate defects over time.

• 1:16:18Speaker 02

  And cosmic rays, uh, is another, I, I've heard as another.

• 1:16:22Speaker 03

  Okay. Interesting. Interesting.

• 1:16:24Speaker 02

  Especially from Avi Loeb, but I, I think she refers to Bosco or-

• 1:16:29Speaker 03

  Yeah, Busco. Yeah.

• 1:16:30Speaker 02

  Work as debunking the cosmic ray explanation.

• 1:16:33Speaker 03

  So apparently that proves that these patterns aren't from chemical stains or plate defects, but from what the light actually hit the optical circuitry of the telescope itself. The light came through the telescope. It is not an artifact of, you know, uh, the plates drifting over time chemically. Uh, so that, that, that's pretty, you know, amazing. Um, uh, and it just seems like there's getting, you know, we're getting more and more proof there. And hopefully she gets a replication from another observatory because to me that would be this really exciting smoking gun moment. But to go to your point around fast walkers, uh, there's an email as well from the WikiLeaks drop, um, that involves Podesta, John Podesta, who was, you know, obviously this, you know,

• 1:17:18Speaker 03

  Clinton Chief of Staff, um, you know, helped manage Hillary's campaign. He is at, uh, you know, some aerospace company or corporation in, uh, El Segundo. And I think he's with a guy and he's emailing back and forth with a guy named Bob Fish.

• 1:17:34Speaker 02

  Right.

• 1:17:34Speaker 03

  And he's talking about fast walkers there. And that email gets scrubbed from the internet.

• 1:17:39Speaker 02

  Right.

• 1:17:39Speaker 03

  So there's something about fast walkers, which were clearly, you know, used as a term.

• 1:17:44Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:17:44Speaker 03

  As you're, as you're implying.

• 1:17:46Speaker 02

  Yeah. I, I think there's, one of the things I would like to do at some point is if I can somehow get my hands on the, uh, Defense Support Program satellite records. These, this is the satellite network that tracks fast walkers and slow walkers, or has at least-

• 1:18:02Speaker 03

  Yeah, that's what they were referring to, the DSP, which is the outer Earth's kind of orbit. Like it's like kind of the first defense against anything coming into the Earth's atmosphere.

• 1:18:11Speaker 02

  Yeah. Apparently, uh, Lee researchers, aerospace, uh, researchers, Lee Graham and Ron Riger, they, uh, claimed to have, uh, analyzed DSP satellite printout records in 1976 or 77 at the day and time of the event of the Tehran UFO dogfight with the Royal Air Force of the Shah at the time.

• 1:18:33Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:18:34Speaker 02

  And they claimed that the, the DSP, uh, satellites, or at least one of them detected an infrared or heat anomaly over Tehran, Iran at the moment of that event. And they've done some analysis of this.

• 1:18:46Speaker 03

  That story is wild because you have the, the pilot, I think in a James Fox movie, might've been out of the blue or something.

• 1:18:53Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:18:53Speaker 03

  Saying that he like shot at the UFO.

• 1:18:55Speaker 02

  Right.

• 1:18:55Speaker 03

  And then he lost control of his aircraft. Like, you know, all the, I think, you know, some electromagnetic outage and it like just shut down on him. So you're saying that that correlated with the DSP archive sensing some sort of infrared signature right around Tehran?

• 1:19:12Speaker 02

  Or according to Graham and Riger, but, uh, apparently it's, uh, these records are still, um, like still classified to the point that you, like the public can't access those satellite records independently of what these guys did. But if someday we could get our hands on that satellite data, we could then try to look at these cross correlations with known UFO incidents and cross correlate the time that it happened with what those satellites may have picked up or the STS 48 and STS 80 UFOs. I would love to look at the DSP satellite records from those moments and see if there's some sort of a cross correlation there. Um, so I think there's an

• 1:19:57Speaker 02

  enormous potential. If we can get our hands on this classified data to show some maybe really explosive scientific corroboration of, uh, yeah.

• 1:20:05Speaker 03

  That'd be amazing. They should just let it out. You know, we should just figure this out. I think that the psy-op is that they don't fully understand what's going on. So, so that, you know, I think they're now like letting things out because it's like, you know, they, they need to open source this stuff, especially with AI. It's like, you're not going to get the new insight if within a closed system. The open system will always win. So you need, you need to, you know, update your strategy. Like, you know, even if you, all you care about is like tactical military advantage of the US, like you still, you need to figure your, this is not a good strategy.

• 1:20:41Speaker 02

  Yeah, I agree.

• 1:20:42Speaker 03

  I also think it's very telling that, you know, speaking of astronauts, um, Neil Armstrong, when he came back from the moon in 1976, he does this other mission at the edge of the Amazon.

• 1:20:54Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 1:20:54Speaker 03

  Through this Teos Cave system in Ecuador, which the, the only lore of which is, you know, this was written about in like Chirites of the Gods by Eric Von Daniken. And there's rumored to be this ancient alien metallic artifact in this cave system. And so why would you go looking for that if you weren't open to the presence of extraterrestrial life, possibly from experiences you had on the way to the moon?

• 1:21:18Speaker 02

  I completely agree. And, uh, I-

• 1:21:22Speaker 02

  Wonder if anyone has sat down with Armstrong before he passed away and asked him in detail, why did you decide to do this? What led you to this? I'm not aware of that having happened. I just, I do know there were some camera crew that filmed him doing this expedition, but no detailed conversation with him to ask his reasons for doing it. But clearly it shows that he's open to some really incredible.

• 1:21:46Speaker 03

  Yeah. Why, why would you go look for that at all? If you didn't think that there might be something up with the, you know, origin of mankind on Earth or presence of non-human intelligence or something.

• 1:21:56Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:21:57Speaker 03

  You, you, you have to have some sort of opening to, to do that. Otherwise, go be a conventional archaeologist. Like, don't, don't go looking for an ancient alien metallic artifact cave thing. Like that, it's either you've like spun out and you've lost your marbles or like you think there's something there.

• 1:22:13Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 1:22:13Speaker 03

  And I think it's probably the latter.

• 1:22:14Speaker 02

  Yeah. Buzz Aldrin, again, he, um, he himself was always, he's, he's always flirting in these circles with other people who are, or for example, he's also insinuated that this monolith that NASA has imaged on Phobos, one of the moons of Mars, um, is an interesting structure and we should go there and visit it and, and maybe take samples of it. And he's actually, and NASA has actually proposed a mission to do precisely that in 2007, to send a probe to this monolith on Phobos and take a sample of it with the probe and do some direct analysis of it.

• 1:22:57Speaker 03

  How big is the monolith?

• 1:22:58Speaker 02

  This monolith is about, uh, it's estimated to be 90, 85 meters, um, in diameter, and then 90 meters tall. So 90 meters multiplied by three to get it in feet approximately. It's like 270 feet roughly tall, which is quite tall, extremely. It's like a tall building inside.

• 1:23:21Speaker 03

  Skyscraper. Yeah.

• 1:23:23Speaker 02

  Yeah. And it's, I mean, I've examined those NASA, those NASA images of that monolith. And clearly there is no other structure anywhere else on Phobos nearly as large. There are smaller, much smaller monolith.

• 1:23:36Speaker 03

  What do you think that is? Do you think that's remnants of an ancient?

• 1:23:39Speaker 02

  I think it's plausible enough. I mean, coming back to this general point that it's very plausible that our solar system has been visited by ET visitors in the past billions of years. Okay. And where are the two places in our solar system that they would have most likely gone?

• 1:23:59Speaker 03

  Mars and the earth.

• 1:24:00Speaker 02

  Mars and the earth, especially because like three billion years ago.

• 1:24:02Speaker 03

  And the moon in Phobos.

• 1:24:03Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:24:03Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:24:04Speaker 02

  Three billion years ago, Mars was much more earth-like as an atmosphere.

• 1:24:08Speaker 03

  Well, yeah, you had a biosphere, you had a magnetosphere and you had water. You, nobody would dispute any of that.

• 1:24:14Speaker 02

  Right. And maybe independently evolved life. And if they wanted to monitor maybe that life, maybe they would put something on Phobos, like a monolith, to monitor it, just like they might put something, a base on the moon, or maybe a monolith on the moon, which I think there are a couple of interesting candidates of that sort, um, to observe Earth. So it's absolutely, I think, worth looking. Certainly the monolith is geologically anomalous. It is, it doesn't seem to be a natural formation of Phobos. It's too large, it's too symmetrical, uh, it's albedo or reflectivity is significantly different from the surface of Phobos.

