GARRY NOLAN Something Has Been here a Long time- Jordan Peterson-BONUS Presentation
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/total-disclosure-podcast--5975113/support.
CONTACT TDP DIRECTLY For Collaboration, Use of Segments/clips, or any other media produced by “TDP” —[email protected]
Special Thank you to all of our PODCAST/YouTube Channel Members for your continued support, and dedication to seeking the truth, together. We can’t do this WITHOUT YOU!
-COPYRIGHT-2020-
Copyright Disclaimer: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Total Disclosure Podcast Copyright 2020 and … segments, early access to interviews, and a yearly gift autographed by yours truly!thank you in advance now, Let's explore the unknown together!
Speaker 1: Apartment of Pathology at Stanford.
Speaker 2: It's pretty obvious that you have a multitude of abilities
Speaker 2: and a stellar track record. You started to become interested
Speaker 2: in unidentified aerial phenomena.
Speaker 1: Somebody representing the CIA and an aerospace company showing up
Speaker 1: in my office at Stanford, showed me their credentials and
Speaker 1: said we need your help looking at patients who had
Speaker 1: harm done to them, and then a small subset of
Speaker 1: them said that they'd been in proximity to things that
Speaker 1: you would call a UFO. I thought it was a
Speaker 1: joke at the beginning.
Speaker 2: Let us know, if you would, what the hell you
Speaker 2: think is going on?
Speaker 1: That there's something non human here and it's been here
Speaker 1: for a long time. Well, I imagine it's put a
Speaker 1: bit of a bump into your life. I mean, maybe
Speaker 1: one that's mostly interesting, but still to call it strange
Speaker 1: is to barely scrape the surface. If something is here,
Speaker 1: it's likely been here longer than humans have even been civilized.
Speaker 2: Doctor Gary Nolan is an immunologist, academic, inventor, and biotech entrepreneur.
Speaker 2: Serial biotech entrepreneur. He's a professor at Stanford University School
Speaker 2: of Medicine and somewhat surprisingly a ufologist. We talked about
Speaker 2: his career, his research interests, the rise of AI, and
Speaker 2: his interest in unidentified aerial phenomena. So doctor Nolan Gary went,
Speaker 2: before we get to the heart of the matter with
Speaker 2: regards to your interest in unidentified aerial phenomena more commonly
Speaker 2: known as UFOs, let's talk a little bit about you
Speaker 2: so that we can situate you in the minds of
Speaker 2: our readers. So you have a remarkable research background and
Speaker 2: a technology background. Clue us in a bit and tell
Speaker 2: us who you are.
Speaker 1: So I'm a professor in the Department of Pathology. I
Speaker 1: hold the Ratchford and Carlotta A. Harris In Dowd Professorship,
Speaker 1: and the major focus of my labs research, frankly, over
Speaker 1: the last thirty years since I've been at Stanford has
Speaker 1: been on the immune system and creating technologies that allow
Speaker 1: us to collect more and more data about the immune
Speaker 1: cells and or cancer cells that we're interested in. And
Speaker 1: so that's led me from the development of retroviral techniques
Speaker 1: for gene delivery and gene therapy. So all the retroviruses
Speaker 1: and lentiviruses that are used in the world today for
Speaker 1: gene therapy were developed based on a technique that I
Speaker 1: came up with called the two nine three T cell technique,
Speaker 1: and that's, frankly, that's old technology to me, but it
Speaker 1: still generates a nice royalty. So and then from there
Speaker 1: it's about measuring more and more what we call parameters
Speaker 1: per sell, which are events that relate we think, to
Speaker 1: the biology of the cells. And so we've created and
Speaker 1: spun out I don't know, probably at least half a
Speaker 1: dozen companies on that side of things alone. Lately, we've
Speaker 1: been moving into artificial intelligence. We've started and spun out
Speaker 1: two companies there. And now I'm actually moving into atomic
Speaker 1: imaging because I sort of feel like that's the next
Speaker 1: level down of information that I need to get at
Speaker 1: to understand gene function. So we're I've raised the money
Speaker 1: to create a whole new kind of instrument that can
Speaker 1: measure things at the atomic level.
Speaker 2: Tell me about that a little bit. What I mean
Speaker 2: that's electron microscope territory. You have a new technology that
Speaker 2: you're I know, that's an old technology.
Speaker 1: Now it's a fusion of two technologies, something called a
Speaker 1: atomic probe tomography and field on microscopy, and it's a
Speaker 1: way to bring the two together because previously they couldn't
Speaker 1: sort of exist in the same machine. So by bringing
Speaker 1: them together, we can go another order of magnitude lower.
Speaker 1: We can get down to what's called subankstrum, Like the
Speaker 1: bond length between two atoms is in the subankstrum realm.
Speaker 1: But this technology that we've developed not only can see
Speaker 1: down at that level, but can also determine what kind
Speaker 1: of bond structure where we have locally, and that has
Speaker 1: a range of applications all the way from biology through
Speaker 1: to metals, alloys, nanotechnology, et cetera. And actually the instrument
Speaker 1: is already half built down at a lab in here
Speaker 1: in Koopertino that we've set up. So we're excited about that.
Speaker 2: So how many companies have you started or been involved
Speaker 2: in starting rocks?
Speaker 1: About a dozen and we've had about eight successful exits
Speaker 1: so far. HM. One, that's pretty good.
Speaker 2: That's pretty good track record, all things considered, All things considered,
Speaker 2: one complete failure, but that's okay, one failure out of
Speaker 2: that many, isn't so that Yeah, Well, if you don't fail,
Speaker 2: maybe you're not trying enough diverse things. I mean, that
Speaker 2: seems to be particularly true on the entrepreneurial side. Right,
Speaker 2: it's very difficult to invent something and then equally difficult
Speaker 2: to make it profitable, or maybe perhaps more right. So
Speaker 2: on the medical side, tell me a little bit more
Speaker 2: about your research into viruses.
Speaker 1: So our research in the viruses was well, first of all,
Speaker 1: the retroviruses. I got involved with HIV research back in
Speaker 1: the day, and that was mostly trying to understand what
Speaker 1: turned the virus on and off in the immune system.
Speaker 1: So I was involved with what was called the cloning
Speaker 1: and characterization of the what are called transcription factors that
Speaker 1: turned the virus on and off. And I actually cloned
Speaker 1: it in David Baltimore's lab at MIT when I was
Speaker 1: a postdoc there. David won the Nobel Prize actually for
Speaker 1: reverse transcript das very famous man, obviously, so but when
Speaker 1: I came to Stanford and using the technologies that we developed,
Speaker 1: we did everything from a bola research to Zeka to
Speaker 1: whatever the current manifestation of whatever the plague was that
Speaker 1: people were worried about. And we even actually saw the
Speaker 1: first COVID lungs from unfortunately deceased patients. And that's what
Speaker 1: really that actually scared the Jesus out of me when
Speaker 1: I realized that we're dealing with something extremely serious with COVID,
Speaker 1: at least in some people. But most of my research
Speaker 1: these days is in cancer research and looking at how
Speaker 1: the immune system interfaces with the tumor and trying to
Speaker 1: learn about the signals that the usually tumor manifests to
Speaker 1: turn off the immune system or to disrupt the function
Speaker 1: of the immune system. And so that required the development
Speaker 1: of new instruments to see things at a level previously
Speaker 1: people were incapable of, but then also to develop the
Speaker 1: algorithms to understand the complexity, because you've got thousands of
Speaker 1: cells in a complex dance with the cancer and trying
Speaker 1: to figure out what that means took a lot of
Speaker 1: algorithmic effort. So we're a computational lab as well as
Speaker 1: a wet lab, as we call it. Do you have
Speaker 1: an engineering background, No, But I've always been a tinkerer,
Speaker 1: and so you know, I mean, I think what makes
Speaker 1: a good scientist is knowing what you don't know and
Speaker 1: knowing who to bring in to help you create what
Speaker 1: it is that you want, and being able to explain
Speaker 1: it to them in a way that gets them interested.
