Do We Share Earth With Someone Else? With Garry Nolan

the UFO UAP phenomenon is about as murky as it gets with over 70 years of reports regarding the matter we still haven't identified the unidentified from the days of Donald Menzel in jail and heinek to today the picture of just what exactly this represents is still unknown but then comes the question of should we study it should science take a look at it and see if actionable data can be obtained in the mystery one way or another might be solved and apply rigorous scientific effort to finally determine what if anything it is this question has recently taken a somewhat dark turn my guest today is studying two aspects of the phenomenon that might actually be fully scientifically testable and one aspect is disturbing the first are recovered materials reportedly of UFO UAP origin some first studied by Dr Jacques valet the secondary reported injuries due to exposure to UFOs UAP that people have had it's at that point that whatever this is becomes difficult to ignore and that some kind of Investigation in science is sorely needed you have fallen into Event Horizon with John Michael KDA [Music] in today's episode John is joined by Dr Gary Nolan Dr Nolan is the Ratchford and Carlota a Harris professor in the department of pathology at Stanford University School of Medicine he has published over 300 research articles and is the holder of 40 U.S patents and has been honored as one of the top 25 inventors at Stanford University his area of research includes hematopoiesis cancer and Leukemia autoimmunity in inflammation and computational approaches for network and systems Immunology Dr Nolan's efforts are to enable a deeper understanding not only of normal immune function trauma pathogen infection and other inflammatory events remember to subscribe to Event Horizon so you never miss an episode Dr Gary Nolan welcome to the program thank you so much I'm really happy to be here now doctor you work in genetics and one of my interest areas is an abiogenesis how did we get life in the universe started from your point of view do you think that abiogenesis is something that's very rare or very hard or do you think it's just repeatable organic chemistry that happens throughout the Universe well I can't see really a reason why it's not I mean if it can happen in one place I mean that's already in a Bayesian inference mathematics Viewpoint uh it's basically a prior it basically proves that it can happen so the fact that it happened here with pieces of chemicals that we now find stream throughout the entire universe at least in terms of mass spectrometry and other things that we where we can see things at a distance and in meteorites the evidence is pretty clear that complex molecules are already there and uh so I have I have no problem with it I mean there's plenty of evidence that basically lays a path for showing that if anything what we are came from elsewhere in other words the building blocks of life are present in pervading the universe or at least this galaxy well I you know I I can't see there's anything special about this galaxy compared to the many others no but I think there's also I mean we can talk about it later as we get into the discussion but there's there's at least mathematical evidence that suggests that life might have actually started elsewhere and came here it's a it's a variation of Moore's Law of complexity there's a Moore's Law of let's say genomic or genetic complexity that if you extrapolate backwards suggests even that the life here might have happened as many as 10 started 10 billion years ago and traveled here if you will through some kind of panspermia now that's a that's older than the solar system so that that means that that life here could have origins in another star system itself right yeah well I mean all of the heavy metals basically things above mass of about 30 or 40 came from the heart of another star right of a star that exploded so you have to think across those kinds of time frames that the heavier elements were forged really in the heart of a Dying star I think that's something right out of Thor the Marvel Comics and so those elements had to partake in an explosion and then a recondensation that ended up generating the metals around this star we're a second or a third generation solar system so by that premise alone it came from probably hundreds if not thousands of other solar systems and that's just that those are just the atoms that make up the elements in the materials that both we are and that the civilization we created are made from Carl Sagan we are made of star stuff now with this sort of idea of panspermia actual life say microbes locked in a meteorite deep inside of a meteorite is there a limit on time and distance in other words for something like that to transfer in other words can a genetic code an organism sit dormant inside of a meteorite for millions of years that's that would be required for transfer between um well I think the short answer is we've already seen it for tens of thousands of years on certain kinds of bacteria that have been res and that have been resurrected out of icebergs essentially or deep under the permafrost uh so I and I'm not sure about the the exact numbers of how long it would take for something so let's say you had a planet that is in a solar system 10 or so light years away I mean we could run the numbers I don't have the time we don't have the time to do at the moment but you know if you got if you had a meteorite crash on that planet that ejected a piece of something that ended up in space from there does it take a million years or just a few tens of thousands of years to get from one place to another you know even with conventional speeds I'm sure people have done the the uh and run the numbers but I don't see it is impossible no that's a fascinating idea and that stars sneeze on each other and could even sneeze life on each other yeah you know it's just interesting because that seems to me that that would dramatically increase the chances for Life Across the Universe the question is is that if you're related to it even if your two star systems away say the sun had a close encounter with another star in the past and they exchanged life is it really an alien yeah yeah well I mean I think the more interesting question is I mean we're I think people have run the numbers and it's not it's certainly easy to understand that over even just a few million years you can okay you can spread things around the entire galaxy or even a groups of group of galaxies I think the primary the principal point is well look it's it that means at the very least it's all based on DNA which means there aren't altern there aren't necessarily alternative codes for how life is generated other than DNA unless there's something we're missing that's already here even on this planet I just don't know that gets into a shadow biosphere if you don't know what you're looking for you may not discover a second occurrence of microbial life even even if it was here that you just might not know right do you think we have any hope if such a thing exists a shadow biosphere with current methods of studying microbes do you think we could ever run across it if there was a second abiogenesis on planet Earth uh yes and I've actually although I I don't mean to sound conspiratorial or anything there's someone that I'm working with who has at least pictorial evidence of such a thing you know but before I get all excited about it I'm actually buying for the guy uh some instruments that he can use to determine if it's actually real or not I mean the the picture evidence that I've seen is pretty compelling so we'll see I mean because what what whatever it is it isn't standard so you know it might just be a mistake on his part but we'll see I mean that's that's the reason why I mean so one of the reasons why I don't want to talk about it too deeply is because I don't like doing science by news release and I'm sure this person doesn't want the entire planet making fun of him for something that might end up being a mistake and nor do I so you know but I think it's it's fun that if the if the question the evidence suggests that it's worth following up on what's a few thousand dollars to to develop uh you know perhaps a better understanding of it yeah and it's it's a it's a high reward it's a higher reward proposition because if you find find a second abiogenesis of life on Earth then you're going to get a Nobel Prize or something along those lines now my question about that the follow-up question would be if it ends up being a null result would you still publish to let everybody know you know yeah because I think the reason why you do it is you publish this other than so that the next person coming along doesn't make the same mistake that's what I was thinking yeah absolutely I mean there's there there's there's no there's there's nothing wrong with saying and you know I did the same thing without a comma I did the same thing with the so-called star child uh skull where if people had interesting ideas it wasn't it wasn't let's say out of this world to come to the conclusion that what you're looking at might not be from this world and so we just published a science paper on it I mean that doesn't doesn't mean that people weren't upset um I can't help that but as long as the results are repeatable which they are then you just say it is I mean the other common thing I mean look Steven Greer wants to to think that it is he's claimed all kinds of things about me fraud and all kinds of stuff which you better watch what