• 1:24:53Speaker 03

  Interesting.

• 1:24:53Speaker 02

  So, but as Buzz Aldrin insinuates this, and then, uh, he was also friends with Arthur C. Clarke, the noted science fiction author who also, you know, uh, Kubrick made 2001: A Space Odyssey based on his books, right?

• 1:25:07Speaker 03

  And 2001: A Space Odyssey is riddled with bizarre symbolism.

• 1:25:11Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:25:11Speaker 03

  That's like, you know, it doesn't seem like the space program is what it seems.

• 1:25:16Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 1:25:16Speaker 03

  And Arthur C. Clarke was a very trippy, I mean, he lived in Sri Lanka and wrote a book about a portal in Sri Lanka. And, you know, given his personality, you think that he like walked through the portal or something. He wrote Childhood's End about an alien presence that, you know, can't make itself known all at once. And so it needs to infiltrate the highest ranks of the government and speak through non-verbal autistic children or whatever, which is,

• 1:25:40Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah.

• 1:25:40Speaker 03

  You know, it's this weirdly kind of maybe predictive around like what's happening with telepathy tapes and stuff. So, yeah.

• 1:25:47Speaker 02

  Did you, did you know that Clarke also in a, um, media interview at his home in Sri Lanka, this was circa 2000, uh, Buzz Aldrin was visiting him there. There's an image, a photograph of that, uh, media interview. And Clarke is asked about, um, Mars and he says, uh, what's really shocking and exciting to me is that, uh, NASA has basically discovered large forms of life on Mars. Have a look at the pictures of Mars from Jet Propulsion Laboratories. Take a look at these structures. I don't see any other interpretation other than that these are gigantic forms of biological life on Mars. And Buzz Aldrin just sits there quietly, doesn't contradict them, doesn't disagree.

• 1:26:30Speaker 02

  That's another, I think, interesting connection. And I've seen those specific Mars images that, um, Clarke was referring to, who also was, by the way, um, a proponent of studying the face on Mars more closely. And he thought those were promising candidates of, uh, ET's built structures on Mars. He was, I think, basically correct. There, there are a number of these images from, uh, Mars Global Surveyor from nowadays from high rise, showing what looked like they could well be maybe the skeletal structure of, uh, fossilized large forms of life on Mars. Or perhaps technology of some sort that's just more exotic. But, uh, I think he was on to something there.

• 1:27:14Speaker 02

  And, uh, soon enough I'll be, uh, saying more about that in some upcoming interviews, showing some specific examples.

• 1:27:21Speaker 03

  About what?

• 1:27:21Speaker 02

  Oh, well, so I recently did an interview with, uh, my friend and colleague, John Ward, who's a Mars anomalies researcher who does really excellent work. He's made some discoveries of, uh, anomalous formations and structures that look like ruins or look like maybe fungal structures that are, you know, spanning, um, hundreds of meters and, and area.

• 1:27:48Speaker 02

  In that interview, we examined the images in great detail. I apply some algorithms to evaluate, that evaluate the likelihood that they can be naturally formed, fractal and texture-based algorithms. And I show that the algorithms, um, imply that these, these, uh, landforms are probably not of natural origin. And, um, there are many other images of that sort from NASA's own, uh, high-rise and MGS images of the Martian surface. And so I think they corroborate what Clarke had said in that interview and had said in other places.

• 1:28:27Speaker 03

  Wild.

• 1:28:27Speaker 02

  So then the question is, why isn't NASA not acknowledging that?

• 1:28:30Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:28:31Speaker 02

  Why are they putting these images out for the public to see? But ignoring, uh, these independent researchers or just saying, oh, it's all nonsense.

• 1:28:43Speaker 02

  It's kind of unclear to me what the motive is and all of that, but.

• 1:28:47Speaker 03

  Yeah. Well, it's, um.

• 1:28:48Speaker 02

  There is one.

• 1:28:49Speaker 03

  It's, uh, you know, see, like it's, it's, don't shut down all discourse on the thing. In fact, even seed it in these kind of non-authoritative ways and then track it. And I think that's what's going on with Arrow and with all the modern UFO conversation. And it's, you know, it's, I don't think it's a coincidence that the, you know, NS, a former NSA director is like, you know, uh, the Arrow guy where it's like they track all the comms probably around what's coming out. And like, you know, figuring out the unknown is, is going to be beneficial, I'm sure to them in many ways. And they're just going to track everything. And we know from Snowden and from all these, you know, revelations of the last 20 years that like all our shit is tracked all the time. So.

• 1:29:33Speaker 02

  So maybe they want people to work on these things and.

• 1:29:36Speaker 03

  Probably.

• 1:29:37Speaker 02

  Publicly, and they're hoping that someone will give some insights, but they just don't want to acknowledge these.

• 1:29:41Speaker 03

  They don't want to do it like officially. They don't want to say like, you know, because they're worried that that will be destabilizing. And then they probably just want to like seed it as much as they can. And so it's, yeah, it's not, it's not giving it the stamp of approval it totally deserves because it's a real field and all this stuff is legit. But it's also not shutting down conversation in a way that, you know, they can, they can, they can always like, knock on the person's door who's like essential to them when they need them or whatever. And then there's the other explanation is like the lights are on, but no one's home. And like they're, they literally don't get it. And they're like old gray beard bureaucrats who like, don't understand this stuff. So I, I don't know. I go back and forth, but.

• 1:30:20Speaker 02

  Maybe this is also why, um, when Project Blue Book was released, the press release associated with, or at least with like, Special Report 14, or the, the whole thing was, uh, Stanton Friedman, uh, did some research on this. And he said, the, the press release said that, uh, we didn't find anything anomalous, even in the unknown cases or the unidentified cases, there was, it was only like 3% of all the cases. And we think that if we had more information, we could easily explain those. But then in Special Report 14 of Blue Book, you look at the actual report and the data table of identified and unidentified and unknown cases.

• 1:31:01Speaker 02

  And it's something like 21% of almost a thousand different cases were, uh, unknown and.

• 1:31:10Speaker 02

  They even say in the report that, oh yeah, we can't actually

• 1:31:13Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:31:14Speaker 02

  Identify them. We we're not sure that we can identify them with more information either.

• 1:31:18Speaker 03

  Same with

• 1:31:19Speaker 02

  So they clearly lied about their own report that that was released to the public.

• 1:31:22Speaker 03

  Yeah, the analytical overlay, the stated conclusion was just false.

• 1:31:26Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:31:27Speaker 03

  The same with the Condon Committee, which is synonymous with having, you know, shut down Blue Book as far as, you know, what we think of it. But if you actually look at the committee report, it's over 30% still unidentified. Same with air. We think of modern day arrow, you know, pre Kozlowski, you know, with Sean Kirkpatrick. As like bad faith actors, they're trying to shut down the conversation. Then you look at the actual substance of like what they're reporting and it's also over 30% still unidentified. So, you know, and then he just goes, but we don't have evidence for extraterrestrials. Well, I don't know if we do either, but I know we have evidence for a lot of anomalous stuff that's worthy of worthy of further inquiry.

• 1:32:08Speaker 03

  And you're trying to shut down that conversation and, you know, almost acting as like a fly trap for the data.

• 1:32:16Speaker 03

  So yeah, it's it's very weird where like the the statements don't actually match the data. And then it's like, is that some sort of dog whistle that's supposed to hit the right people? Who like are, you know, you're initiated if you you can think for yourself and then get beyond the stated sort of look away, you know, blanket statement. I don't I don't know. I don't understand how this stuff works. But there there is a lot of talking out of both sides of of your mouth.

• 1:32:42Speaker 02

  But I think that's probably the most promising explanation that you just gave, the dog whistle one.

• 1:32:46Speaker 03

  Yeah, yeah, maybe. Yeah. Okay, there's some more really weird anomalies on the moon. You have a heat signature?

• 1:32:57Speaker 03

  I want to take a moment to thank one of today's sponsors, Zbiotics. Zbiotics pre alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to specifically tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's a buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration that's to blame for the rough days after drinking. Pre alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make pre alcohol your first drink of the night. Of course, drink responsibly and you'll feel your best tomorrow.