Speaker 1: And that talent frankly translates very well in the entrepreneurial
Speaker 1: side of things. When you're talking to a venture capitalist,
Speaker 1: you can convince them that the biology is interesting, that
Speaker 1: it's doable, that here's the kind of people I need.
Speaker 1: And I always use this term inevitable, that it's inevitable.
Speaker 1: This is something that's coming. So it really is up
Speaker 1: to the early bird that gets the worm. If you
Speaker 1: can see that it's something that will happen and has
Speaker 1: to happen, and you have a solution for it. It
Speaker 1: might not be currently the best solution, but it's a solution.
Speaker 1: Get to it first and own the market.
Speaker 2: And your degrees are what are you in? What areas
Speaker 2: were your degrees awarded? All genetics. But one way to
Speaker 2: think about genetics is genetics is actually programming. I'm actually
Speaker 2: pretty good as a programmer as well, but genetics itself
Speaker 2: is software, and so if you think about genetics as software,
Speaker 2: it was very easy again for me to be both
Speaker 2: a programmer and a geneticist at the same time. So
Speaker 2: I've always been good at math, I've been good at
Speaker 2: the I'm more, i would say good at the intuition
Speaker 2: of how biology works. An intuition plays a larger part,
Speaker 2: frankly in science than people would like to admit. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you know, one of the things that's always struck me
Speaker 2: as peculiar about scientific research papers is that the introductions
Speaker 2: are always a lie. It's so interesting because I've thought
Speaker 2: about this for a long time. It really struck me
Speaker 2: when I was first in graduate school, because when you
Speaker 2: write a scientific research paper, you present the situation as
Speaker 2: if all the background reading that you did produced an
Speaker 2: incremental transformation in your thinking such that you generated a hypothesis.
Speaker 2: And that's almost never the case. Usually what happens is
Speaker 2: that people have an intuition that's derived from some recognition,
Speaker 2: and then they backfill it and make it look like
Speaker 2: it's algorithmic. And then the other thing that's so bloody
Speaker 2: peculiar about that is that there's almost no discussion in
Speaker 2: graduate school training. Maybe this was different where you went
Speaker 2: on hypothesis generation itself. It's as if scientists swallow the
Speaker 2: idea that you're creating your hypothesis in this algorithmic manner
Speaker 2: as a consequence of grinding through the research. And now
Speaker 2: I had a student at Harvard, Shelley Carson, who worked
Speaker 2: on creativity, and she would make very large leaps in
Speaker 2: with regard to her hypothesis, and then it would take
Speaker 2: her a few months to backfill so that she could
Speaker 2: bring people along to explain the justification. But that certainly
Speaker 2: wasn't the method by which it was derived. You strike
Speaker 2: me as a peculiarly creative person for a scientist, by
Speaker 2: the way, I mean that might seem a perverse characterization,
Speaker 2: but we also studied predictors of scientific prowess and openness,
Speaker 2: which is the trademarker for creativity, was actually slightly negatively
Speaker 2: correlated with scientific productivity, at least at the graduate school
Speaker 2: and then early career level. But you you've got a
Speaker 2: very wide range of abilities, and then you've got this
Speaker 2: both an entrepreneurial and a managerial twist. Is that a
Speaker 2: fair characterization, because that's also a rare combination.
Speaker 1: I think what I mean, it's hard to talk about
Speaker 1: yourself as if you'd not to sound like a narcissist.
Speaker 1: But I think if you can marry creativity with practicality,
Speaker 1: that's the magic mix, at least for me. Is I'm
Speaker 1: very good at rapidly iterating all the possible reasons why
Speaker 1: something can be the case and then rank ordering them.
Speaker 1: Very quickly coming up with at least two cutoffs. One is, yeah,
Speaker 1: this is possible, but it's very unlikely that magic dwarves
Speaker 1: run the universe right everything below that level. But then
Speaker 1: above that level there's two there's one more cutoff one
Speaker 1: is possible but impractical or perhaps not easy to prove,
Speaker 1: and then above that is the provable. And so if
Speaker 1: you can rapidly rank order and then come up with
Speaker 1: where something sits, then you can immediately turn and tell
Speaker 1: a student, yeah, you should do this, or yeah, you
Speaker 1: probably shouldn't do that, because here's the reasons why. There
Speaker 1: are so many other things that it could be that
Speaker 1: you can't prove or disprove, so let's not go down
Speaker 1: that road. And it's because it's a rabbit hole. So
Speaker 1: I think marrying creativity with practicality and being able to
Speaker 1: see and frankly what I call reverse engineer of the future.
Speaker 1: You know, it's it's like you can see what it
Speaker 1: is and then you know, I need to do this first,
Speaker 1: and then I need to do that. And once I've
Speaker 1: done each of these steps, those are milestones that give
Speaker 1: you confidence to take the next step. And then because
Speaker 1: if I think like that, then that actually helps with
Speaker 1: talking to venture capitalists because they can then follow the
Speaker 1: path that you've just laid out for them. And when
Speaker 1: did you start your first company? Soon after getting to Stanford?
Speaker 1: Actually it was around nineteen ninety four, but I had
Speaker 1: already learned a lot from my mentor, as Lenin Lee Herzenberg.
Speaker 1: So I was lucky having come to Stanford to end
Speaker 1: up in their lab. Because Lenin Lee, who were frankly hippies,
Speaker 1: you know, they had the two of the three biggest
Speaker 1: patents at Stanford. One was for something called the flow cytometer,
Speaker 1: which brought in hundreds of millions of dollars, and perhaps
Speaker 1: even more important were the monoclonal antibodies, what are called
Speaker 1: humanized antibodies. So by making monoclonals that could be injected
Speaker 1: into humans without raising an allergic reaction or a strong
Speaker 1: immune response, almost all of the injected antibodies today are
Speaker 1: based on those original technologies. And Lenn was just a natural,
Speaker 1: a natural entrepreneur. He never started any companies, but he
Speaker 1: knew how to license them. So he would always bring
Speaker 1: me into his office when he was negotiating with the
Speaker 1: pharma companies and he would give me the contracts to
Speaker 1: read because I was one of his favorite students. So
Speaker 1: he's like, Okay, I'm not going to waste my time
Speaker 1: by giving this guy something because he'll actually understand it
Speaker 1: and pick it up. And he introduced me to the
Speaker 1: best patent attorneys of the day, and so I learned
Speaker 1: from them what it was all about. So it was,
Speaker 1: you know, much of what I would love to say
Speaker 1: as mine is just a a rewrite of what I
Speaker 1: learned from uh from Lenin Lee. Right, So you were
Speaker 1: very favored in your mentoring. Yes, I got I got lucky,
Speaker 1: but I was also well, that's a good deal. I
Speaker 1: rotated in Stan Cohen's lab, and Stan, of course hadn't
Speaker 1: had the Cohen Boyer patents, so Boyer her Boyer started Genentech.
Speaker 1: Stan Cohen had the other of the three biggest and
Speaker 1: they were all in the department of genetics, and those
Speaker 1: were the uh those were the patents for genetic engineering.
Speaker 1: So it was sort of an environment that led you
Speaker 1: to think about practical applications. Now, when I started my
Speaker 1: company as an assistant professor, I got a heck a
Speaker 1: lot of pushback from senior scientists saying, Gary, you're too early,
Speaker 1: You're you know, you're gonna you're you shouldn't dirty your
Speaker 1: hands with this yet or now. Frankly, they didn't even
Speaker 1: want me getting involved in all. And it was funny
Speaker 1: because a lot of them, you know, ten or so
Speaker 1: years later, we're back in my office asking for my
Speaker 1: advice on how they could start a company. Right right, Well, it.