he's saying because he's he knows he's wrong and but if if he wants to say otherwise prove it he claims that he has that he didn't give me all of what it was that he had so he can go out and reprove it and prove that I'm wrong I dare him go ahead he won't because he knows that I'm right so I mean those are the kinds of things that if you're if you're going to make a statement base it on evidence not on your wishes special pleading in other words you come to a conclusion before you do all the work and you stick to that conclusion and you just you end up with a non-truth right now in those cases of Starchild and and the Atacama these were to my view first defects yeah right in other words they were genetically human and they were just in bad shape and you had these convergent birth defects that produced a very weird result have you seen anything in the course of your career genetically whether it's a microbe or a piece of tissue or something like that that could have been of uh non-normal life I mean have you ever seen anything that that said this thing probably isn't from you no I I I've not I have not seeing anything I mean probably with the closest thing that's made its way to TV that has any let's say a public recognition is the the work of James Fox uh and the I don't know if I got the word the pronunciation right the Virginia incident uh in his recent movie moment of contact I mean I mean but that's not a piece of tissue or whatever that's somebody's drawing and so at this point I mean from the standards of what you would call evidence it's it's anecdote I mean it happens to be the same anecdote from three individuals so that is more compelling in uh an incident that apparently was in one way or another viewed by dozens if not a couple hundred individual people is there evidence I I don't know I I've not I've not seen it in person and I you know I'm not sure anybody would ever let me see it in person even if it does exist so but that's a that's been the uh subject of thousands of conspiracy discussions so I'm there's no reason for you to go there I mean I I think the the point that you're raising though is the most important one which is there are there are different standards of evidence for different people or different classes of individuals and one class is not above another uh for an individual who experienced it the proof is more than enough right they experienced it I mean so I saw I saw things when I was a young boy that is proof enough for me as a person but proof for me as a scientist is the same as the language of science which is something which is I can hand that proof over to somebody else or tell them to point their telescope or their microscope in the same direction and they will come to the same conclusion as as I do and that usually involves a piece of evidence which is transferable and so at this point there is no such thing that we can hand to another person publicly now there are claims that this stuff exists behind people's closed doors but again that doesn't meet the standard of a scientist For The World At Large who have neither experienced it nor have any evidence in their hands to the extent that they turn to scientists as the Arbiters of some form of truth the truth is not out there yet for people and and I think though that that's the that's a that's an important problem a lot of people don't understand is that those two standards of evidence are very distinct and if we want to place our trust in the the global experience that many people have seen such things then fine then then the discussion is over but if we're going to do it by the standards of science then the discussion is not over so it's up to individuals to decide do you want to go by the truth as would be sufficient in a court of law or do you want to go by truth via science and I happen to live in both worlds and if I want to have this conversation with my science friends who who use just those second set of rules then we we still have work to do I think there that from anecdote you can sort of glean certain interesting things that might lead you in the right direction to study it for example with a Virginia incident there was a smell associated with whatever that was and it seemed to be ammonia so that brings up the question well can ammonia be a solvent for life so in other words can the chemistry of life exist in different chemical mediums like ammonia I mean I see I don't see a reason why not I mean it can be a form of life that prefers let's say not necessarily a salty ocean but a salty ocean that has ammonia in it or is more ammonia based I mean we know that there are microbes for instance that feed on hydrogen sulfide rather and use hydrogen sulfide so you know maybe these whatever those beings were in the in the Brazilian case whatever those things were you know just preferred an environment to handle a little bit more ammonia and or hydrogen sulfide in it um I mean I found that perhaps the most compellingly interesting of the of the case of of the let's say the evidence in that case that Not only was there apparently liquid in the craft itself that's spilled onto the grass around the crash site but that the beings if you will seem to carry it with them or at least be imbued with it as if they were living in that environment and I mean that was just fascinating to me and the soldier who is claimed to have died alleged to have died because of his interaction with the whatever it was you know they talk about it that he died from an infection actually I I think he died from not an infection but whatever the toxin was that was on the skin of the object that he touched and it was kind of a there's a a variety of different kinds of hyper immune responses that could be against whatever that toxin was in the oil of the skin of the of the claimed and alleged okay can you keep using these words being and he died from that not from an infection or or some combination of it that basically you get the skin opening you know across broad swaths of your body because of the toxin then that just basically allows for infections to occur now that's an aspect of this that I don't think has been well discussed publicly until recent times is that whatever this is whatever the phenomenon is it has injured and killed people which immediately to my mind means that we should study it in science and try to figure out exactly what happened you've worked with some of these cases of people injured through encounters with UAP can you can you elaborate on that a bit and tell us what as a doctor what you thought happened so I again I'm trying to be I'm trying to be careful because people have run with what I not that you're going to but people will take this and run with it in a way that is not my intent but I don't think that there's at least very much obvious maliciousness in whatever it is that's happened I think this is kind of an inadvertent on the part of people who supposedly got close to these craft which were emanating a field you know it's as bad as if you were to walk across the Airfield at a military base and you get in the way of the exhaust plume of a jet you get hurt it wasn't the pilot wasn't trying to hurt you but you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and so in these cases I it is sort of a a situation of for these individuals if anything in an inadvertent getting too close to something now you would think that if you've got a on the other side of the equation or whatever it was that they were getting too close to that if this thing or the or the intelligence is operating them were smart enough they'd know never to let any organic being get too close to them so that basically tells you perhaps something about whatever is on the other side there's sort of an inadvertent indifference to our presence so that kind of to me that tells you something even deeper about the phenomenon in general that this indifference is like it tells you something about the difference in the mentality of whatever the non-human intelligence might be versus us that if if it doesn't necessarily Care About Us then how do we reconcile that with other kinds of observations whether it's running around looking at our nuclear facilities or in other situations such as the Zimbabwe aerial case it's telling us that oh we're poisoning our planet how do you reconcile these we care about the ecosystem but we don't care about whether we hurt you in the process of our doing whatever it is that we're doing and I I think that tells you something even deeper that and I had this conversation with Jacques Valley once is it one thing or is it many things and Jacques answer to me was typically uh valaian which was well it could be one thing pretending to be many things right that wants to send the message that is that it's many things whereas it really is only one thing you know he thinks about it as this global system of influence uh that it's a system of systems as he often calls it and so that's sort of the The Meta behind the scenes the individual cases that I worked on through basically primarily was uh kit green who brought most of the cases to me or you know we we now know that the majority of those cases can easily be explained by well I explained as uh Havana syndrome Havana syndrome however you want to pronounce it that doesn't mean that we understand the Havana syndrome but at least they are are seen as a kind of international interstate I don't know what the right word is uh some sort of spy versus spy event where basically somebody some human agency either a state agency or a non-state agency or non-state actors