• 1:33:39Speaker 03

  I have Zbiotics before my first drink of the night and I wake up feeling totally normal the next morning. So go to zbiotics.com/jesse to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use Jesse at checkout. Zbiotics is also backed with a 100% money back guarantee. So if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions asked. Remember to head to zbiotics.com/jesse and use the code Jesse at checkout for 15% off. It happened to me in the woods. I was hiking solo. New year, no phone, no gear. I was just trying to find myself. That's when I saw it.

• 1:34:24Speaker 03

  Something glowing, silent, descending through the trees, a UFO. And stepping out from it wasn't an alien or an android. It was me, but better. Same face, same great hair, but something was different. This guy had perfect posture. He was wearing the perfect jean and they start at just $79, six fits, sizes for every thigh on this timeline and beyond. Now, 2026 me wears the perfect jeans. They don't crush my thighs or my dreams. They're soft, but dangerous. For a limited time, our listeners get 15% off their first order plus free shipping

• 1:35:08Speaker 03

  at theperfectjean.nyc or just Google the perfect jean and use code jesse15 for 15% off. That's 15% off for new customers at theperfectjean.nyc with promo code jesse15. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Hear khakis and get the perfect jean. There's some more really weird anomalies on the moon. You have a heat signature?

• 1:35:40Speaker 02

  Yeah, there is a place on the far side of the moon called the, well, between two craters called Compton and Belkovich. And NASA has found in imaging, infrared imaging of the entire moon that there's this one area that is emitting 20 times the average heat output of the rest of the far side of the moon. So 20 times the heat output in this one area between these two craters. And not only that, but this area has also an anomalously high concentration of thorium and I believe uranium, so radioactive elements.

• 1:36:24Speaker 02

  It's also anomalously glassy and highly reflective compared to the rest of the backside of the moon, far side of the moon. And in terms of the cratering of this particular area, NASA scientists have analyzed that and they've concluded that the number of craters in this particular area is anomalously low or few, indicating a much younger age than the rest of the far side of the moon. The ages they estimate based on the cratering rates, which is a standard technique used by lunar geologists, geologists, is about on the order of hundreds of millions of years old, whereas obviously the rest of the backside of the moon is much more ancient than that. Three plus billion years old and even more.

• 1:37:07Speaker 02

  So there are there are anomalies on top of anomalies on top of anomalies on top of anomalies in this one area. This heat, this anomalously hot area.

• 1:37:16Speaker 03

  20 times is well beyond some sort of expected standard deviation.

• 1:37:20Speaker 02

  Yeah. And while it may not be an enormous amount of heat, it's

• 1:37:27Speaker 02

  that's being emitted, the fact that it's so much more than the rest is what makes it a particularly interesting geological anomaly. And what's more is that the best explanation that NASA and the planetary science community has been able to come up with so far is that there must be a massive 50 kilometer a wide block of granite below the moon's surface kilometers below that's storing heat from billions of years ago and just emitting it through the lunar surface. And that's being seen at this particular spot called the heat anomaly. The researchers who came up with that hypothesis, they admit that

• 1:38:10Speaker 02

  this otherwise would not make sense geologically because for granite to form, you need massive amounts. You need water and you need tectonic activity. And for a 50 kilometer wide block of granite, you would need a massive amount of water to produce that, which doesn't exist on the moon and probably never existed.

• 1:38:30Speaker 02

  At least like in the standard picture of the moon, it never existed. And so they admit that geologically, it doesn't make sense that there could be such a massive block of granite. And it's only invoked as an ad hoc explanation of this particular heat anomaly. There's been no imaging, like ground penetrating radar has not found a block of granite like that of any sort. So it's just a purely ad hoc geological hypothesis that's geologically nonsensical too, according to everything we know about geology.

• 1:39:02Speaker 03

  Yeah, it's a hypothesis that actually cuts against basic conventions of geology.

• 1:39:07Speaker 02

  Because it's been, nothing like that has been found anywhere else in the solar system in terms of like granite in that larger quantity. So I would say this is another obvious candidate place to go. Maybe there's a remnant of, I don't know, an underground base that was maybe maybe had a nuclear reactor. Maybe there was, it was a landing site of somewhere else. These are all these possibilities.

• 1:39:28Speaker 03

  Well, that's where my mind goes because on earth it feels like UFOs show up at yeah, nuclear hotspots, but also places where they're rare earth, you know, mineral deposits, that sort of thing. So I wonder if there's some sort of, you know, yeah, thorium deposit thing going on there. I don't know, you know, would that connect somehow with UFOs showing up?

• 1:39:51Speaker 02

  Well, I think it would be interesting.

• 1:39:56Speaker 02

  Yeah, I don't know. In terms of, I mean, maybe the thing to do would be to send some robotic probes or rovers at this particular Compton Belkovich heat anomaly and have them just point cameras to the sky and monitor and see if any interesting, I don't know, anomalous orbs or whatever are seen.

• 1:40:17Speaker 02

  By the way, do you know if in Hastings work, if this correlation between UFOs and nuclear sites includes just ordinary nuclear reactors?

• 1:40:26Speaker 03

  Oh, yeah. So he actually has an appendix where he details six to eight civilian nuclear energy grids. And there's a famous case in Bariloche, Argentina, apparently the Chernobyl spill, the Fukushima spill. There's a mountain in Japan called Mount Senganori, right next to the Fukushima civilian energy grid. That's dedicated to UFOs. There's a whole UFO museum at the top of the mountain.

• 1:40:48Speaker 02

  Well, if that's the case, then I guess we should expect that when NASA builds its nuclear reactor for this planned moon base, at least, you know, this has been stated that this is a plan to build a nuclear reactor on the moon to power this moon base at some point, then maybe we should expect to see, yeah, UFOs, UAP flying over the lunar surface, drawn to that nuclear reactor. At least that's a thing to perhaps look out for.

• 1:41:19Speaker 03

  Totally. Yeah, it's very, yeah, exactly. You also have this anomalously bright crater, right? Called Aristarchus. And that kind of connects with one of these Apollo, was it Apollo 11?

• 1:41:31Speaker 02

  Apollo 11 is when it was, it was noticed, but well, so apparently some astronomers in Germany saw this crater as unusually bright. And Mission Control told Apollo 11 about this while they were in orbit before they landed. And they were asked to take a look at Aristarchus from orbit around the moon. And yeah, Armstrong and Aldrin, and the other guy, I think Collins, they looked at it and they said, yeah, it looks unusually bright, almost like fluorescing. We can definitely

• 1:42:08Speaker 02

  see that. It was also considered to be a potential landing site for Apollo 18, which never happened as a, you know, a mission, but they were interested in it. It's also in NASA's own multiple studies of transient lunar phenomena. So NASA has this archive of transient lunar phenomena dating back hundreds of years from amateur astronomers, professional astronomers on Earth. About half of them have been identified coming from Aristarchus as well. And they don't know why. Nobody knows why. There are some hand wavy guesses, speculations, like maybe there are,

• 1:42:52Speaker 02

  there's some sort of outgassing of some type, coming from deep within the moon, of some unknown gas that somehow then creating electrical phenomena or sparking of some kind. But that's just a guess. They have, they have detected anomalous quantities of radon, which is a byproduct of, of, yeah, of other radioactive elements. And it's still not known what is causing the transient lunar phenomena around Aristarchus, or just anywhere in general. There are some

• 1:43:33Speaker 02

  very tentative explanations. So this, I would say, is another potential site. It's anomalously bright in the visible spectrum, in the ultraviolet spectrum. And it produces flashes of light occasionally. Apparently, it changes color in anomalous ways. It becomes hazy in anomalous ways. It exhibits all kinds of phenomena that, again, do not fit the standard geological explanation of what the moon is. So we got to take a closer look. It's squarely one of the, you know, one of the best anomaly candidates we have. And there are, there appear to be potential, like cave-like entrances at the base of Aristarchus, which have been found by

• 1:44:16Speaker 02

  some lunar anomalies researchers. And so

• 1:44:19Speaker 03

  That's wild.

• 1:44:20Speaker 02

  Yeah. And I wonder if maybe that's, this is part of the reason NASA wanted to go there in Apollo 18, was because

• 1:44:29Speaker 03

  Send some rovers?

• 1:44:30Speaker 02

  Yeah, they, they haven't even done that, interestingly enough.

• 1:44:33Speaker 03

  They've never sent rovers.

• 1:44:34Speaker 02

  Never sent rovers.

• 1:44:35Speaker 03

  Do you think some secret program has sent rovers?

• 1:44:38Speaker 02

  Or perhaps. I was recently, I recently learned that the Air Force had detailed plans for like an Air Force manned mission to the moon.