Speaker 2: It's a rarer pathway to be scientifically productive and to
Speaker 2: make your talents manifested in multiple directions and to be
Speaker 2: an entrepreneur. I mean, that's the research that I referred to,
Speaker 2: looking at predictors of scientific productivity, showed that the best predictor,
Speaker 2: apart from IQ obviously, which is always the best predictor
Speaker 2: of virtually anything complex by a lot, was conscientiousness, right,
Speaker 2: just sheer diligence, and that there's a certain kind of
Speaker 2: narrow focus that goes along with conscientiousness too. And so
Speaker 2: it is reasonable advice if you're talking to someone whose
Speaker 2: primary talents are diligence and industriousness for them to focus
Speaker 2: in ten on one area so that they can establish themselves.
Speaker 2: But that obviously wasn't the appropriate pathway for you, and
Speaker 2: so but that and it's also complicated and difficult to
Speaker 2: start a company as well as a research lab and
Speaker 2: to teach and all of that. So as generic advice,
Speaker 2: it probably wasn't too bad, but it didn't seem to
Speaker 2: hold in your case. How many patents do you have?
Speaker 2: I think somewhere between fifty and sixty at this point,
Speaker 2: ah and research articles over three hundred and fifty, right, okay, Well,
Speaker 2: so for everybody watching and listening, I mean, obviously that's
Speaker 2: a tremendous number of patents, because actually one patent is
Speaker 2: a lot of patents, and so sixty is a tremendous number.
Speaker 2: And on the research side, you can do a rule
Speaker 2: of thumb calculation. And not everybody agrees with this, but
Speaker 2: three research papers properly packaged make a pretty nice PhD thesis.
Speaker 2: So three hundred is roughly equivalent to one hundred PhDs,
Speaker 2: and that's a lot of PhDs. And I think that's
Speaker 2: a reasonable way of looking at it, not least because
Speaker 2: most PhDs end up with either zero or one publications.
Speaker 2: So the three publication rule of thumb isn't a bad one.
Speaker 2: What do you think of that characterization? Yeah, I think
Speaker 2: it's I think it's good.
Speaker 1: I think the better way to do it is how
Speaker 1: often are you cited, so you can publish and never
Speaker 1: be cited. So at this point I think I'm at
Speaker 1: about eighty nine thousand something citations, so that puts you
Speaker 1: in the top whatever percent. And a lot of those,
Speaker 1: frankly with the retroviruses, because people use the retroviruss And
Speaker 1: then a lot of it are the technologies that I've
Speaker 1: developed because for the immune system measuring technologies, whether it's
Speaker 1: something called sitof that I co developed with this guy
Speaker 1: at the University of Toronto. His name was Scott Tanner.
Speaker 1: He invented the machine, but I showed how it could
Speaker 1: be used for immunology, or the codex or the maybe
Speaker 1: or phospho flow or now the split pool synthesis technology
Speaker 1: for single cell analysis. We're all things that sort of
Speaker 1: just like came to me. It's amazing that sometimes people
Speaker 1: think that science is this methodical step by step, whereas
Speaker 1: more often than not, it's you pose the question in
Speaker 1: a way that sort of sets your subconscious to work.
Speaker 1: But then you lay out in front of you all
Speaker 1: of the necessary raw material and you say, somewhere in
Speaker 1: this morass is the answer, and then at a lecture
Speaker 1: out of nowhere, it suddenly just appears, you know, in
Speaker 1: your head, fully formed. It's almost as if your subconscious
Speaker 1: was busy working and it finally said, oh, I'm done here.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 3: As we celebrate Independence Day this July, we're reminded of
Speaker 3: the freedoms our founders fought to protect, especially the fundamental
Speaker 3: right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But
Speaker 3: here's something that might surprise you. There are still Americans
Speaker 3: today whose most basic right, the right to life itself,
Speaker 3: is at risk. That's where Preborn comes in. They're doing
Speaker 3: incredible work through their network of clinics, offering free ultrasounds
Speaker 3: to women facing unplanned pregnancies. And here's what's absolutely amazing.
Speaker 3: These ultrasounds don't just provide medical care, they're actually saving lives.
Speaker 3: When a mom sees her baby on that screen, here's
Speaker 3: the heartbeat for the first time, everything changes. But Preborn
Speaker 3: isn't just about the baby. They truly care for these
Speaker 3: women as well. They provide love, support and resources during
Speaker 3: what can be an incredibly difficult time. Look, if we
Speaker 3: really believe what the Constitution says, that all people are
Speaker 3: created equal with unalienable rights, then this has to include
Speaker 3: the smallest most vulnerable among us. These babies deserve the
Speaker 3: same rights that our founders declared life, liberty and the
Speaker 3: pursuit of happiness. You can be part of that mission
Speaker 3: for just twenty eight dollars that's the cost of a
Speaker 3: life saving ultra sound. Or you can sponsor five ultrasounds
Speaker 3: for one hundred and forty dollars to donate, just down
Speaker 3: pound two fifty and say baby, that's pound to fifty baby.
Speaker 3: Or visit preborn dot com slash Jordan that's preborn dot
Speaker 3: com slash Jordan.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, your your your thoughts and revelations. Let's say
Speaker 2: as well as your perceptions are extremely influenced by your goal.
Speaker 2: And so if you set the right question, you establish
Speaker 2: the quest, and your thoughts are orienting mechanisms. They're going
Speaker 2: to be working on the pathway to that goal and
Speaker 2: they do deliver the goods. Just like when you're walking
Speaker 2: down the street and you orient towards a goal, you
Speaker 2: can see the way to walk. I mean, it's an
Speaker 2: analogous to that. And we're not shocked that our perceptions
Speaker 2: are delivered to us. No, it's not like we effortfully
Speaker 2: construct them. They make themselves manifest in our consciousness, and
Speaker 2: if thought is a abstracted equivalent of perception, which is
Speaker 2: at least one of the things it is, it's not
Speaker 2: that surprising that once you set your mind to the
Speaker 2: task that you're what would you say that the spirit
Speaker 2: of revelation visits you in the appropriate manner. That's especially
Speaker 2: true if it's a genuine question, you know, if you're
Speaker 2: really interested in it. So, how could you describe your
Speaker 2: typical day? Like how many hours a day do you work?
Speaker 2: And how do you set.
Speaker 1: Up your day? I probably work fourteen fifteen hours a day.
Speaker 1: I get up, I feed the dogs because they're very demanding.
Speaker 1: I sit down, I start on email, and then I
Speaker 1: look at my task list. And usually these days it's
Speaker 1: a lot of editing. And luckily large language models have
Speaker 1: come along and help with that. In fact, it's actually
Speaker 1: almost fun to write grants. Now that's a you know, wow,
Speaker 1: that's something to say. That's for sure, because I figured
Speaker 1: out how to use large language models to write grants
Speaker 1: and so now, and what's interesting is that you really
Speaker 1: only need to give it like five or six sentences
Speaker 1: of the basic idea the way I've constructed this large
Speaker 1: language model version, and the rest of it gets automatically produced,
Speaker 1: which is actually kind of sad because what it means
Speaker 1: is the majority of it is wrote. The majority of
Speaker 1: what we write is similar to what you were saying
Speaker 1: about papers. The majority of that is wrote, and it's
Speaker 1: just there for the convenience of the reviewer. But the
Speaker 1: central idea is only a few sentences right right now?
Speaker 2: Do you have your own large language model and how
Speaker 2: do you stop them from lying to you and producing
Speaker 2: false like hallucinationations and citing papers that don't exist.