are using some kind of conventional energy weapon to hurt diplomatic core of the United States so once we understood that good 80 to 90 percent of the cases that I was involved with could be easily classified under that and handed over to somebody else's Providence but it did leave a significant number of cases of individuals who had clearly come in contact with something that was not Havana and you know one could construe as being outside of the norm of human existence now the evidence was in those cases both anecdotal it was a story from one or more individuals but it was also reproducible insofar as I could take the MRI the same a number of times from that individual and I'd get the same result now the open question is did it occur because of the interaction that they had was it acute or was it something else I don't know because I don't have a camera to to be there but whatever did cause some of the damage in some of these individuals was clearly an outside agency it didn't just they weren't born with it it happened one day they were fine one day they weren't fine the next and they claimed that the only thing that was unusual was this interaction that they had so that's the kind of evidence that I can personally work with to to hand to another scientist and say here here's the evidence you can agree with me that the data is real this is a big push that I have that I rather than leaving the conclusion believe that the data is real leave the data is real now let's figure out what you tell me other than what they claim happened to them what might have caused this right so that's so I'm I'm I don't want to get into arguments about the anecdote itself I'm interested in the damage per se or I'm interested in the material that I can obtain from either that individual or something that might have been left at the site where the event occurred and I can analyze the material and so that I can handle so those are the kinds of cases that I get interested in because the others will be argued about endlessly and so it's just not it's just not in my interest to argue with people about stories there's historians that are like Richard Dolan who are far better at documenting these kinds of things and putting them in in the various contexts and if if anything putting them down for posterity and writing them down as soon as they've happened as much as anybody can for other people to argue about hundreds of years from now even in regards to consistency between injuries look at a brain scan and you see the same thing in multiple patients so my question is this does that damage resemble anything else any other type of injury or is it unique is whatever is happening to these people unique to this phenomenon I mean certainly the sclerosis that I've seen they're basically the burning at the skin level on the outside looks like some sort of radiation damage I mean radiation is not magic radiation is anything from just electromagnetic waves to light right you I mean or you can aim beams of microwaves at people and hurt them if there wasn't that slightly see-through mesh on your microwave that it's just the right size to prevent microwaves from coming out of your device you'd get cooked too all the way through so there's nothing magic about a microwave weapon there's nothing magic about a gamma-ray weapon I mean people use radiation or other kinds of proton beams Etc in cancer therapy they're just more finely targeted at the Cancer so there's there's no reason you can't turn any of those into some kind of a weapon or if somehow they're a part of a propulsion device that some civilization has figured out if you get close enough to them you're going to get damaged and wherever ever that damage whatever those radiations if you will are concentrated the tissue will get more or less scarred because of it and that's at least the evidence that that I saw on the MRIs so it it was the the damage was reproducible not within a given organ in a specific place in that organ it was reproducible as to the type of damage which is more or less a scarring which is both cell death uh induced cell death um apoptosis or or otherwise and then infiltrating immune system damage where the immune system comes in and cleans up the mess or in some cases as what I think is probably happened to that soldier in the in the Virginia case it was basically a a post it's a toxic chemical of some sort that was react that caused the immune system to act upon it in an over well in an overwhelming case now let me ask you this is sort of an off the wall question but have you seen cases of these types of injuries in people that may not have known that they had even come in contact with UFO or UAP in other words somebody's laying in bed sleeping one flies over the roof and you get the same entry I haven't none of them were ever brought to my attention but you know it's it's one of the reasons why and I'm excited about this that I know of a fair number of groups now that are organizing around collecting that kind of data right one of the things that uh Chris Mellon and Lou Elizondo and and others have have done and and we we often leave Tom Delong out of the conversation but I think it's fair to say we wouldn't be here because of his efforts is that uh people are are now more willing to step forward I've had the number of emails that I've gotten from Pure scientists doctors psychiatrists Etc who are now organizing behind the scenes to set up groups to study this stuff in a more scientific manner will I think let people who've had these kinds of things happen to them come forward to be studied I mean you have to science is always a matter of collect everything that seems interesting put it in a giant bucket and then start categorizing so are there people who had something fly over their house or come into their room or whatever and then they had a damage they didn't even know it was happening to them probably but how do you find them if they won't even in an anecdotal sense tag it with a metadata that says this happened to me it's just somebody who woke up one day and they had damage and the doctors you know no doctor would know what to do with it it's just okay okay well you're damaged I'm sorry I can treat your damage I can't treat I can't treat the cause of your damage or can't understand the cause of your damage and that's you know that's that's sort of a big question because there's a lot of that out there I mean you see Parkinson's patients and things like that that maybe there was some environmental factors in the past their past that might have contributed to developing the disease but you can't know that I don't know what it was now in regards to the physicality of the phenomenon if it's producing electromagnetic radiation of whatever sort that suggests a physical object that can be measured yes if if the object is if somebody could ever get a hold of the object that's producing it then yeah we can apart from the supposed crashes that have occurred the alleged crashes that have occurred which where as far as we can tell quickly absconded with by whoever the government might be there's very little one can do other than to say well they won't give it to us so we can't study you well that's that's that's the big problem is that there does seem to be some kind of a cover-up especially in regards to this but I can also see why they would keep it completely secret if you recover a piece of foreign alien technology that gives you a huge Advantage if you can figure out how it works so I I can and I can't I mean I think we're past the point at this point of whether or not people will be able to accept it or not I don't understand what the advantage can or cannot be if they've had 90 years or 80 years to figure it out and they still haven't done so I mean what are we worried about unless the technological advantage is so easy to make once you have it that putting it in in anybody's hands would be dangerous I mean if we all had the ability to blow up this corner of the continental shelf then maybe that's a bad thing right I mean maybe I mean just look at it this way if if anti-gravity were so easy that anybody could have the ability to travel out to the asteroid belt and push a rock our way there's any of a number of crazies who might go ahead and do it and uh and cause Bedlam so from that standpoint maybe that's a simple reason that you just don't want to give people free energy or the ability to run around and push rocks this way and that until we have a defense mechanism that stops people from doing it and so if the defense mechanism don't is don't give them the the ability to do it in the first place then that's where you got to go and I would be perfectly understandable to that I think the the thing that bothers me though about it is if I were a government and I had Rivals as the US government does it might be advantageous to spread disinformation so that your Rivals think you have Superior alien technology therefore don't mess with them well yeah there's the faints within faints would have been faints argument and again I uh this this goes down the the crazy Road where it's it's never ending arguments and so I'm just gonna stay in my wheelhouse which is you know I'm going to stay as close to the street light on a dark night as I can with a flashlight and kind of look out a little further but I'm not going to worry too much about the Bugaboo that might be sitting just well outside of the light range and so if if something comes if something comes into my hands that I can study and put the proof out then we'll extend our knowledge base a little