• 1:44:51Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:44:51Speaker 02

  Called Lunex, which was designed in like 1957 and 1961.

• 1:44:57Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 1:44:58Speaker 02

  And

• 1:44:59Speaker 03

  It was at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Oh, the manned orbiting laboratory.

• 1:45:02Speaker 02

  Right. And they wanted to build the base and send multiple Air Force, I guess, personnel to the moon and

• 1:45:10Speaker 03

  And then nominally, it was canceled.

• 1:45:11Speaker 02

  Nominally is canceled, yeah.

• 1:45:12Speaker 03

  And because it was like, oh, we'll have NRO satellites, which nobody knew what the NRO was at the time. But it was like, you know, NRO would image things better than humans. But if you have things like Aristarchus, which are real lunar anomalies with seemingly some sort of internal cave network and, you know, brightness and associated with it, why wouldn't you send a person there? You probably would. And so that Air Force, you know, manned orbiting laboratory, I always think, another interesting place to look for truth is, you know, really ridiculous narratives, like what's directly adjacent to that. So there's this whole idea of secret space program. You have Corey Goode going on Gaia, saying, oh, we have, you

• 1:45:56Speaker 03

  know, we have all these people have gone 20 and back into like the deep solar system. And it's just insane. And it's so there are all these logical fallacies involved in it. It's not even worth getting into and debunking because it's so prima facie sort of ridiculous in bad faith. But like, and then, and then you think, when you say the word secret space program, you assume that we have no secret space program. So it did its job. That's what I think its job was. You know, it's almost like a pizza gate in Epstein or something. Like it's very adjacent and similar to, so of course we have a secret space program. Of course, there is some, I don't know what it is. You have Reagan diary entries from the 80s saying, I, you know, met with top astronomers from NASA, you know, and the Navy, I think.

• 1:46:41Speaker 03

  And, you know, it turns out we can put, you know, three, up to 300 people in Earth's orbit. We, right now, we have, if you count, you know, International Space Station and Soviet and Chinese equivalents, we have like 10, 11 people in space. What are you talking about? 300 people? We had the capability in the 80s to put 300 people, like according to, I mean, maybe you could say, you know, it was some bureaucrat showboating, you know, there are ways you can explain that away. But then you have the manned orbiting laboratory stuff, which was nominally canceled. But like, why wouldn't you also have, again, people going to some of these sites where we've discovered anomalies to figure out, you know, if there's

• 1:47:22Speaker 03

  some super kind of, you know, again, one line of code update on everything, you know, a person has to analyze. You're not going to send some robot and like, just, you know, figure it out optically. Or if you do, then you're going to send a person after that.

• 1:47:35Speaker 02

  Yeah. I mean, I think there's no question that there is a covert or secret space program, which is more or less admitted by US military. If you go and look at potential job applications and various private aerospace firms, they talk about, you have to have knowledge about maybe space systems and space vehicle propulsion. And we know that at Vandenberg Air Force bases, there are classified payloads that are launched into space routinely. And NASA has even launched classified DOD payloads into space through the shuttle missions, for example. And even after, there was the joint DOD Clementine mission as well. And there's no question

• 1:48:20Speaker 02

  that there is a secret space program to some degree. The only question is, how far does it extend? Does it include secret manned missions in orbit, for example, aside from NASA? Does it include manned lunar missions or potentially even beyond that, that we don't know about? And, well, yeah, given how little we know, given how much secrecy there is

• 1:48:46Speaker 02

  around these covert space programs, I think that's all possible. As we have to keep an open mind about that.

• 1:48:53Speaker 03

  Totally. Yeah. What about the idea that the moon is partially hollow?

• 1:48:58Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:48:59Speaker 03

  So you have like, you know, Apollo 11 and 12, where it rang like a bell, then they put seismometers and they intentionally crashed the booster into it and it rang even more for longer. You know, this is all documented. You have Gordon McDonald, Eisenhower's space advisor, saying, the only way in which the moon makes sense is if it's somewhat hollow. So what, is that significant somehow? Is that, is that, you know, maybe, maybe it's sort of this, you know, if you want to get really crazy, some people say it might be this geo engineered structure.

• 1:49:31Speaker 02

  Right. Well, it's, there are, I think, a couple of

• 1:49:39Speaker 02

  Explanations for why it rings like a bell in these, or why it rang like a bell in these Apollo experiments. And one is, okay, yes, it's bone dry, right? So that allows sound waves to propagate propagate more easily. Doesn't have water, except for like just a little bit of water ice at the poles and microscopic amounts of water elsewhere. That's one thing, but NASA has also imaged the subsurface of the moon using a probe called Grail, which measured basically changes in the gravitational field of the moon. And it's found that there are massive caves and caverns extending

• 1:50:21Speaker 02

  even potentially kilometers below the lunar surface.

• 1:50:25Speaker 02

  Irregular, it's not uniform everywhere, but there are clearly major gaps in cave-like structures below the lunar surface. So that probably, that has to also contribute to the explanation. Now beyond that, I, is it hollow if you go like straight to the core? I don't know. But um, if it has these anomalously large caves and caverns, like one in particular, which is connected to a lava tube. It's considered a gigantic lava tube. It is so large, you could take Manhattan and the burrows and fit it inside of it. And it's something like, I think nine kilometers tall or something like that. It's enormous.

• 1:51:13Speaker 02

  That's, it's possible that it's been geo-engineered. If there was a past ET visitation, one of the logical places or logical things you might do to build a base, establish a long-term presence is to build it underground to just avoid micrometeoric bombardment or solar flare activity or radiation. And so it's very possible that the reason there are these massive hollow expanses at certain portions of the moon is because it was basically built out at some point in the past. And so I think we have to just go and look.

• 1:51:50Speaker 03

  And it regulates the tide on the earth and the environment. There are Zulu myths of like pre-moon society, like this idea that like it showed up at some point. I know, or even if you read the Quran, the moon opens up. So you know, who knows? You know, what that, what any of that means, but, but isn't it even conventionally thought of as anomalous? The fact that it's tidal locked, that you never see the dark side and it is, isn't it unusually close and big for a moon as well?

• 1:52:25Speaker 02

  Well, what's, what's special is about the tidal locking in this case is that, I mean, multiple moons in our solar system are tidally locked to their planets like Phobos and Deimos, the moons of Mars are tidally locked. But what's unique about our moon is how large it is compared to Earth and it's tidally locked. And then, yeah, the fact that it's at this particular distance that regulates the tides in such a way that

• 1:52:54Speaker 02

  life could basically evolve without or develop over time in a fairly stable way that's where the tides are not destructive to the gradual development of life on Earth. That's an interesting anomaly. And then also I think, I mean, the question is, is like, what is the odds of, of a moon being tidally locked at this particular distance? Such that it regulates the tides in this way? That's not really fully understood. And then the other thing is, how did the moon form in the first place? The leading explanation is a glancing blow from a Mars-like planetoid body. I know four billion years ago, it just came out of nowhere and just crashed into Earth.

• 1:53:38Speaker 02

  What are the odds of that particular collision?

• 1:53:40Speaker 03

  Makes no sense.

• 1:53:41Speaker 02

  Doesn't really make sense to me either.

• 1:53:42Speaker 03

  Sphere would pop out and then, you know, move into some, you know, orbit point or whatever. It doesn't make that.

• 1:53:49Speaker 02

  It doesn't make a lot, it, there are a lot of ad hoc aspects.

• 1:53:52Speaker 03

  And then, and then also it doesn't pattern match to the earth. Like the, the more you dig on the moon, you get into kind of less dense layers, you know? And obviously maybe, maybe that's, you know, if you get to the core, maybe that changes somewhat. But with the earth, it's just more dense all the way down you go. You would expect it to match. Yeah. If, if like some, you know, like perfect slice, proportional slice of the earth popped out of the earth, you would expect it to match the earth.

• 1:54:18Speaker 02

  Yeah, the, the distribution of mass below the surface of the moon is anomalous too. I mean, I mentioned the cavernous gaps, the big gaps. There are also areas of the moon that apparently have enormous concentrations of mass. And these turn into gravitational anomalies. So even the lunar, the Apollo spacecraft while orbiting the moon, they had problems with landing or they had to correct their orbits because of these gravitational anomalies, like uneven gravitational pulls of the moon. Because some places there's enormous concentration of mass and we don't know why. In some places there's a big gap of missing mass underneath and we don't know why.