Speaker 1: And yeah, we you know, we use pretty sophisticated versions.
Speaker 1: We don't have our own LLLM, but we have our
Speaker 1: own chain of thought layer that sits on top of
Speaker 1: these for the work that we do with the large
Speaker 1: language models we have, we use open AI or anthropic
Speaker 1: or Gemini, you name it. And then we have a
Speaker 1: layer sitting on top.
Speaker 2: And oh yeah, and it is that layer trained on
Speaker 2: your work, yes, or on relevant work. I see, I
Speaker 2: have one of those as well that I trained on
Speaker 2: my books and some other material that. Yeah, and it's
Speaker 2: it's a very weird thing to use. I don't know
Speaker 2: if you have the same experience, but in this system
Speaker 2: we trained things like I think, but it can also
Speaker 2: think up things that I haven't thought up, which is
Speaker 2: not I guess what's happening as far as I'm concerned,
Speaker 2: is that in the statistical encoding of my linguistic knowledge
Speaker 2: is all sorts of latent information, right. I mean, there's
Speaker 2: relationships in my patterns of thought that I haven't explored obviously,
Speaker 2: and they're probably near infinite in scope. I mean, I
Speaker 2: would say that's the case for everyone. But because there's
Speaker 2: just so much information that's encoded, and so does your
Speaker 2: system refer to the material that you've trained it on
Speaker 2: first and then to the large language model that's general
Speaker 2: after that, or it's I mean, it's in the context
Speaker 2: window it starts with it. But I think the value
Speaker 2: is because it has lowered barriers, which is really what
Speaker 2: you're talking about. The barriers are lower to finding analogous
Speaker 2: or metaphors of what it is that you've said in
Speaker 2: other ways of thinking. I mean, much of my work,
Speaker 2: the inventions that we've made, we're taking the metaphor approach
Speaker 2: of finding somebody else's technology that works in something else
Speaker 2: completely unrelated to biology, showing how it could be applied
Speaker 2: to biology, Right, And so you know, ideas. Very often
Speaker 2: the best ideas are saying, or the best teachers that
Speaker 2: people are saying, this is something like this, think of
Speaker 2: it like this, and then giving a metaphor or an
Speaker 2: anecdote that explains the idea. And so the large language
Speaker 2: models are just metaphors on steroids. Depending on how you
Speaker 2: set the heat, it can find things for you and
Speaker 2: solutions for you that you probably could have thought of it,
Speaker 2: but it did the leg work.
Speaker 1: So for me, for instance, on the atomic imaging idea,
Speaker 1: you know, I said, okay, well here's what I'm doing.
Speaker 1: Help me write the patent on it, and it helped
Speaker 1: me start the patent that I gave to the patent
Speaker 1: attorneys who wondered what lawyer I'd used to write this,
Speaker 1: because it was already pretty good. But I said, I said,
Speaker 1: find me five other ideas that might also do the
Speaker 1: same thing. And surprisingly, it came up with ideas. They
Speaker 1: were impractical, but it came up with ideas that were
Speaker 1: that you know, we're like, oh, that's pretty cool. I
Speaker 1: wish I knew about this area of physics, so you know,
Speaker 1: it's actually there was a study just done out of
Speaker 1: Stanford just last fall that showed that large language models
Speaker 1: can be as creative as humans, if not more creative
Speaker 1: as scored by humans, just less practical.
Speaker 2: I wonder what the bound is on practical, Like, do
Speaker 2: you suppose I've talked to some computer engineers, including my
Speaker 2: brother in law who's quite a genius, and one of
Speaker 2: the things that he is prognosticating, and not only him,
Speaker 2: is that we have these Obviously, we have large language
Speaker 2: models that are assessing the statistical relationship between words at
Speaker 2: multiple levels of resolution, and can do this remarkable thinking
Speaker 2: for lack of a better word, because it sure looks
Speaker 2: a lot like thinking to me. But you know, human beings,
Speaker 2: we seem to be able to do that with images
Speaker 2: as well, right, and also with movement, like embodied movement.
Speaker 2: And my guess is is the practicality constraint is probably
Speaker 2: something like the referencing of the semantic system to the
Speaker 2: domain of image and movement.
Speaker 1: Right, will this.
Speaker 2: Because just because it's coded hypothetically in the linguistic corpus
Speaker 2: doesn't mean that it's in keeping with the way the
Speaker 2: world makes itself manifest And humans have three different memory
Speaker 2: systems at least, right, we've got semantic and episodic and procedural,
Speaker 2: and my suspicions are that when we're looking for practicality
Speaker 2: that we assess the joint contributions of all of those
Speaker 2: different ways of representing information. And the large language models
Speaker 2: can't quite do that yet, but they will soon. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's got to be the case, right because someone like
Speaker 2: Elon Musk, for example, he has this immense purpose of
Speaker 2: real world data, and it's got to just be a
Speaker 2: matter of time before that's integrated with the large language models.
Speaker 1: Right. Well, actually, you know, there's a part of your
Speaker 1: brain that does a lot about what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: It's called the basil ganglia and the caud eight pertainment,
Speaker 1: which is actually where intuition happens. So there's a game,
Speaker 1: a Japanese game of chess, which is sort of a
Speaker 1: limited form of what we think of as chess, and
Speaker 1: so they were doing basically reads of people's brains while
Speaker 1: they made these moves, and especially when they made like
Speaker 1: what would be considered a genius move, and the area
Speaker 1: of the brain that lights up is the head of
Speaker 1: the caud eight and the patainment, which is so the
Speaker 1: basil ganglia is actually what part of the brain tells
Speaker 1: you where your body is in three D space, what
Speaker 1: your memories are, et cetera. It's all subconscious, subservient to
Speaker 1: your executive function. So when you make a decision to
Speaker 1: do something, that gets sent to the basil ganglia, which
Speaker 1: determines whether or not you can actually do it and
Speaker 1: whether you want to do it, Like if you're walking
Speaker 1: across a room, how do I walk? All those subconscious
Speaker 1: decisions are all done in the basil ganglia. But as
Speaker 1: it turns out, as humans have evolved, that has then
Speaker 1: been sort of taken over to be used as our
Speaker 1: decision making system. Our intuition system works through the basil ganglia.
Speaker 1: So all those ideas that you just talked about, where
Speaker 1: it actually finally comes to is this practical or not?
Speaker 1: The basil ganglia is part of that process of central
Speaker 1: place for that process. So is that an embodiment constraint? Essentially? Sorry,
Speaker 1: what do you mean by that? Well, some things you
Speaker 1: can act, Oh, oh yes, can't. Yeah, but it also yeah,
Speaker 1: it also appears to be used in the abstract sense now,
Speaker 1: like is this the right move to make in a
Speaker 1: chess game? Which is which is kind of abstract reasoning,
Speaker 1: And we actually did right, right, We did a study
Speaker 1: on it. I mean, I believe it or not. We
Speaker 1: came to this area of the brain because of some
Speaker 1: of my UAP stuff, and we did a study with
Speaker 1: a group at Harvard and found in fact that the
Speaker 1: size of this area of the brain correlated directly with intelligence.
Speaker 1: And so oh really, yeah, which which part exactly was that?
Speaker 1: The that was the caught eight? Yeah, but we were
Speaker 1: how high was the correlation? Do you remember? You know
Speaker 1: the magnitude? I can't. I can't remember. But we have
Speaker 1: three papers, three papers on it we published. So it's
Speaker 1: interesting stuff. When were they published in the last three
Speaker 1: or four years? Oh?
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, so I've come across those are very interested
Speaker 2: in the neurological determinants of intelligence.