bit further I mean you know look if if the government wants I think well I think there's a different way to to say it it's I think that it would behoove the governments in a different way to say look this actually does exist and it is happening now let's come up with a framework for how to deal with the potential of what the Technologies can provide right so how do we not worry about what can be done with this information and keep it secret because we're worried about that and why don't we just say well this is what can be done and now let's come up with Frameworks for how to deal with that potential and protect ourselves against the danger of it I mean we all knew the danger of nuclear weapons and we understood the the value of using nuclear energy to produce you know energy for civilization and we we went ahead at least with the good side of it even though we knew that the bad side of it was that we would be potentially giving the ability for let's say certain Rogue regimes like North Korea the ability to turn that into nuclear weapons so as a society I think that's a conversation that should be had and I'm actually working with now a number of individuals to basically set up let's say organizations that can start to talk about this kind of thing in a productive manner frankly all in the in the absence of the kind of hard evidence that I think is is necessary to proved to scientists to say that well look I don't have to wait for the hard evidence to say that if it exists what could be done with it and how do we protect ourselves from the dangers of economic disruption or societal disruption what are the the more academic discussions that could be had around this the solutions because I don't want to get I don't want to spend my time under the covers or in the closet hiding from a potential danger I always like to say that okay well there's a there's a potential utility for Humanity here let's have that discussion I mean and I think the perfect example of this is the alcubier drive which is I think one of the first public discussions of something that Hal putoff had long ago postulated that there's a way to rework Einstein's equations to invert basically them that allows you to say hey look we could travel faster than light and this is now because somebody dared to say well maybe you can travel faster than light maybe that's how it is that these things got here in the first place that now is a whole sub-industry in standard physics to say okay well let's see if this is practical in any way and so the first equations around the alcubiere drive basically said you had to convert the entire rest mass of the Sun into energy to be able to create the the negative energy to get to move faster than light and then people who come up with various other ways to look at the equations and I brought those energy levels down by orders of magnitude maybe someday people will get it far enough down that will they'll be able to do it properly so that I see is a positive way to look at these observations and even as a thought experiment come up with potential positive utilities but now if you can gain access to that kind of energy as a for instance well why would you use it necessarily to go to the next star why don't we use it to reduce energy costs and get ourselves off of oil and solve a lot of other problems thereby so I I always try to look at the Practical positive side of things if if if only because it can get you out of a you know the Dune scrolling uh effect of uh and the depression that could come from only thinking of the negatives it doesn't mean you ignore the negatives but it also means you don't focus on them at least in my mind I actually interviewed Dr Miguel alcubier on this channel for anybody interested you should go and check out the backlog but let me ask you this without FTL say that we can't do it and that the rule of the speed of light holds true and fast so there is a physical way for an alien civilization to have a presence here without FTL and that is the Von Neumann probe right in other words somebody some star passed close by or somebody decided to colonize the Galaxy with exponentially reproducing probes that could function as 3D printers and print out atmospheric probes and star systems with interesting planets like Earth and have a presence here because if somebody saw that printed out probe there your UFO of alien origin now let me ask you this in this complex question could such a thing and will there come a time where we can print out an organism oh yeah absolutely I mean it's funny you say that I can't talk about it publicly yet but I'm involved in a project that will make itself known for basically doing exactly that we can do it I mean it's primitive right now but there's no reason we can't make our own self-replicating probes even just to explore the local solar system I mean why not make something that we send out to the Oort cloud right or to the to the uh the asteroid belt that starts building things for us so that we don't have to go there and build it it just is ready to go people have talked about that on Mars there's absolutely no reason both from a mechanical point of view but also there's no reason we can't encode within synthetically created organisms the ability to terraform or build an ecosystem for us elsewhere so that you know and and then and these have been both you know the part both the piece of of science fiction stories and science fiction movies that we do exactly that I mean science fiction doesn't mean fantasy that can't exist usually science fiction the best science fiction is written with enough of a kernel of truth that people can believe it is that it's possible that it would happen so you know I think we're well within the capability of beginning that today so say we do that that opens up the possibility of colonizing space with altered humans humans genetically tailored to better live in an O'Neill cylinder or on mars or something like that and that we won't actually As Natural humans we won't actually be the ones that that explore space all that much it'll be humans tailored genetically for the task do you see that in the future and and how far off are we well I think we're I I mean I think we're closer in one sense than we expect but further away than another and I'll elaborate I mean closer in that we can do it but we're going to make lots of mistakes in the process I mean so just look for instance at how intimately tied humans are to our environment we're finding day by day literally week by week in science journals being published about how intimately tied we are to our microbiota in our bodies microbiota affects your health your response to drugs you know whether or not you're going to respond better or not to cancer immunotherapy we find out that certain microbiota affect your mental health and can either make you more or less likely to be depressed not that you were genetically born one way or the other but the microbiota create some sort of toxins or other things in your body that are or are not necessary for your for your health so creating a human that lives in a certain environment is also we also also have to create the microbiota environment that that human requires that might not necessarily like living in that other place so you've got to not only engineer the person you've got to engineer the ecosystem that lives on and within that individual so that it also can provide the necessary context for the human to live a healthy life we're so used to as scientists thinking we can take the human out of the of the environment the water in which they live and just place them somewhere else and they'll be just fine they won't and we know that now and that's a fact and so I mean just look at what's happened to the astronauts we've put into low graph space I mean they have all kinds of problems with water differential across their bodies that give them sight problems right they can't see well they et cetera Etc now if they had been born in space and grew up in space would they be okay I don't know but there's there's enough worries in what we already know now about what we need to bring with us to wherever we're going that we might have to engineer that alongside the humans and I just don't we're not there yet we're just not there so I think we just have to be a little bit careful about how fast we move but you know but I say that and I think humans will do it they'll make the mistake and then they'll say okay well before we take another step we we better do X Y and Z to read context and engineer our ecosystem at the same time but we're just not there yet in my opinion now do you think that developing this sort of stuff will come as a natural result of medical science meaning that okay so we're trying to we're trying to cure various forms of cancer and we we come across this idea that might be applicable to space do you think that's how that's going yeah yeah I mean I and I think artificial intelligence is going to help us I mean I I was at a couple of meetings this week for the cancer work that I do and these kind of cancer moonshot programs where there are a lot of other called mainstream scientists but Leading Edge thinkers talking about exactly this that that frankly the human brain is not built to deal with the complexity of how the human brain even was or is constructed and the how the ecosystems in the bodies all operate but the good thing is that AI is coming to the table to help us should help us understand these things so I think the difference is can can we use the AI in a way that we understand how the AI is doing