• 1:55:00Speaker 02

  And it's really hard to see, understand that in terms of this conventional explanation of Thea, this Mars-like planet just crashing into the moon and then the debris just coalescing and

• 1:55:13Speaker 02

  and I think if you press lunar scientists enough on these points, they'll admit that, yeah, there's a lot of, there are a lot of mysteries here about how the moon could have formed naturally. So they'll admit to it. What they'll probably be reluctant to do is to consider the possibility of the moon as maybe artificially formed or at least maybe geo-engineered in some way in the distant past. But I think when we take into account the improbability of these particular properties of our moon and the way it could have formed naturally, we have to consider those scenarios seriously. And I think also the fact that life on Earth,

• 1:55:53Speaker 02

  the way it could have evolved, or first of all, the way that DNA and RNA could have spontaneously formed. And then from that complex biological life evolved. I think frankly, that there is no remotely plausible, natural, physical, chemical explanation of how that occurred. I don't think the standard neo-Darwinian synthesis of that has

• 1:56:17Speaker 02

  provided particularly plausible explanations.

• 1:56:19Speaker 03

  It's the, it's the reason like Francis Crick.

• 1:56:22Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:56:22Speaker 03

  Was like, there's no way that DNA could have formed in a hundred million years. So, you know, he started to write about life, he wrote a book called Life Itself in 1981 about directed panspermia. And he wrote a paper about it as well. And Carl Sagan was very interested in this too. Because it was the only explanation. So this whole like prime evil primordial soup thing of like, you know, how does chemistry turn into biology? Seems like a very unsolved question that we're, you know, we're just inserting placeholders and the sort of conventional explanation there right now.

• 1:56:55Speaker 02

  Right. So if the human genome is genetically was engineered by someone billions of years ago.

• 1:57:04Speaker 02

  If directed panspermia is correct, it could well be that whoever seeded life on Earth or engineered DNA and RNA may have also said, let's also engineer the moon of this planet. So that this form of life that we're seeding here can develop over time without too much difficulty.

• 1:57:27Speaker 03

  Do you think?

• 1:57:27Speaker 02

  So I think that's entirely realistic.

• 1:57:29Speaker 03

  Do you think there's a chance that we came from Mars?

• 1:57:33Speaker 02

  Yeah, it's possible in some sense because Mars seems to have had a Earth-like atmosphere for like over a billion years, according to even NASA's own studies.

• 1:57:45Speaker 02

  And this was like three billion years ago.

• 1:57:49Speaker 02

  Maybe life independently developed, or maybe it was first seeded on Mars through some directed panspermia scenario of some ET visitors. And then over time, maybe they became spacefaring. Maybe they came to Earth billions of years ago, or maybe

• 1:58:10Speaker 02

  meteor strikes took some of the, the, I don't know, the bacteria or the primitive forms of life. And then they just, you know, went through space and then crashed into Earth. That's another possibility.

• 1:58:22Speaker 03

  What about all the, you know, you're sitting in the chair that Joe Rogan sat in as my first guest in the spaceship and it was a total honor. It was really fun. And we just went off on this whole like, you know, maybe we didn't even go to the moon thing. And I don't think he would, or I would say, we definitely didn't go to the moon. I think we just wanted to instill some kind of epistemic humility or openness on the part of the audience. Because there are a lot of weird facts about the first Apollo missions. They're just, they are, there are, if the whole, I can say definitively that at the very least, the perception of the entire thing was super managed. And there are fake elements of the Apollo program. And then it's just like, how fake was it?

• 1:59:07Speaker 03

  And I'm inclined to believe, I'm, I'm in this sort of middle camp is how I net out that like, we did go to the moon. We experienced some weird stuff along the way and that's what we're hiding. But um, is there a chance that we never went to the moon? Why have we not gone back?

• 1:59:22Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:59:22Speaker 03

  Do you have any explanations there?

• 1:59:25Speaker 02

  I think we definitely went to the moon at least as early as Apollo 11. I think that many of the

• 1:59:35Speaker 03

  You think possibly earlier?

• 1:59:38Speaker 02

  Yeah, I mean, if the air force was planning, making detailed plans for that in the 50s, even before NASA was formed. And then afterwards, I mean, who knows, maybe, but I don't know. I, I would say just at least since Apollo 11. I think that what people like Bart Sabrell and other moon hoax proponents say, I think I can explain pretty much all of the main objections they have to the claim that we went to the moon in Apollo 11. So I think there are reasonable explanations for the apparent shadow discrepancies, for example, or

• 2:00:19Speaker 02

  for example, they have Van Allen radiation belts and the question of how we could have gone through. But yeah, it's very, it does seem like some of the imagery was

• 2:00:32Speaker 02

  Like, yeah, managed, or at least

• 2:00:35Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 2:00:35Speaker 02

  Subsequently, images released to the public may not have been the original imagery.

• 2:00:40Speaker 03

  Sure.

• 2:00:40Speaker 02

  Um, there is this particular exchange between Buzz Aldrin and Conan O'Brien.

• 2:00:44Speaker 03

  Uh huh.

• 2:00:44Speaker 02

  From many years ago. It's on YouTube. Everyone can watch it. And Buzz and O'Brien asks him, what was it like going to the moon and walking the moon? And then Buzz Aldrin says to him, well, what you saw there was actually not the original like image or real, it was like a manufactured uh, image of some kind. And the audience is like, what? And O'Brien is like, what? And then he changes the subject.

• 2:01:08Speaker 03

  I remember my parents waking me up and we went down and we watched you guys land on the moon.

• 2:01:13Speaker 08

  No, you didn't. No, you didn't.

• 2:01:15Speaker 03

  What?

• 2:01:15Speaker 08

  Because uh, there wasn't any television. There wasn't anybody taking a picture. You watched animation. So you associated what you saw with.

• 2:01:23Speaker 03

  I have very hazy memories.

• 2:01:25Speaker 02

  And I don't know what Buzz Aldrin meant by that. It sounded like Buzz Aldrin was saying that some of the imagery was not real, or it was a simulation or simulated.

• 2:01:34Speaker 03

  Whoa.

• 2:01:34Speaker 02

  That's, I mean, if you take his words at face value there, that's what he seems to be saying.

• 2:01:39Speaker 03

  I mean, the video was so fake. It's ridiculous.

• 2:01:42Speaker 02

  It doesn't look, I mean, it's, it's not impressive by today's standards and it looks like it could have been, I agree, it looks like it could have been fake, but I think in the end, it, there are too many indicators that it actually happened and that the more likely explanation is that it's just, it looks that way, but it's, it was genuine, it was just poor quality and that's why it looks so fake.

• 2:02:07Speaker 03

  I have a friend named uh, Jim Keller, who's like one of the most famous chip makers in the, like he built the chip that's like in all of our iPhones and he was uh, working directly under Elon at Tesla and he's a really super impressive guy. He was, I don't know if his title was CTO, he was de facto CTO of like Intel for a long time. He was a VP there.

• 2:02:25Speaker 02

  Mm hmm.

• 2:02:26Speaker 03

  Genius, like renowned guy. And uh, he's can be pretty conspiratorial and he can beat anyone I know in a debate about the moon landing videos being fake. And he will, he takes the, their fake side.

• 2:02:41Speaker 02

  Oh, he does.

• 2:02:42Speaker 03

  And he's super hard headed, first principles. And we almost did an interview for American Alchemy and he has so much like shareholder value associated with him. They, we sat, we were like, I literally flew up to the Bay Area to do it with him and he was like, Jesse dude, like when we talk, we just say a lot of crazy shit and like, I don't wanna, I gotta raise money for my companies and stuff. But um, I, he has a lot of interesting stuff from there being, you know, no dust on the lunar lander to uh, you know, uh, the, the flag waving, all, all your kind of conventional things, but then you go one step deeper, you know, even on the, on the, on the pro side and like, he kind of dismantles any argument. So

• 2:03:26Speaker 03

  I don't, I, I, yeah, that's where I, I net out that it was really optically curated and managed, but we did go, but I don't, I don't know.

• 2:03:34Speaker 02

  Well, if it would be of interest, I'm happy to talk to him at some point.

• 2:03:39Speaker 03

  That'd be awesome. Yeah.

• 2:03:39Speaker 02

  See his reasons and go step by step with them through it and see what we can.

• 2:03:44Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 2:03:44Speaker 02

  Maybe agree on.