Speaker 1: But there was a there was a guy in literally
Speaker 1: I think the year two thousand, from Harvard who, through
Speaker 1: his own sort of best guesses or whatever, who had
Speaker 1: proposed before anybody actually found it that I think his
Speaker 1: name was Hoffman. He's now at UCLA. He's a professor
Speaker 1: of neurology. There had proposed that the caut eight and
Speaker 1: the basil ganglia were going to be involved in intuition.
Speaker 1: I didn't read his whole paper on it, but he
Speaker 1: was already a postulate when he was like a post doc.
Speaker 2: I wonder what the what do you think the connection is?
Speaker 2: I mean, when you think of intuition, you tend to think,
Speaker 2: at least I tend to think of of pattern recognition.
Speaker 2: Let's say, what what do you suppose the connection is
Speaker 2: between pattern recognition and and and the caud eight and
Speaker 2: and it's and it's and it's relationship to to motoric movement.
Speaker 1: It's a it's making a decision with sparse data. It's
Speaker 1: it's the it's the instantaneous decision to leap when there's
Speaker 1: when there's movement, like the leopard's about to jump out
Speaker 1: of the tree at you, and it's the movement.
Speaker 2: But you know in the military, right, So that's that's
Speaker 2: that's having to well, I'm imagining someone on a playing field,
Speaker 2: you know, in a hockey game or a soccer field.
Speaker 2: Obviously they're tracking many moving objects simultaneously and abstracting out
Speaker 2: something like a meaningful pattern, right, which direction is this going?
Speaker 2: And then they're modulating their reactions in consequence of reading
Speaker 2: the field. And the great athletes, the great team athletes
Speaker 2: are particularly good at that. Wayne Gretzky was particularly good
Speaker 2: at that, and hockey and so and so. Okay, so
Speaker 2: the pattern recognition would be something like you can imagine
Speaker 2: that being also crucial in a hunt, right, because you're
Speaker 2: going to want to know where the animal is gonna go,
Speaker 2: and and with your pack you have to orchestrate your
Speaker 2: movements and you have to do that together. There's something
Speaker 2: almost musical about that, like lions can do that and
Speaker 2: pack animals and so oh yeah, I see that. And
Speaker 2: that would be focused on a goal, the hunting arrangement,
Speaker 2: and that would require extremely fast reflexes. So it's the
Speaker 2: intuition in that regard is a very complex form of
Speaker 2: reflex in the sense, yes exactly.
Speaker 1: So it's humans seem to have evolved a way to
Speaker 1: use a pre existing system in the basil ganglia that
Speaker 1: was really just there for motor movement and making subconscious decisions,
Speaker 1: and they've layered over it and put an abstraction layer
Speaker 1: on top of that so that we can now use
Speaker 1: it for mathematical principles and other ideas. It is what
Speaker 1: provides that aha moment. And I've learned actually to see
Speaker 1: when the aha moment comes, it's almost like a form
Speaker 1: of color. It's like, and the next time you get
Speaker 1: an AHA moment, you see if you can try to
Speaker 1: capture that it happened when it happens, and realize that
Speaker 1: it was a different kind of input than what a
Speaker 1: methodological moment is, where you basically you've added it up
Speaker 1: and you've gotten the number by just simple addition, as
Speaker 1: opposed to that AHA moment. And I've learned to recognize
Speaker 1: and pay attention to the Aha moment, not that it's
Speaker 1: always true, but that it came from an intuition because
Speaker 1: you know it very often you can get it and
Speaker 1: then just dismiss it because it was just an intuition
Speaker 1: as opposed to something that you figured out. So listening
Speaker 1: to those Aha moments, and I'm telling you, I see
Speaker 1: it as a color when it happens, I recognize it
Speaker 1: as a different kind of thought. It's not thing it's
Speaker 1: being given to me magically or anything like that. I
Speaker 1: know a lot of people would like to think that
Speaker 1: that's what it.
Speaker 2: Is, but I don't know. There's something kind of magical
Speaker 2: about it. It like thought has this revelatory quality. As
Speaker 2: you pointed out, you can set your sights on something
Speaker 2: and then the pathway there. The mechanism that delivers you
Speaker 2: there is delivered to you, you know.
Speaker 1: So there is a magic about it. You know.
Speaker 2: I'm going to people are going to laugh at me
Speaker 2: for this because I always do it, but I'm going
Speaker 2: to do it anyways. That I've been studying Old Testament
Speaker 2: literature a lot for a long time, and I'm interested.
Speaker 2: I'm bringing this up because of something you said about
Speaker 2: the Basil Ganglia too developing an abstraction layer.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: Part of that abstraction layer is no doubt our ability
Speaker 2: to tell stories, because stories are verbal representations of action patterns,
Speaker 2: and so so the burning Bush episode in Exodus, that's
Speaker 2: an intuition episode.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: And Moses takes his intuition seriously enough to deviate from
Speaker 2: the from the from his normative path, and then he
Speaker 2: delves deeply into the source of the intuition. And that's
Speaker 2: what transforms him into a leader.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: He gets to the bottom of something, down a rabbit hole,
Speaker 2: to the bottom of something.
Speaker 1: And so it is a It is a It is.
Speaker 2: A narrative representation of not only of intuition, but of
Speaker 2: the willingness to attend to it and to and to
Speaker 2: delve into it deeply, right, So okay, so we should
Speaker 2: switch topics here. I wanted to go over your background
Speaker 2: with you to establish for everybody listening who you are.
Speaker 2: And it's pretty obvious that you have a multitude of
Speaker 2: abilities and a stellar track record that's continuing, and so
Speaker 2: that sets the foundation for our next discussion. You started
Speaker 2: to become interested, and I would like to know the
Speaker 2: story in unidentified aerial phenomena, and that's definitely a lateral
Speaker 2: move from your other interests, and so I'm very curious
Speaker 2: about all of that. I guess what I'd like to
Speaker 2: start with is why the interest and why take the
Speaker 2: risk to pursue it as well, because you have a
Speaker 2: lot to lose, let's say, on the reputational front, and
Speaker 2: it's clear you're a very creative person, so I'm sure
Speaker 2: your interests go everywhere.
Speaker 1: But i'd tell us how.
Speaker 2: It is that you became interested in this and why
Speaker 2: you decided to pursue it with some degree of seriousness. So,
Speaker 2: I mean, there's a couple of origin stories to it,
Speaker 2: but I think the most the easiest to start with
Speaker 2: is with the Atacama mummy, right, the small mummy that
Speaker 2: people had been promoting as being an alien, right the
Speaker 2: mummy that was found in out of Comma, Chile, And.
Speaker 1: Right, that was a couple of years ago, way not
Speaker 1: too long ago. Oh, actually was no, it was twelve beer,
Speaker 1: it was twelve yeah, yeah, actually already. Yeah, it was
Speaker 1: a long long time ago. I mean that was. And
Speaker 1: so I had seen it on YouTube. I reached out
Speaker 1: to the people who were, let's say, marketing it, and
Speaker 1: I said, hey, I can figure this out for you.
Speaker 1: I can tell you what it is. And so we
Speaker 1: arranged to get a small piece of the of the body,
Speaker 1: a rib. I wanted the rib because I wanted the
Speaker 1: bone marrow from within the rib, because I felt that
Speaker 1: would be the place best protected from a bacterial contamination.
Speaker 1: And long and the short of it was that we
Speaker 1: showed that it was a human baby, probably well it
Speaker 1: was probably pre term birth, but that we found a
Speaker 1: number of mutations in it, the in the genome that
Speaker 1: could explain what it looked like and why it looked
Speaker 1: up the way it did. And so, you know, when
Speaker 1: a movie came out regarding that circa twenty twelve or so,
Speaker 1: it was like sending up a you know, a flair
Speaker 1: to two sides of the world. One the people who
Speaker 1: didn't like that I was debunking the alien so I was.