it or will the AI just be there to implement our wishes even if we don't understand how it is that it's doing it does that make sense it does so I mean just like it look just look at AI art as an example you can now just basically say you can type in a prompt as to what it is that you want and the AI goes out and it uses the data from the pictures on the internet and it can create a picture that represents in some way the words that you've stated I mean it's just remarkable people artists are going crazy both positive and negatively about it as you can imagine people are seeing their careers potentially destroyed but the better ones are looking at it and saying well how can I use this as a tool in my palette as a brush in my palette and I think the same thing is coming for exactly the question you asked about medical interventions can I collect enough data that an AI can make the associations and not understand from a sentient point of view but can say hey look if you define for me the objective I can look at the raw data and how the systems are currently organized and suggest to you how to reorganize them to create the following objective I think that's coming so I don't think I I don't think humans will understand how to do it but we will create the tools that will enable us to do it now that opens up a whole other series of ethical questions of well if you could do it do you have the right to make the mistakes on behalf of the people you're going to be synthetically creating if you will to you know are you doing something to them that you don't have the right to do it's sort of the same situation in the same boat as cloning do you have the right to you know in that case in in China where actually it was a a another Stanford scientist who I know and it wasn't his fault that his former postdoc went ahead and did it but because he was in communication with the guy at the time he was doing it people tried to blame him it wasn't his fault but this guy in China claimed to have done it and inserted a gene in a in an individual and it was a worldwide controversy and he was not the Stanford scientist he again he didn't do anything wrong in my view he just had a conversation with the person it was the other person who made a choice for a child that that child wasn't didn't partake in I think there's a lot I'm not saying one should or shouldn't do it it's just you better know what the benefits the ups and downs are before you try but the other point is that once you once you start down that path and you open the door it's the the positive attributes of what can happen will be lost amongst the few frankenstinian mistakes that will get made yes Frankenstein and we live in a world where that's going to become an increasingly relevant story despite it being over 200 years old at this point now another aspect of this you mentioned Ai and working with AI does AI scare you in the sense that could it be could it be and well this is getting back into the work of chocolate that the Kabuki theater as he terms it are masks of the same phenomenon appearing in different ways do you think ultimately it could be an alien A.I again the Von Neumann probe an alien AI that we simply don't comprehend it because it's motives and thoughts and thinking process are so different have you ever seen anything in AI that led you to believe that maybe AI will think differently oh yeah I mean I mean so first of all I mean I've said this both in the Lex fredman interview and and also at length in the interview I did with Tucker Carlson is that what intelligence in its right mind to the extent would put itself in danger of interaction with a primitive civilization like us relatively speaking you mean we're primitive I mean we're we're we're not only barely out of the caves we're we're close to putting ourselves back in them you know from from some kind of global catastrophe mistake that we initiate so why would you put yourself at danger of interaction why wouldn't you put some kind of Avatar in between yourself and as I've often called us the angry monkeys and so you wouldn't in your right mind and so I think that I'm a hundred percent sure that even in the case of the Virginia event that whatever that was is some kind of Avatar and it wasn't actually the object that it it wasn't actually if it was a thinking perhaps conscious object but it isn't what's actually behind the scenes that's just a guess I have no proof I don't have I I I don't get I don't get a weekly email from the Illuminati that tell me these things I'm not an Insider in any Grand sense of the of the word it just right now it makes sense with the data it's a possibility new data will maybe change my mind on it but I I have in fact if anything is the most likely that there is some kind of artificial intelligence that is driving everything we're seeing whether or not it could get here by light speed or not or better than light why would you bother dealing with something as primitive as as us well I can think of one way is that the life in the galaxy is semi-rare and they have a motive to preserve it whenever they can in other words they see another occurrence of life and they come here as scientists and they're like well we got to keep this species going oh yeah in which case I have no problem with that but I I just wouldn't I just wouldn't myself step into the middle of it but maybe you would I don't know I mean we we send scientists out to nature preserves and they personally get involved so maybe that's what we're seeing here it could be I mean we have specialist scientists that can tell you everything you want to know about ants so they're then maybe they're specialist anthropologists or something like the an alien equivalent of an anthropologist that's just here to study us but also perhaps act as a police force you can sit on your porch you can sit on your porch for a day and you can see oh two three four five police cars pass by they never stop unless you're actually doing something that's illegal so maybe it's a police action scenario where they're looking at our nukes and things like that and they're like we're only going to intervene if they start to use these things you know on an exchange yeah I mean I've used that example of that you know maybe they didn't bother with us too much because throwing rocks and Spears at them can be easily dealt with but a nuclear explosion is enough that it might that they're that their ships are not nuclear explosion proof and that we've gotten to a level of sophistication where we can harm them and if we're about ready to even move out into our own solar system even by conventional sublight means and if they've been around for millions of years they can say okay well we can project ahead 10 000 years and see them at Alpha Centauri or taucetti or you name it in the near future and the bigger they get the harder it is for us to turn them in a different direction without a global eradication event well that gives you that gives you a motive ultimately though for them to be here is to monitor to make sure we don't create a technology such as a generalized artificial intelligence or gray goo or whatever what have you right and that could pose a threat to the rest of the Galaxy and that's their sole purpose to be here is just to make sure we don't make something that can mess their day up right there's a great science fiction writer by the name of Ian Banks and he writes some beautiful stuff it's a it's a fantasy future hundreds of thousands of years into our future where he touches upon this where basically it is an AI sentience which considers that Humanity created but it basically has created a kindergarten for Humanity so that they can run around and continue to to pursue their their more carnal Pleasures if you will and it's it's busy monitoring and keeping the whole galaxy in Balance so yeah you're right maybe it's something like that I would just recommend anybody who wants to read a good series of books Ian Banks does it in a very tongue-in-cheek and intelligent way excellent books I've read several now attention there will be a general meeting in one half hour materials now there are these reports from Chick-fil-A and others Linda Moulton Howe and to the Stars Academy all these about recovered materials that might be strange isotopically strange and you have worked with such materials giving me a profile of what these UAP UFO related materials are like so I've worked with three materials that I find interesting three let's say three classes I mean one of the most interesting was the ubatuba event again in Brazil with something which was at the time claimed to be pure magnesium it's not pure magnesium but it has more it but it is unusually pure and a kind of a crystalline metal and what I found interesting about it was that in one of the fragments that I had but not all of them which is really what kind of makes my head spin was the Magnesium isotope ratios were so far off what you would expect from magnesium you dig out of the ground that to basically say it was engineered right you can imagine maybe it came from another solar system somewhere else but you'd have to imagine a solar nucleosynthesis cycle that is off of what we consider to be normal to me at the very least it would say it was engineered right and the fact that I have materials supposedly from the same event some of which has normal ratios versus some that has altered ratios I don't know I can come up with ways to explain it but the only explanations are that it was involved in some industrial process that produced the altered ratios from Earth