• 2:03:45Speaker 03

  That'd be cool. Cause you, you seem really hard headed and um, you mentioned a couple of things though, in your intro that I, I wanted to dig into. Uh, one is that you studied kind of statistical analysis around parapsychology. So like remote viewing, mind, matter effects. Uh, what prompted you to do that? And how did you shake out? Do you think it's, it's real?

• 2:04:07Speaker 02

  Well, from the time that I was, I mean, this, my interest in this topic goes way, way, way back when I was like, I don't know, nine, 10, 11 and had an uncle who was really um, interested in these topics and he said, but it's probably all nonsense. And uh, there are skeptics like James Randi and other skeptic organizations that say all of this is, you know, not really true, but it would be cool if it were true. Years later, I got in touch with Dr. Hal Pudoff. As a high school student, I was looking to do a Intel Science Talent Search project on something to do with zero point fluctuations and the physics of that. So I ended up contacting Hal when I was, I don't know, in 10th grade or so.

• 2:04:50Speaker 03

  How long ago was this?

• 2:04:51Speaker 02

  This was like 2002.

• 2:04:52Speaker 03

  Wow.

• 2:04:53Speaker 02

  Yeah, I was, I mean, I had read a number of his uh, number of articles about his physics work, the suggestion, his suggestion that gravity is a zero point fluctuation force and gravity inertia are zero point fluctuation forces. And I knew about earth tech and the experimental work that his team was doing.

• 2:05:14Speaker 03

  As a sophomore in high school, you knew about all of this?

• 2:05:17Speaker 02

  Yeah, I was, I was all reading about uh, um, yeah, claims of free energy devices and anti-gravity to Bifield Brown effect, all of that from years before and Hal was someone who struck me as a serious physicist, obviously with excellent academic credentials, mainstream credentials, who was also open minded enough to consider some of these more uh, maybe fringy ideas in physics. And so I, yeah, I reached out to him and uh, we established a communication back and forth for a while. And then when I was in 11th grade, I took like an AP psych course and the textbook said, there's nothing to parapsychology that people have done experiments.

• 2:06:02Speaker 02

  These two people, Russ Targ and Hal Pudoff at Stanford in the seventies, tried to do some experiments with Yuri Geller and with remote viewing, but James Randi debunked all of it. So I wrote to Hal and I said, Hal, I didn't know you did research on parapsychology. And he said, oh yeah, I have. And yeah, what your textbook says is all wrong. And here's an article um, that I wrote about the remote viewing program uh, with Stargate and Scannate or DIA and CIA. And so I was really surprised, but also very interested and impressed with the carefulness of the article Hal gave me, the overview of the research done and his book Mind at Large, which is a compendium of his published papers in the IEEE in the seventies or so.

• 2:06:46Speaker 02

  And then I got in contact with uh, the pair lab.

• 2:06:50Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 2:06:50Speaker 02

  Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab, Brenda Dunn and Robert John. I said, I, I called them and I said, hi, I'm a senior uh, high school student. I'd like to uh, participate as a test subject for your uh, lab, your psychokinetic and remote viewing experiments, because if this is real, I'd like to see it happen for myself. And I'd like to see how you uh, run your experiments and all of that. And so uh, they invited me and we established kind of a communication and I was kind of an intern at the lab on and off for a while. Um, but at the same time, I had a foot in the skeptics community. I joined Psychop and I interacted with those people. I wanted to have a foot in each

• 2:07:33Speaker 02

  to try to stay sort of scientifically neutral and to consider both sides. And I didn't really settle on an opinion at that point. And I kind of put it on hiatus. My interest in that subject until I got through my undergraduate studies. And then, once I went to grad school, I decided that, you know what? I know enough statistics at this point that I should be able to do my own analyses of various uh, SI studies. And one of the ones that was most interesting to me was the Ganzfeld Protocol, which is a sensory deprivation technique developed in the seventies. Um, really by German psychologists then, used by parapsychologists like Charles Anerton

• 2:08:18Speaker 02

  and some others uh, to try to amplify SI effects of the telepathy or clairvoyance or precognitive type. And since then, there have been thousands of trials conducted across hundreds of studies, across dozens of countries going back to the seventies. So there's this big public database of publicly available database.

• 2:08:41Speaker 03

  Explain the Ganzfeld method for

• 2:08:43Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 2:08:44Speaker 03

  somebody who's not familiar.

• 2:08:46Speaker 02

  Essentially what they do is there's a sender and a receiver. The sender is in one room, the receiver is in another room. And the receiver is asked to look at a video screen or maybe a photograph of a particular image chosen from a set of four possible videos or, or uh, photographs. And it's chosen randomly according to some random procedure. And they're asked to try to telepathically send information about the target, the visual target to the uh, receiver. Who's in the other room. And the receiver um, is put into this sensory deprivation state.

• 2:09:33Speaker 02

  Called the Gansfelds. Gansfeld is German for whole field. And essentially, the way they do this is they take ping pong balls, cut them in half, tape them over the eyes of the receiver, and they shine a red floodlight onto their face. So they just see a uniform red, bright red visual field. And then they put on headphones and white noise is played so that auditorily, all they're hearing is white noise. And after about 15, 20 minutes, most people start to have mild sensory and auditory hallucinations, or at least they see imagery of some kind or another.

• 2:10:15Speaker 02

  And one of the experimenters prompts the receiver to describe what they're seeing and describe it descriptively. And as the receiver is saying, I'm seeing, I don't know, a man in a big red, in a red suit, a fat man in a red suit, and I see a Coca-Cola bottle or whatever. They write it down and write everything down, maybe draw some diagrams. And then after about 45 minutes, they're brought out of the Gansfeld state. And this is all happening while the sender is in his room, trying to mentally project or send the imagery to the receiver. After the receiver is brought out of the Gansfeld state, they're asked more questions, maybe asked to

• 2:10:57Speaker 02

  draw what they saw in more detail. So all of this information, it's called a mentation, is then used by the receiver and the experimentalist in the room with the receiver to try and identify the target image from a set of four that's given to them on, say, a screen, for example, computer screen that's like separate from the computer screen in the sender's room. And essentially, they try to guess or identify the target, and they have a one in four chance of doing so. But over thousands of trials, cumulatively, the hit rate across the best trials, or at least

• 2:11:38Speaker 02

  the best quality studies, seems to be around 30 to 35%. And it seems that certain subpopulations, particularly artists, professional artists and musicians, perform significantly better on the order of like 40 to 45% success rate, where the sort of chance expectation is 25%. And so if you do some simple statistical analysis on that, and something called an exact binomial test, you'll find the odds against chance of this is something like one part in maybe 10 to the 12, one part in a trillion, or something like that.

• 2:12:15Speaker 03

  Yeah, so this is, it's like the single line update of code that like changes everything. Like if, if there is some sort of mind matter or interaction, or like mental interaction across spacetime that like goes faster than light, or whatever, you kind of have to throw out all your priors when it comes to physics, when it comes to even consensus reality, even the alien disclosure stuff. It's sort of impossible to have this conversation. But like, you've done this statistical analysis, so has this woman named Jessica Utz. I believe she's at UC Irvine. And she was the president of the American Statistical Association in 2016. And she did this whole

• 2:12:57Speaker 03

  kind of meta-analysis of Stargate and the remote viewing stuff, which it sounds like you did along with the Gansfeld. And like, she was like, if this were any other field, this, it would be beyond a shadow of doubt, of a doubt. It's so, it's so beyond, you know, replicable. And because it's called parapsychology, it's sort of, you know, laughed off. You mentioned Bob John, he was the dean of the engineering school, who's invented, you know, plasma propulsion, that's in satellites we use today, you know, and he's basically spent the last 40 years of his life, working on random event generators and trying to prove out this mind matter effect. And no one would listen to him other than Navy spooks who were extremely interested in what he was doing. So it's this

• 2:13:42Speaker 03

  weird bifurcation of like, like, you know, people like yourself who earnestly look into it is like, it's like, obviously there, you know, Joe Rogan just had on Dean Radin, you just, you earnestly look into it for like, a little bit, and you're like, okay, this is obviously a thing. And then everyone, you know, in consensus academia, it just completely dismisses it and says it's sort of like a joke. I want to now talk about your physics theory, because, you know, I find that to be fascinating. You know, there are very few people who are kind of, you know, coming from the hard-headed physics world, who try to explain UFOs, or who are even open to UFOs. So what is

• 2:14:22Speaker 03

  your physics theory? If you were to describe it at a, at a high level, for not technical, but interested in the substance audience?