Speaker 1: I became an instant a symbol of dislike for the
Speaker 1: UFO community, which is interesting, you know, paradoxically these days.
Speaker 1: But then it also was a flare to scientists, as
Speaker 1: it turned out as well the intelligence community, that here's
Speaker 1: a guy willing to look at things and just called
Speaker 1: them as they as he sees it. And so that led,
Speaker 1: as it turned out, to somebody representing the CIA and
Speaker 1: an aerospace company showing up at my office at Stanford
Speaker 1: literally unannounced, showed me their credentials and said we need
Speaker 1: your help looking at patients who had harm done to them.
Speaker 1: And I was like, well, what kind of harm? And
Speaker 1: then they laid out the data literally like MRIs and
Speaker 1: X rays of internal scarring.
Speaker 2: Of what were these these people who reported abductions?
Speaker 1: No, no, no, oh no, oh sorry, okay, these were
Speaker 1: more for the wrong tangent. These are intelligence agents, diplomatic,
Speaker 1: core military personnel, et cetera, all who who had said
Speaker 1: that they were hearing buzzing in their ears or you know.
Speaker 1: And and then a small subset of them said that
Speaker 1: they'd been in proximity to things that you would call
Speaker 1: a UFO. So I thought it was a joke at
Speaker 1: the beginning, especially when they mentioned the UFO stuff, because
Speaker 1: I had no intention at the time of going back
Speaker 1: and doing more alien research after the after the Autacama
Speaker 1: mummy escapade, and and so they had come to me,
Speaker 1: I mean, why come to me? Well, one, I was
Speaker 1: willing to talk to people about this stuff, but two,
Speaker 1: they wanted to do blood analysis of the individuals who'd
Speaker 1: been harmed as part of a complete medical workup. And
Speaker 1: so they'd asked around and they said, well, who does
Speaker 1: the best blood analysis or you need to go talk
Speaker 1: to this guy nol And at Stanford. He has this
Speaker 1: thing called sitop that can do the deepest analysis of
Speaker 1: blood that you know currently today and still so basically,
Speaker 1: over the course of two or three years on working
Speaker 1: with this group and on these patients, it turned out
Speaker 1: that these were actually the first of the Havana syndrome patients.
Speaker 1: I'm sure you've heard of Havanas syndrome. So the review
Speaker 1: that for everyone, So Havana syndrome was something that basically
Speaker 1: came out around twenty fifteen twenty sixteen, and it was
Speaker 1: a it was called Havana because it was the diplomatic
Speaker 1: core individuals in our government who were getting headaches or
Speaker 1: having to be sent home. And it turned out that
Speaker 1: it is probably a kind of microwave technology being used
Speaker 1: by some of our adversaries. It's one hundred percent reeal.
Speaker 1: You know, some people in the CIA tried to debunk it.
Speaker 1: But now there's whole there's a whole like set of
Speaker 1: paperwork out put out by the Department of Health and
Speaker 1: Human Services on anomalists what's now called anomalist health incidents
Speaker 1: where Havana syndrome and all of the sets of associated
Speaker 1: symptoms are all listed and there's a path now for
Speaker 1: people who think that they have it to go follow
Speaker 1: it up, you know, appropriately with the Veterans Administration or
Speaker 1: what have you. But you know, in the three years.
Speaker 2: Heay, so let me get this straight. So you had
Speaker 2: someone from the CIA show up to your office and
Speaker 2: he had a list of people who were who had
Speaker 2: medical problems, and some of those medical problems were a
Speaker 2: consequence of people coming into contact with contact with what
Speaker 2: technology that that is mysterious?
Speaker 1: Is that the right thing? Yeah? Yeah, well, I mean
Speaker 1: they didn't know what the what the source of it is,
Speaker 1: but now we know that there was. Basically, I mean
Speaker 1: it's it's an energy weapon, just a microwave weapon. Just
Speaker 1: imagine you could focus the beam of your microwave in
Speaker 1: a very narrow path towards a person's head. You'll bake
Speaker 1: the brain cells in their head. So, I mean, there's
Speaker 1: nothing magical about it. We have them. Everybody knows that
Speaker 1: they that these things exist. At the time when we
Speaker 1: were working on it, we were calling it into interference syndrome.
Speaker 1: You call something a syndrome when you don't know the
Speaker 1: exact cause, but it can have a variety of manifestations.
Speaker 1: And so what we had done was we had matched
Speaker 1: the symptoms to what are called the international diagnostic codes,
Speaker 1: so that we had the ability to say, it's this,
Speaker 1: and it's this, and it's this, and if you have
Speaker 1: ten of fifteen of these, you have interference syndrome. So
Speaker 1: at the same time, somebody was figuring out what Havana
Speaker 1: syndrome was, and it turned out that our set of
Speaker 1: symptomologies matched perfectly with the Havana syndrome ones for most
Speaker 1: of our patients. We were able to hand all of
Speaker 1: that over to the US government and I've worked with
Speaker 1: Senate staff and others you know, on that, and that's
Speaker 1: something I can't talk much about. But what remained, and
Speaker 1: this is what's good about how science has done. Once
Speaker 1: you've characterized something and you find it uninteresting, not that
Speaker 1: it's uninteresting that these patients are being harmed, but I
Speaker 1: could hand it off to somebody else who would then
Speaker 1: take care of it as a national security concern. What
Speaker 1: was left on the table were the oddities, and those
Speaker 1: were the Now the people who had gotten close to UAP,
Speaker 1: they claimed at least some of them, and they had,
Speaker 1: as it turned out, slightly different demologies. Some of those
Speaker 1: were more likely to have arhythmas or uh you know,
Speaker 1: scarring on the skin as opposed to internally or manifestations
Speaker 1: on there on the back of their neck of some
Speaker 1: kind of irradiative damage of some kind. Now there, then
Speaker 1: there was a pattern to this, Yes there was, yes, well,
Speaker 1: And the pattern was always anecdotal, unfortunately in that they
Speaker 1: had a story that you at face face, but.
Speaker 2: I mean a symptom. The symptom pattern was stable. And
Speaker 2: how many people, how many individuals approximately? Like what kind
Speaker 2: of sample pool were you were you assessing?
Speaker 1: Now you're down to about five or six people because
Speaker 1: of of the original small number of people. Of the
Speaker 1: original hundred that we started with, ninety or so it
Speaker 1: turned out were what we could think of as Havana syndrome.
Speaker 1: The remaining were what we're interesting and you know, but
Speaker 1: sort of back to let's say, my career. My career
Speaker 1: has always been I've always been good at seeing the
Speaker 1: data point off the curve and realizing that it's not noise,
Speaker 1: or at least asking the question how did that data
Speaker 1: point get there, and not just you know, going with
Speaker 1: what's sitting on the line, but understanding why the data
Speaker 1: point off the curve is important, and then being able
Speaker 1: to quickly again back to that iterate the possibilities say, ah, well,
Speaker 1: it's if we know that it's not a problem with
Speaker 1: the instrumentation, then it's an indication that we don't understand something.
Speaker 1: And so that was where I was already starting to
Speaker 1: get introduced because of this UAP stuff. Because of that,
Speaker 1: we had these groups of individuals who said that they'd
Speaker 1: gotten harmed by UAP, and we diligenced them to make
Speaker 1: sure that they didn't have some sort of psychological problem.
Speaker 1: They had full psychological workups, and we knew that these
Speaker 1: were people that we're you know, we're trusting the nation's
Speaker 1: security with. You know, it's kind of like, okay, well
Speaker 1: it's an anecdote, it's a story. And now I've heard
Speaker 1: fifty stories like this by that point, right, And it's like, well.
Speaker 2: No, they say, the plural of anecdote isn't data, but
Speaker 2: the plural of anecdote is definitely hypothesis, yes, right.