normal ratios if that makes sense so let's say it was used for the let's say it was used for energy generation or the propulsion they start with material that was used on Earth and in the process of using it it got converted to these other ratios how it happens I don't know but the the only evidence I have is that it truly exists and so but I don't understand what it what it means and is it is it proof of aliens is it proof that something unusual happened yes is it reproducible yes so again it's it's back to that thing of data not conclusions because there's so many potential conclusions if you leap to any one of them and you're proven to be wrong in any one of those absolute conclusions you just made a fool of yourself so but the I think the the problem that a lot of and it's just to go again off on a slightly different bent is that a lot of lay public or the Skeptics who want to bring down any discussion of this is they will take any postulate or hypothesis you make they'll turn it into a conclusion and they'll ridicule you for even coming up with the i the question in the first place as if you had made the conclusion that is embedded in your question and so that's why I'm always trying to be very careful how I say things and I mean people are going to take me out of context no matter what because that's their their goal in life Jason colavito is probably the the most ridiculous at it loves to take things that people say and then and recontext them and make fun of them and it's just it's just it's it's intellectual vandalism of the highest order so I don't want to really give people like that too much meat for their grinder but I think the the main point is that you can that's that's one of those kinds of materials which has some very interesting stories around it then the other one are these events that I've got a few examples of now of where a craft is seen and something is ejected from the craft and when people kind of go and find what it was that it was ejected it ends up being like pools of molten metal on the ground and I've got three cases of of this and there's many cases like this that are that are out there so that's a class of events that okay well let's study what that metal is okay so now you can say well is is that another example of a of a propulsion system or an energy generation or God knows what I mean those are the only two simple things I mean for all we know it's how they process their waste matter I I don't know but we can look at that stuff and I we published Jacques and I and a couple of others actually a former postdoc of mine now at Harvard he has his own lab now in Harvard Medical School we published a paper examining one of those materials where we basically showed that the material is I mean it's conventional Metals there's nothing unusual about the isotope ratios but each place where we looked in the metal the elements that were there were slightly different and they were all the same Metals but they were there in different ratios meaning it was inhomogeneous meaning that six different elements Metals titanium iron a couple of others chromium were there but they were in completely mixed okay so what conventional process do humans ever use that don't fully mix what it is that they're making very few I mean we don't make inhomogeneous things because that would end up being from a tensile strength point of view it would basically mean something would fracture in unexpected ways if you're trying to use it for any structural purposes so let's make the leap of assumption that it came from some kind of craft what industrial process would they use that would lead to something which was inhomogeneous and maybe the very fact that it was inhomogeneous whatever the process was that they were using LED them to say oh we got to get rid of this it's not doing what we want it to do let's throw it away defective or waste essentially effective or waste and what's interesting is a couple of the cases that I know of the objects that we're seeing ejecting these materials seemed to be in some kind of distress they were wobbling or they weren't acting I don't know how these I don't know how you could say how these things act normally they they weren't acting at least to the precipient they seemed to be something wrong with them they eject this stuff and now everything's better and they they zip off is that telling us something were they doing it for us to tell us something you know you you got to play those kinds of those games I mean Jacques Valley tells me a story of of an intelligence officer that was talking to him at one point in the that look when a when a scientist gets 95 percent of the answer they think they've got the answer and they don't care about the other five percent and when an intelligence agency meaning like government intelligence agency gets 95 of the answer they assume that it's been given to us to distract us we're interested in the fight we're way more interested in the five percent that we don't know so I worry that many of the things that we see and we think we're observing these objectively are actually being again from the Kabuki theater's point of view are actually being presented to us to lead us to think a certain way about something and so I'm just trying to be careful what my assumptions are about the data that we're collecting in the first place and I think you have to be yeah I mean I do that every day in my in the in the day job in that I'll I get data and I'm assuming I'm collecting the data that I think I'm collecting but it might be that the manner in which I'm collecting it is biasing the answer in the first place and so when you're trained properly in The Sciences you always keep that in the back of your mind that I I might have been biased in how I'm collecting this data so anyway so that's the second one so the second class of materials are the supposed ejecta I mean it's clear these things are not meteorites and they're not somebody there's plenty of stuff that I've been given that is clearly a hoax or was hoaxed for the individual who thought they were seeing something but this is as far as we can tell not hoaxes and then the third one that has been talked about quite a bit are these so-called the the so-called metamaterial that originally came I think into Linda Moulton house possession but also the possession of other individuals this layered magnesium bismuth materials Parts um Arts Parts yeah which you know is still intriguing and I have several examples of it myself that have come to me he's been broken up to many pieces was handed to X Y or Z and then people have handed them to me I know that there is a very large chunk of it that is currently in government possession through uh ttsa and the analyzes that I have seen of the material even done by the government leave much to be desired I I'm frankly shocked at how amateurish the data analysis has been and it's sad because if if that's the kind of analysis that's been done on the real parts that people have somebody needs to up their game and it's um it's just it it at least the data that I've seen is not has not been done by somebody who really knows what they're doing so what I'm doing with that with the pieces that I have is setting up basically a laboratory with the right kind of funding that can go from A to Z comparing these things with the all of the necessary tools that everything is put through pretty much the same path of analysis so that you can do an apples to apples apples to oranges comparison and and just do it right I mean it's not it's not hard but it is expensive I mean to set up a laboratory like this with all of the necessary materials I mean these instruments cost anywhere from a few hundred thousand to a few million but there's a few dozen of these kinds of instruments that you need so just from an instrument spaces you're talking about a 50 to 100 million dollar investment now luckily there are forensic Laboratories that exist which have this kind of stuff right that you can pay for so at the beginning at the very least the money is required to put all of these materials through such an analytic pipeline that you can essentially buy off the shelf the the services to do that but buying the services and creating the data is not the same as analyzing the data so now you need basically a reasonable team of five to ten postdoctoral level individuals who understand what that data can mean and so five to ten people we call them an FTE full-time equivalent that's two hundred thousand dollars each on average that's the number we use in Silicon Valley for basically hiring that kind of training in various areas so five to ten people that's another two million a year so even just to analyze the data that might take a couple of million to generate it's expensive people say oh let's just do it and then they send me stuff just writing that paper on the Council Bluffs material that that Jacques had took me two years because I was doing it in my spare time and I sort of I even said I have renewed appreciation for my postdocs and the time and effort that they do when I decide when I change my mind on what it is that I want analyzed I can do that in five seconds but then I'm basically committing that postdoc to several days of work to reanalyze the data so until someone is willing to put down the money in a sort of a charitable sense or the government is willing to say I'm going to put this together in a way put the money to it I mean in in the global sense of a of a now 850 billion dollar defense budget per year for the us alone peanuts to do it I'm not convinced it's