• 2:14:34Speaker 02

  The best broad explanation that I can see, as out there from physics as we know it, is that UFOs understood as extraterrestrially engineered craft of some kind. They are

• 2:14:53Speaker 02

  doing something called spacetime metric engineering, or essentially engineering the structure of spacetime. And this particular object called the metric, which is the central object of Einstein's theory of gravity, known as general relativity, the Einsteinian description of gravity and spacetime. Essentially, they're, they're probably setting up a type of a metric called a warp drive metric. It's a particular kind that, I mean, the most well-known version is, was due to this guy Al Kubiere. Essentially, it can, it's a spacetime that involves the

• 2:15:37Speaker 02

  contraction of space in front of an object and the expansion of space behind the object.

• 2:15:43Speaker 02

  And this particular combination of contraction and expansion can actually tug or pull something inside of this metric region in between, in the direction of the contraction. And it doesn't require any sort of conventional ejection mass or reaction mass of any kind. You don't need to throw something out the back. So it's a true example of a reactionless propulsion system. And it requires massive amounts of negative energy density to do.

• 2:16:14Speaker 03

  Which we don't know how to engineer.

• 2:16:16Speaker 02

  Yeah, we don't know how to engineer it. We only know how to engineer it in extremely small.

• 2:16:21Speaker 03

  Yeah, you have Sonny White, who can engineer the Casimir effect, which is this sort of, yeah, almost like anti-gravity, dark energy, quantum black vacuum fluctuations related force, where you have two non-charged but conductive plates, when they're placed very close together, they sort of attract in this anomalous way. And then he can harness that into like, this like, what is it, 1.5 kilovolt, or like some super low voltage chip? That's like, amazing. I mean, if you can like, light up anything and use that as like real electricity, that's nuts.

• 2:17:01Speaker 03

  But so, yeah, so, so you're saying, if you can then scale that to, you know, much higher levels, then maybe you can operate a UFO?

• 2:17:10Speaker 02

  In principle, it seems, I mean, general relativity theory, Einstein's theory of gravity, allows it in principle. One of the open questions still in the physics is, there's this thing called quantum fluctuations, or zero point fluctuations. Basically, the, the, I guess you could say the energy associated with quantum fields in their lowest energy state. There's a question about how they would gravitate, or what kind, how they would influence the spacetime metric. And this is an area of active research, but we don't really have a, yet, a consistent theory of how

• 2:17:50Speaker 02

  that would work. So it's still an open question. And one possibility is that it might turn out that the way that quantum fields alter the metric, in other words, how they gravitate, could destabilize. It could be such that they destabilize warp drive spacetimes, and make them basically unworkable. If that's the case, then it's got to be something much more exotic. It would mean that there is something fundamentally that we're missing in our current physics. But I think, but if it doesn't, then I would say this is the most likely.

• 2:18:25Speaker 03

  Because the Al Kubiere thing doesn't require any sort of brink in Einstein. It's consistent with Einstein, right? It's, it's within relativity. It's just if you can harness, you know, negative energy, negative mass some way, then you can create this sort of, you know, spacetime metric engineering. Yeah. So, okay, interesting. So that would be your top candidate, is that we just figure out how, it's more of an engineering problem than it is a theoretical physics problem at this point?

• 2:18:51Speaker 02

  I mean, I would say, maybe it's a combination of both, just because the theoretical understanding can also inform the engineering understanding. But, but then again, we also know that it's possible to engineer things to a very high degree of precision, without fully understanding the physics behind, the fundamental reasons why they work. So

• 2:19:14Speaker 03

  That's true.

• 2:19:15Speaker 02

  Maybe the way to make progress is just to continue experimenting and tinkering, and to try to prepare larger quantities of negative energy density in the right configurations, and just make a warp drive and see if it works.

• 2:19:28Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 2:19:28Speaker 02

  Don't worry about the theory not being up to speed with the experiments.

• 2:19:32Speaker 03

  Yeah, yeah, yeah.

• 2:19:33Speaker 02

  Maybe that's the way to go.

• 2:19:34Speaker 03

  Have you ever been asked to be part of the legacy UFO program?

• 2:19:37Speaker 02

  No. I wish I would be. I, I even asked Hal Puthoff and Eric Davis, once, I said, well, if I were interested in doing that, how should I go about it? And how, how do they recruit people? And, yeah, they gave some general pointers to me about how they would work, or what you would have to do.

• 2:19:57Speaker 03

  What were the points?

• 2:19:57Speaker 02

  But it was just that you would have to first apply to an aerospace corporation, one of the major ones that are, you know, implicated as one of being part of the legacy program. Work, work for them for a few years on maybe a, on a more public project. Get top secret SCI clearance, express interest in the legacy program, and then

• 2:20:22Speaker 02

  There will be like an internal call to applicants, or if they think you're both interested and you're capable, they'll maybe reach out to you and then.

• 2:20:31Speaker 03

  If that's the only path, we're fucked.

• 2:20:35Speaker 03

  Cause I mean, I think you gotta, I mean, that's crazy. That doesn't make sense, but I mean, it's interesting to hear that that was directly from Eric and Hal, who I think of as, you know, being on the outside, the closest proximity wise to the inside. As can be, they seem like they really have an understanding of the map and the frameworks and all that sort of stuff.

• 2:20:57Speaker 02

  Yeah. And to some extent, um, a lot of my knowledge of this is I've built on their work on this like spacetime metric engineering is a phrase that Hal came up with.

• 2:21:07Speaker 03

  He did.

• 2:21:07Speaker 02

  Putoff came up with. I think it's appropriate terminology and he's written papers on this. Eric Davis has also written a number of papers on warp drives and traversable wormholes. And I've studied their works and then I've, I'm, you know, trying to build on this with a new type of framework that I think can potentially describe how quantum fields gravitate and that could be used to address these questions about the feasibility of warp drives.

• 2:21:30Speaker 03

  Something I've been toying with recently, cause I had this, uh, discussion with Eric Davis and Eric Weinstein and it was super frustrating because we were talking to Eric Davis and we're like, so did you find any theoretical physicists on the program? And he was like, no, there are none of them were theoretical physicists. He was like, maybe one guy, Bernard Heisch or something?

• 2:21:50Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 2:21:50Speaker 03

  And we were like, what? Like no one? And so one interpretation is like the military industrial complex is like totally asleep at the wheel, like has no idea what's going on. This is like, you know, it's like crisis mode. This is crazy. It's like this cargo cult that's like super poorly run. And then on the other side of that, it's like the people who've seen these objects know that physics falls so far short of ever being able to ever crack these things open. That, and it's so much more consciousness related. These are like boundary condition celestial platonic

• 2:22:29Speaker 03

  objects that, you know, Allah, the holographic principle, like we see that, you know, the 3D boundary of, but they exist in some higher dimensional space. And we just, you know, we've tried, but we could like barely get in and maybe we got in after 50 years to one of them or something. And then we were really confused once we got in, you know, like that sort of thing. Those are the only two explanations, either super asleep at the wheel or it's not physics at all. And like, and they know it's not physics and the whole, and then, and then you get into like, are there intentional conflations being made between these like exotic physics frameworks around, you know, high frequency gravitational waves, uh, gravitational manipulation with

• 2:23:14Speaker 03

  solid state superconductors and Bifield Brown and like all these things that like are real topological physics anomalies that lead to like really cool, exciting lineages of science and breakthroughs. Is that being conflated with this UFO conversation, which is really just parapsychological? And has nothing to do with like nuts and bolts science?

• 2:23:35Speaker 02

  Um,

• 2:23:38Speaker 02

  my

• 2:23:40Speaker 02

  impression is, I mean, from what I've understood, for example, Hal Putoff mentions that he was asked by the Bush administration, the, the second Bush administration to partake in some sort of a

• 2:23:52Speaker 03

  Review.

• 2:23:53Speaker 02

  A review and to ask about like, what would it take for disclosure to occur? What would be the costs and benefits? The costs and the benefits of that. And one of the conclusions that this review team came up with is that each aerospace company wants to keep their progress or their work proprietary and they don't want to reveal their secrets to the other one. And

• 2:24:20Speaker 02

  so there's this

• 2:24:23Speaker 02

  incentive for different aerospace corporations to just not talk to the other ones about their findings and to be extremely guarded about who they allow into the program. And so the incentive to keep these things secret and to control who can come in and who can't leads to limitations in terms of, uh, yeah, who gets to know about what's being done actually in these or, or, uh, who gets to work on these programs and very few people from academia

• 2:24:58Speaker 02

  even think to say, oh, I'm going to go into, um, aerospace and, um,

• 2:25:06Speaker 02

  show an interest in UFOs.