Speaker 1: And so once you start to get that, I was like, okay,
Speaker 1: well there seems to be something here. And you raised
Speaker 1: a point. You ruined your career. I literally was told
Speaker 1: by a senior official at the National Cancer Institute by
Speaker 1: around circa twenty fourteen, twenty fifteen, because I was just
Speaker 1: talking about this, just saying, isn't this an interesting idea?
Speaker 1: You're going to ruin your career? Gary? And I was
Speaker 1: just like, but it's but the data is on the table.
Speaker 1: It isn't ridiculous to ask the question. But the fact
Speaker 1: that they were trying to push it off the table
Speaker 1: incensed me. It was just like, that's not how a
Speaker 1: scientist thinks. That is just your And I said to him,
Speaker 1: I said, you sound more like a priest than a scientist.
Speaker 1: Maybe you should give your PhD back.
Speaker 2: Oh and well, there aren't that many scientists, you know,
Speaker 2: there are a lot of people who act out the
Speaker 2: role of scientists.
Speaker 1: But that's not the same thing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, Scientists are very peculiar people when they're real,
Speaker 2: so so.
Speaker 1: And that, you know, And that's been sort of my
Speaker 1: approach to it, is like, how dare you tell me?
Speaker 1: I can't ask the question because there's more than enough
Speaker 1: evidence that there's something worth studying. And people mix up
Speaker 1: evidence with proof. You know, data sits in isolation and
Speaker 1: has no meaning whatsoever. It only has meaning in the
Speaker 1: context of a hypothesis. And you know, so does the
Speaker 1: does the hypothesis and the data match to mean that
Speaker 1: it is perhaps evidence? Evidence, just as in court, is
Speaker 1: not proof of anything that requires a jury to decide
Speaker 1: whether or not the evidence is sufficient to you know,
Speaker 1: manifest guilt or not. The same thing in a paper.
Speaker 1: There's very few papers that you will ever read that
Speaker 1: ever say there is in at least in biology, this
Speaker 1: is a conclusion. There's all kinds of weasel words that
Speaker 1: we as biologists use to give ourselves diplomatic egress just
Speaker 1: in case. So, but you know when people like Nilda
Speaker 1: grass Tyson say there's no evidence, Well, that's just a
Speaker 1: lack of understanding of what the difference between data and
Speaker 1: evidence is. There's reams of evidence, there's libraries full of evidence,
Speaker 1: there's books I could throw, I could drown people in
Speaker 1: that with evidence. But that's not a conclusion. That's not
Speaker 1: what we think of as scientists as proof. Now I have,
Speaker 1: I'm of personally two minds as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 1: There's definitely something going on that appears to be not human.
Speaker 1: That's just my own So okay, but that's different than science, right,
Speaker 1: I'm true, right, right, right, go for it.
Speaker 2: Okay, so tell me, Well, tell me a typical story,
Speaker 2: like the typical story pattern that characterized the testimony of
Speaker 2: these leftover individuals whose symptoms were troublesome but somewhat anomalists,
Speaker 2: Like what were they reporting? And then you took it
Speaker 2: seriously because there had been psychological workups done on them,
Speaker 2: and there were a number of people reporting the same thing,
Speaker 2: So you know that something's up. So tell me, tell
Speaker 2: me a story and then tell me what you started
Speaker 2: thinking about with regards to a potential cause.
Speaker 1: Well, one was a guy by the name of John
Speaker 1: Burrow and the Randall Schrum forest case where he literally
Speaker 1: got close to one that came down near our nuclear
Speaker 1: storage facilities there. It's a very famous case. And he
Speaker 1: came to me as part of this group of ten
Speaker 1: remainders and I was introduced to him to do the
Speaker 1: blood analysis and do the collection of the blood. And
Speaker 1: then later, as it turned out, and here's an interesting thing,
Speaker 1: later he developed a heart problem and he couldn't get
Speaker 1: the Veterans Administration to open up his file so that
Speaker 1: he could get he could prove or that it might
Speaker 1: have actually been originally caused at Randalstrum in England because
Speaker 1: his medical file was deemed top secret. So we literally
Speaker 1: had to go to and this is on the record.
Speaker 1: We literally had to go to Senator McCain in whose
Speaker 1: state this guy lived in Arizona and get him to
Speaker 1: write a letter to the Veterans Administration forcing them to
Speaker 1: open his file so that he could get insurance payment
Speaker 1: for his heart condition. It's all on the record. So
Speaker 1: why there's an individual who had a problem that he
Speaker 1: claims had been you know, caused through some interaction way
Speaker 1: back when, why do you have to make his file
Speaker 1: top secret? What's in it? There was nothing in it. Frankly,
Speaker 1: it was just somebody had decided it needed to be
Speaker 1: top secret because things, things related to UFOs just need
Speaker 1: to be you know, nobody talks about them, rush them
Speaker 1: under the table, but we you know, we literally and
Speaker 1: it's again it's public record. And so what did he experience?
Speaker 1: He saw something, He came close to something, something that
Speaker 1: was about five feet across on the ground, and I
Speaker 1: don't know, I mean, I wasn't there. I'm just relaying
Speaker 1: the story.
Speaker 2: Right, right, right, And so is that what's the typical
Speaker 2: pattern of encounter?
Speaker 1: You know, I mean, is there a pattern of now phenomena? No, No,
Speaker 1: there's not enough of a This is the problem is
Speaker 1: that you can't repeat harm. You know, when when harm happens,
Speaker 1: it's it's sort of incidental, and so you just have
Speaker 1: to deal with And I think it's less about the harm.
Speaker 1: So I mean, I think we should move away from
Speaker 1: a discussion of the harm and just talk more about
Speaker 1: what it is that people are seeing. And I'm talking
Speaker 1: about credible people, right, what's the credible data that we
Speaker 1: can collect? What's okay?
Speaker 2: So it's a broader conversation on unidentified aerial phenomena. That's
Speaker 2: so so sure, Leat, and I want to talk about
Speaker 2: your soul foundation as well, and also the fact that
Speaker 2: you've analyzed materials with unusual properties, so right, if we
Speaker 2: can tangle all that together, that will be good.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So the reason why we started the Sole Foundation,
Speaker 1: and it was me, Peter Scayfish, and David Grosh. David
Speaker 1: Grosh was the gentleman who testified in front of Congress
Speaker 1: about what he claims were the reverse engineering programs, and
Speaker 1: the principal reason for starting the Sole Foundation was to enable, say,
Speaker 1: a picket fence within which people of reasonable intelligence or
Speaker 1: academics who don't always have reasonable intelligence but could have
Speaker 1: a conversation and not be laughed out of the room,
Speaker 1: to be able to say, here's a hypothesis and here's
Speaker 1: the data I have. Do you think my hypothesis matches
Speaker 1: or do you have another idea? But the spectrum of
Speaker 1: things about which we wanted to be able to talk
Speaker 1: about were everything from religion all the way through to
Speaker 1: material science. On my side, so we have Peter Scayfish,
Speaker 1: who's an anthropologist, and are the one well he's an
Speaker 1: let's call him an anthropologist and so he's interested in
Speaker 1: people's stories, Right, what are so called experiencers, what's the
Speaker 1: pattern of the of the experiencers, and what kind of
Speaker 1: let's say, trauma might they undergo, not only because of
Speaker 1: the experience itself, but the trauma of not being able
Speaker 1: to talk to your friends and or family about what
Speaker 1: it is that you think that you saw because of
Speaker 1: the stigmas associated with talking about this and not wanting
Speaker 1: to be, you know, considered crazy. Uh. And then so
Speaker 1: he's collecting and writing papers on that. We have focused
Speaker 1: on religion. We had somebody from the Catholic hierarchy write
Speaker 1: a paper on that for us. Two on the on
Speaker 1: the more you know, extreme science side, the hard science side,
Speaker 1: the materials analysis that that I do. Uh. And part
Speaker 1: of it again was to say, okay, let's have this conversation.