been done with the materials that are sitting in people's warehouses maybe they don't feel that they need to but I I think if one of the things that I basically helped get put into the into the defense Appropriations budget around this matter it's public record is getting scientists getting the dod to admit that scientists should be brought in to the very least help them design the analytic systems that are there because you know it does take a particular training to design a good experiment that is publishable and believable by other scientists anyway so those are the things that I think so the the Arts Parts I have looked at it it is unusual for sure it is irregular enough in the in how it was put together that I can still believe that it might be just the process of some conventional smelting and it has nothing to do with anything unusual I can I can believe that because of the irregularity of at least the pieces that some of the pieces that I've seen but then it was told to me that well this happened in a crash so that's why it looks so irregular it was kind of melted that's why it's irregular okay that's fine you know is it a wave guide is how put off puts forward I mean whether it is or not the fact that it's layered in that way makes you think that it could be so I have no problem with Hal's postulate there but I did reproduce a minor discrepancy that somebody else noted in the Magnesium ratios and the Magnesium ratios do appear to be off now there are potential conventional reasons why I can think the Magnesium ratio is off because they're off so slightly as to be not an error of measurement but an error of how the thing can be measured and so I so there's there's a couple of irregularities about the Arts Parts that I think are interesting couldn't be followed up on but the level of analysis that has been done is insufficient at this point to come to any real conclusion I mean there's two things in science I can analyze something and tell you what it what it is from A Material Science it's made of these atoms in this organization but okay that's fine what's it used for now if somebody can do something to Arts Parts and make it float on the table and it floats on the table on the table because you irradiate it with some kind of terahertz wave and suddenly it it weighs less or what have you well fine that'll convince me far more than a theory but I haven't seen any of that time neither have I after has heard claims but I have not seen floating metal the ubatuba sorry for that that was a long discussion about it I hope that was clear that was perfectly clear now the ubatube is sample that happened that incident happened decades ago and I guess the sample is provenance all the way back to that were we capable of duplicating that in those days and how much would it have cost to hoax it um it would have I mean yes we were capable so hoax it would have probably been in the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars and why you would do it over our beach in you know Brazil I can't fathom it's uh I mean so the short answer is yes you could do it but there's no there's no physical reason why you would do it because we don't play with isotope ratios except to blow stuff up right Medical Science and blowing stuff up is the only reason to do it and that's all very very expensive stuff that's a very expensive thing to go throwing around and blowing up over a beach in in Brazil so I mean and and that's the primary thing is that if if we don't have a reason for doing it why would you do it just to convince somebody 40 years in the future who's going to analyze it it doesn't make any sense but then again there's a certain irrationality about this whole thing about the behavior of these things so you just don't know maybe they're trying to influence us culturally and that's the only way they know how is they can't exactly land on the White House lawn and and shake hands with Biden because as they don't know to do that because we don't have a global centralized government or anything like that right so maybe they're just doing what they understand and they're hoping that we understand it or at least hoping to influence us to the point where we do understand it I mean even if it's not an influence campaign in in any overwhelming sense of the word maybe they're just doing what they're doing and if we happen to notice it that's fine but they don't care yeah yeah you know I mean we do our business in the forest and I'm sure there are glimmers of intelligence in the in the Tarsiers primates and crows and parrots who see us doing things but we don't necessarily understand why we're doing them and that that's that's the key if you're dealing with a truly alien species you can't assume that you can understand it or know anything about it but what you can do is say well look that thing crossed an enormous amount of space time so it must have some understanding of Science and Technology may be superior to our own right every time you anthropomorphosize somebody or something else you run the risks of of Lost in Translation one last question about materials and then I have a final question for you after that but about materials is it possible that the amateurish nature that you're seeing of the analysis done on these materials is because the really good analysis is done on really good materials the government has such as a downed Roswell spacecraft or something like that and that we just don't know about it we're not privy to it and as an aside have you read the Wilson Davis memo do you think that's a a hoax or do you think there might be something there that suggests that the US government has recovered materials that we don't know about I mean so the answer your first question is yes I just cannot imagine that if these materials were held in the early days by people have talked about Heisenberg and and others involved in the nuclear bomb creation who did partake in some of the initial analyzes or knew about this stuff I can't imagine that real analysis was not done on the materials now but let's talk about the time frame where these things were originally collected and the infrastructure was set up around the again let's claim the let's put forward the alleged suppression of information frankly the Technologies for a net for analyzing materials was really not available at the time Mass spectrometry was only becoming there was only the glimmers of what we can do today with mass spectrometry in place but Metallurgy was mostly recipes not analysis because we understood what we were necessarily doing right you would make this and it would do that then you had theories about why you would do X Y or Z but the analytic procedures in the 40s and 50s just don't even come close to what we can accomplish today I mean we can get to near atomic resolution of any material I think we're within about five angstrom resolution right now and things that I'm involved with will get us into the sub-angstrom realm and so uh I mean that's what we need in my opinion so but so if you didn't have that capability and now you set up an infrastructure of information suppression that you can imagine information is suppression approach has carried forward to today where everything was put under lock and key and anybody who wanted to get their hands on it to do it properly was basically told to go bugger off it's my sainted father was saying so it wouldn't surprise me if the kinds of analysis that could be done have not been done and so that doesn't mean that it can't be done or that somebody hasn't been done but if it has been done and hasn't been publicized to any significant degree within the communities that could appreciate what that information really means then as far as I'm concerned you haven't done it and um if you've locked it away in a closet and if if you if you don't put it in the in the hands and the minds of people who can understand what can be done with it and it's sitting in the hands of a politician it's as good as not being known in the first place very true yeah and so it's down to the whole thing if you don't understand the thing well enough to explain it to somebody else and you don't understand it right if you only understand the dangers of it that's fine but perhaps the the dangers were misinterpreted so we need to bring more Minds to this I'm not saying that scientists know better I know plenty of scientists who are frankly idiots and I wouldn't trust anything with them so uh you know they would only have malevolent purposes to do with it so I think that's why a certain level of transparency is is going to be better than not that was the first so the first part of your question so this what was the second question I think I was just wondering that that uh Boston Davis that do you think that there's anything there or do you think that might more than 100 believe that Eric is reporting something that happened and a conversation that was had now and I can all for all the right reasons understand why Admiral Wilson would need to deny it now the open question is whether they were talking about something which actually behind the scenes was happening Admiral Davis could have been talking to Eric about something that he was told but what he was told might have just been a disinformation campaign right or somebody was lying to him yeah so you know I I the we can and this is one of those things where we can argue endlessly about the whether Eric is reporting what happened I I just know Eric he just he has no there's no prophet in him lying about this and I also know Eric in how his he has he's one of