• 2:25:09Speaker 03

  For sure. But if, but if you really run that simulation, say like Lockheed has, you know, the Kingman craft from Arizona and it's some warehouse or whatever. And it's just like no seams, no rivets, like this beautiful thing. And you really want to make it work. Cause like you have this market cap that's like, you know, good, but like you need the quarter over quarter growth. You have your shareholder meetings. You know, you have China and Russia and like, you gotta, you gotta make progress on this thing. Do you not think that at some point you'd be like, okay, like the tinkering hasn't really worked. The engineering's been tough. Let's get a headhunter to find

• 2:25:48Speaker 03

  some theoretical physicists. Let's create a shortlist of the theoretical physicists that would be open minded to this in the first place or qualified to work on this. Let's show them the goods. You know, do you not think that that would happen at some point?

• 2:26:02Speaker 02

  Perhaps at some point, but they might be extremely few, highly selected. And if they were there in society, they would definitely not be able to say anything publicly. And they might even be one of the people who say, this is all bullshit and it's none of its real.

• 2:26:22Speaker 02

  I think I vaguely remember some people suggesting that Edward Teller maybe was one of the, maybe one of the physicists who if he, if there is this legacy program, he would be one of the people.

• 2:26:32Speaker 03

  Was on it if there is a UFO legacy program for sure.

• 2:26:35Speaker 02

  Yeah. So then that would be an instance of this of extremely few people are selected, people that can have shown a track record of trustworthiness with secrets, even smaller secrets, for example, and.

• 2:26:47Speaker 03

  I didn't know if you know this, but there's a project sign or grudge document from pre-blue book in the late forties. And Edward Teller's name is on it where he's engaging in a real UFO review. So that's fascinating. You have that. And then you have the fact that he got Bob Lazar's job with EG and G, which I think you can almost definitively say at this point, there's too much data there to dismiss. Um, and then you have the fact that he was, you know, friendly with Thomas Townsend Brown and was shown, uh, kind of a demo of his, uh, fan precipitator experiment and said, I have no idea how this works and freaks out.

• 2:27:25Speaker 03

  And then gets, um, this guy Floyd Odlum, who's the majority or one of the biggest shareholder holders in Northrop pre-merger with Grumman to invest in Townsend Brown. And just thing after thing after thing. It's like, he's, and he was, yeah, yeah. And he was a very obviously deeply associated with, you know, Lawrence Livermore lab. He just had to have known something. And then he's, there's even a letter where he's talking about John Alexander. John Alexander is like, you know, synonymous with, you know, UFO research on the government side for the last 70 years. Like that guy has as much of a history or top of the pyramid understanding as anybody, again, in the kind of public world. And, uh, there's a letter where Teller is like

• 2:28:08Speaker 03

  commending John Alexander saying like, you know, this guy has made all these important updates and non-lethal warfare. And so like, that's a wild connection. Yeah. That's really interesting. So yeah, I, I think Teller would be somebody who would have been on legacy, you know, back in the day.

• 2:28:25Speaker 02

  Yeah. But, but you know, maybe to your point about, um,

• 2:28:30Speaker 02

  it's just something so far beyond any of our theories and models of the world that there's just no point in trying to bring in, I don't know, Ed Witten from Princeton Institute for Advanced Study. Because it's just, there's no reason to think that anything he knows about string theory or physics could help. If, if we gave Galileo, I don't know, uh, an iPhone and we asked him to explain how it works based on just the limited principles of physics that he understood, he would get absolutely nowhere despite being the greatest living physicist of his time, or even to Newton, he would get absolutely nowhere with that.

• 2:29:11Speaker 03

  Yeah. Well, you'd have an interface. You can play around with the interface.

• 2:29:14Speaker 02

  Yeah, maybe that and.

• 2:29:15Speaker 03

  Yeah. But you, would you be able to know how it works? Like, you know, probably not in your lifetime.

• 2:29:20Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 2:29:21Speaker 03

  If you have the knowledge base at that time.

• 2:29:23Speaker 02

  Yeah. He would look at it under a microscope. He wouldn't recognize what he's, uh, seeing. He wouldn't know anything about solid state physics, quant, basic quantum mechanics, electricity, magnetism. There's just too much cumulative knowledge. And so, and they might not even be able to turn it on if it was like, let's say it was battery was dead. So maybe these people in this, you know, uh, presumed legacy program, they've just assessed that there's nothing in the cutting edge of theoretical physics research that seems like it could be useful at all to actually getting these things to work. And that might just be another reason why they don't even bother to try. That's my best guess. I mean, I, but it's as always, you can't really say until you're, you know,

• 2:30:08Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 2:30:09Speaker 02

  involved with these people.

• 2:30:10Speaker 03

  Yeah. Well, Max, this has been a blast, man. Uh, a lot of fun. I feel like it's been like a comprehensive overview of all of the hard headed evidence around anomalies on the moon Mars with the space program. And anybody who's earnestly looking at this stuff should, should seriously look at your work because it's seriously done and in good faith, it's done rigorously. And I don't really see a lot of clear and easy debunks, you know, for it. I guess I'll, I'll end on a final question here, which is you have all of this data now. A lot of the data, you know, points to almost things maybe happening live on the moon right now. And then you obviously have structures that seem sort of more ancient when it comes to both the moon and Mars.

• 2:30:52Speaker 03

  So have you gone to the like theory layer? Or like the, you know, what is the, what is the analysis of all of the data? And do you have like a, a place where you net out on alien life and its current existence or past existence?

• 2:31:09Speaker 02

  I think the abundance, so I, I look at this as a cumulative case. Maybe no one particular anomaly, I say on the moon or Mars is definitive. It's a probabilistic cumulative case. You add up all these particular lines of evidence and you ask, in light of all of this evidence combined, what is the most probable explanation? Is it that it's all just pareidolia and natural geology that's just like fooling us or?

• 2:31:38Speaker 02

  Or is there an intelligent cause explanation of some kind or another? And I think that the inference to the best explanation of this cumulative data is that there was a past extraterrestrial presence of some kind or another on the moon and on Mars in the solar system more broadly. And we have some pretty strong evidence that there have even been

• 2:32:04Speaker 02

  craft of some kind or probe of some kind sent to the solar system. Here I'm referring to STS 48, STS 80, the two space shuttle cases that I mentioned earlier. Probably the fast walkers that the DSP.

• 2:32:17Speaker 03

  So you think those are probes? Or do you think those are live, you know, they're beings that are sentient on the inside that represent, you know, some other civilization?

• 2:32:25Speaker 02

  I don't know for sure, but my best guess would be that hmm, probes probably of some kind, if at least if they're doing something really exotic in terms of their propulsive capabilities. But it could be something much more exotic than that. So I keep an open mind about that. But what I'm trying, what I would like to do just for the scientific community is to lay out these anomalies, explain in detail why the sort of remotely plausible geological or natural explanations don't make sense. That's all you need to do to then say, okay, there must be an intelligent cause explanation. And if it's an intelligent cause explanation, it's not from humans.

• 2:33:07Speaker 02

  So you're only left with one possibility, which is an extraterrestrial in origin broadly construed.

• 2:33:12Speaker 03

  Well, you do a very good job of kind of logically walking someone down that road. And you're reminding me when we were talking about, you know, probes. I think there's a former NASA guy named Stephen Dick, who's part of Avi Loeb's Galileo Project, who talks about this is sort of some sort of AI layer, like protective layer of Earth. And there's another guy, I think, named Patrick Jackson, who has like a sphere network theory. So, yeah, I think, I think the right thing to do is definitely to leave all options on the table. It's, it's so hard to say and so hard to sense make around this. Again, going back to the top of our conversation, if the parapsychology stuff is at all real, all things are possible.

• 2:33:52Speaker 02

  I agree.

• 2:33:53Speaker 03

  But I really appreciate this conversation, Max. And yeah, hopefully we can run it back at some point.

• 2:33:58Speaker 02

  It would be great. It was a great honor. I'm a big fan of your works.

• 2:34:01Speaker 03

  It was my honor, man. Awesome. All right. Cool.

• 2:34:39Speaker 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 House Majority PAC.com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.