those truly unique individuals who has a an eidetic memory he can recapitulate a memory in ways that if I could God I wish I could do what he can do remember a conversation practically word for word I mean it's a it's a kind of talent that I wish we could could share but I mean so the open question is are they talking about something which really happened or is is not as I said a disinformation campaign so once you get into that kind of unknowingness I basically have to lose interest because absent a camera or the ability to trace back the other discussions that were supposedly had by Admiral Wilson we'll never know I mean it's it's it's useful and I'm glad that people are going to investigate it but I'm not going to sit around and argue about it because again I'm just going to do the things that I know that I can do which is I can study materials if somebody hands them to me I can tell them how to study them if they want that information or how to do it they can listen to me or not if they want and then I can study the medical harms of people who said that certain things have happened to them and I can report the data and people can look at the data and the good thing about doing it that way is that once they get them to agree that the data is real you can then say well look stop asking me to come up with explanations for it you have a brain use it you tell me what it is and if you don't know what it is then being an armchair critic is just it you know it it feels good but it is ultimately a sterile approach to thinking and Science and intellectualism now my final question for you is about the stigma and we all know it existed years ago Dr James E McDonald wrote a paper uh science in default and it's it's a quasi paper it was actually a presentation and this was the text of it and it was done in 1969 and it basically said there's science here we need to be looking into this phenomena and then essentially his career got ruined and his reputation got ruined and he uh committed suicide just because it was interested in UFOs which is about as innocuous of an interest as you could have you know what's the big deal so that stigma held the study back but if you read that paper it looks like it could have been written yesterday the situation was the same back centers is today regarding a stigma so what do we do to destigmatize this and I mean do you just go with it and not care I mean as a scientist how do you deal with the the sort of I think Stanton Friedman called him noisy negativists and people that say well there's nothing to this and that's that when in fact there's enough out there now at this point to say that there's science to be done here how do you deal with it I I honestly I think you just go ahead and and do it but but you do it in a credible way I mean people and that's what I'm trying to teach people is that there's there's a there's a rhetoric for how you talk about it and that's at least my limited minor contribution is data not conclusions and then second at least from a scientific point of view don't focus on things that there's no answer to right historical events trying to argue the truthfulness of them with whatever data you have the only thing you can do is get more data that proves your your point so I think the stigma is first that and then second is as I've been recently talking about separating and making people understand what a class that the classes of proof are different for different individuals so don't don't move one class of proof provability from one domain into another so you can't move anecdotal individual experiences into the domain of science because scientists talk a different language you can say I don't care to prove anything to scientists that's perfectly legitimate but don't expect a scientist to agree with you if that's their standard of proof and so I but I think that the very fact though that credible individuals such as pilots and others have come forward and even you just need to look at the social media lately Pilots commercial pilots claiming what they've seen and talking about it now openly I think the the the walls have begun to crumble around the stigma where it's now more possible to talk about I mean I had a fundraising conversation well I had started a fundraising talk about cancer and my work to a group of extremely wealthy families about six or so months ago and they wanted me in half of that time to talk about my UFO stuff and so I followed up with discussions with with many of them some of whom are interested in in funding further research cancer research and others are funding the inquiries into UFOs this kind of policy work that I've been starting to talk about because they find an individual who's credible in one field science mainstream cancer research talking about this in a credible Manner and Avi Loeb talking about his stuff in a credible Manner and there's a few I I mean I would I would hate to get in an argument about science with Avi because he'll Crush you I mean he's just so good at that kind of rhetorical question and quick on this feed that that's the kind of thing where we where we need to change the equation about the use of Shame right shame has been used against people doing this and now I think enough scientists are coming forward and saying you know what it's actually shameful to not ask these questions so you know we can turn the tables on the critics by pointing out the styles of rhetoric that they're using and they're actually intellectually dishonest and say look and but it takes time to recognize what those what those let's say Machiavellian approach coaches are that people are using those and the intellectual slights of hand that they use to say look that's actually that you're actually cheating by using that kind of an approach it's it's it's fraudulent to approach the argument that way and so if if we if we can start to frame the argument in scientific terms you can show how it's possible to talk about these things and that where it's okay to ask the question that and that not asking the question is actually the dishonest approach you can always argue should we be talking about this versus child poverty or should we be putting money into this versus saving the rainforest that that kind of false equivalency is is always in the in the wings and the answer is is kind of a It's Kind of a Funny Thing a famous scientist once said focus on everything focus on everything and Doctor we are out of time thank you for appearing with us and I very much look forward to results from both your work and the Galileo project and uh let's try to figure this out in an open honest way well thank you so much for your questions it was really fun event horizon on my channel are now available as a podcast on Apple podcasts Spotify and YouTube memberships early ad free episodes bonus episodes and sleep focused content sign up now by clicking the links below to your platform of choice gather round it's time for the yearly budget oh good what am I gonna lose this year John you are allocated the following thirteen dollars per week for food and Essentials you are further allocated three dollars per month for item beard maintenance end of allocation wait a minute that's 50 cents more than last year we've had a good year end of allocation can't believe I gained 50 cents yes John 50 cents end of allocation to sprocket Davis bday MSC you are allocated the following 14 324.19 for item discretionary fund end of allocation well first of all the Possum's name changes each week so we just need to start calling him the possum from now on and not giving him a proper name number two how is it that his funding is orders of magnitude more than mine end of allocation John look at the itemization of this funding that the possum is getting two thousand dollars for pterodactyl Resurrection we really don't need pterodactyls especially in this house end of allocation and then look at this 400 for fur regeneration I mean granted he's got a beautiful head of hair but at some point I don't have any end of allocation John and what's completely missing out of this itemization is Anna's expenses and funding Anna come clean how much are you spending on Parts who exactly is paying the exorbitant forty dollars a month for internet access when I'm still on dial-up and I don't even get to use that internet I'm still on dial-up end of allocation John and what about this electric bill it looks like something in this house is using 10 times more energy than a normal air conditioner in mid-summer is it some Unholy experiment by the possum or is it you Anna end of allocation John Anna look at this electric bill how much electricity are you using per month these days Anna what's in the shed out back now even more importantly how did we get a shed out back look look at it look at it the opossum has built a shed in the backyard and it has a sign on it beware of pterodactyl and why why is the building glowing wait a minute I hear bagpipes Anna how is it that you can allocate six hundred dollars to the possum for Loch Ness monster observations look is he gonna go to Scotland and stay and just sit there looking for the Loch Ness monster or wait a minute he's bringing it here

Channel: Event Horizon

Views: 554,580

Keywords: aliens, artificial intelligence, atacama skeleton, avi loeb, bob lazar, galileo project, garry nolan, lex fridman, oumuamua, stanford, tic tac ufo, uap, ufo, john michael godier, godier, event horizon, event horizon godier, event horizon show, john michael godier show

Id: ShX-WM5TiXc

Length: 85min 23sec (5123 seconds)

Published: Thu Dec 01 2022