Speaker 1: Let's We had our first Foundation meeting, I mean big
Speaker 1: convention at Stanford where we had about two hundred or
Speaker 1: three hundred people there who'd come from all over the
Speaker 1: world to have a What year was that? That was
Speaker 1: three years ago? Now who we've had one each year.
Speaker 1: And the funny story there was about two weeks before
Speaker 1: we were to have the meeting, I started getting these
Speaker 1: pings from administrators around Stanford that there might be a problem,
Speaker 1: and I was like, oh God, you can't do this
Speaker 1: to me. Everybody's invited, the plane tickets are paid for,
Speaker 1: you know, etc. What's going on? And I managed to
Speaker 1: trace down who it was at Stanford that was sort
Speaker 1: of causing the trouble. It turns out it was the
Speaker 1: branding office at Stanford and that they had a problem
Speaker 1: with that Stanford's name wasn't first. That we had put
Speaker 1: Soul Foundation first and not Stanford, and they wanted it Stanford,
Speaker 1: you know, and the Nolan Laboratory, not the Soul Foundation.
Speaker 1: So Stanford was more than willing to you know, to
Speaker 1: be upfront about it. They were, you know, open about it.
Speaker 1: In fact, the alumni association had me give at the
Speaker 1: last homecoming a big talk to probably about two hundred
Speaker 1: people about it because of the interest level. So there
Speaker 1: was there's been no problem on that front. But then
Speaker 1: I then got interested in the materials because again through
Speaker 1: the connections that I had made, I came to know
Speaker 1: a gentleman by the name of Jacques Valet. Jacques Valat
Speaker 1: is probably one of the most famous let's call them ufologists. Ever,
Speaker 1: in terms of like his scientific prowess, he was involved
Speaker 1: in the early days of the internet. He was an astronomer.
Speaker 1: He's a venture capitalist in the Bay Area, and he's
Speaker 1: heretical in the sense that he didn't believe that whatever
Speaker 1: this was was necessarily extraterrestrial, but it was. It was
Speaker 1: some other kind of manifestation of either the human psyche
Speaker 1: or something more beyond, something almost you know, paranormal in
Speaker 1: its in its capabilities. So it was interesting to listen
Speaker 1: to this, but I was more interested in, you know, okay, well,
Speaker 1: what can I teach another scientist? How can I convince
Speaker 1: another scientist. So it turns out Jacques had a number
Speaker 1: of materials, metals and or objects that had been associated
Speaker 1: with landings of alleged uap or UFOs, and so I said, okay,
Speaker 1: well give me some of them. I need only tiny
Speaker 1: amounts and we can do traditional analysis on it. And
Speaker 1: so one of the things that I got ahold of
Speaker 1: we showed recently to be that was from a beach
Speaker 1: in Ubatuba, Brazil, that a fisherman had seen this object
Speaker 1: dropped from some other from this ufo and it was
Speaker 1: it shattered and he picked up some pieces of it,
Speaker 1: and it made its way through what I would consider
Speaker 1: to be a reasonable chain of custody, and we measured
Speaker 1: it and it was ninety nine point nine nine nine
Speaker 1: percent silicon. Okay, that's not hard to make today, but
Speaker 1: it's not something in the late nineteen fifties or early
Speaker 1: nineteen sixties you drop giant pieces of all over a
Speaker 1: beach in Ubatuba, Mexico. So it's whatever that was, it
Speaker 1: was clearly an object of industrial purpose. Right, There's no
Speaker 1: ninety nine point nine nine nine percent silicon anywhere on
Speaker 1: planet Earth. It's all contaminated. And I actually have atomic
Speaker 1: I have an atomic map of one of these pieces
Speaker 1: that we developed that we did with atomic probe tomography.
Speaker 1: What was fascinating was that one of the two chains
Speaker 1: of custody that I obtained also had magnesium ratios that
Speaker 1: were not what you would expect from Earth. They were
Speaker 1: different than the standard magnesium ratio. So magnesium has three
Speaker 1: isotopes twenty four, twenty five and twenty six twenty four
Speaker 1: is like, let's just say rounded up to eighty percent,
Speaker 1: and the other two are nine and eleven percent. Whereas
Speaker 1: the one of the two chains of custody. The magnesium
Speaker 1: ratios were or just higglely piggledy all over the map.
Speaker 1: They had nothing. They didn't look anything like what you
Speaker 1: expect to find from a piece of silicon on Earth.
Speaker 1: Anywhere you look on Earth, you're going to find silicon. Sorry,
Speaker 1: the magnesium at the eighty eleven and nine ratio. Whereas
Speaker 1: this one of these pieces was wrong. That doesn't prove
Speaker 1: that it's a UFO. It just proves that it's of
Speaker 1: some kind of manufacturing purpose. So that's one we're actually
Speaker 1: writing the paper up on that one. I published a
Speaker 1: peer reviewed paper on another thing, another object from what's
Speaker 1: called Council Bluffs, Iowa, where again there were multiple witnesses.
Speaker 1: In this case, even the police had seen an object
Speaker 1: and it seemed to drop something, and when the people
Speaker 1: arrived they thought, actually it was a plane crash. When
Speaker 1: they arrived, they found about thirty pounds of malten metal
Speaker 1: in the middle of a frozen field. And I have
Speaker 1: the original polaroids, and so I just did an analysis
Speaker 1: of it. And the long and the short of the
Speaker 1: analysis was there was nothing wrong with the isotope ratios,
Speaker 1: but it was a mixture of metals that nobody would
Speaker 1: normally put together. It was not fully mixed. It was
Speaker 1: only partially mixed. So it's kind of like if you
Speaker 1: were to take chocolate, vanilla and strawberry ice cream and
Speaker 1: partially melt them and just kind of turn it your
Speaker 1: spoon a couple of times around. Depending on where you looked,
Speaker 1: you'd find different ratios of chocolate, vanilla and strawberry, as
Speaker 1: opposed if you were to put it in a blender,
Speaker 1: everywhere you look it would look the same. So what
Speaker 1: I found in the metals was that it was incompletely mixed. Okay,
Speaker 1: So who would drop thirty pounds of incompletely mixed iron,
Speaker 1: titanium and aluminum in the middle of a field for
Speaker 1: no good reason from something that looks like a UFO.
Speaker 1: So all the conventional explanations that it was thermite, it's
Speaker 1: not thermite because there's no aluminium hydroxide and I checked,
Speaker 1: you know, to carry that much malten metal requires at
Speaker 1: that temperature a cauldron that it would be like half
Speaker 1: a ton to the middle of a field. You're not
Speaker 1: going to put it in a plane. So what is it? Unexplained?
Speaker 1: But the reason for doing it, and actually i've there's
Speaker 1: somebody who's uh, it looks like is going to give
Speaker 1: me sort of free money to analyze more of these things.
Speaker 1: Is not to prove that they're from UAP, but it's
Speaker 1: to do the right kind of analysis on the materials
Speaker 1: so that I can get it out there and publish
Speaker 1: it with no conclusions. Just here's the data, and here's
Speaker 1: the story, and here's the analysis as complete as we
Speaker 1: can do at this time, because maybe somebody else will
Speaker 1: look at it three years from now, or some other
Speaker 1: enterprising student will go, ah, that's how you would if
Speaker 1: if you released this, this would be the engine control
Speaker 1: for I don't know, anti gravity or something. So it's
Speaker 1: it's you know, you you it. It's part of that
Speaker 1: thing of like you come up with an intuitive idea
Speaker 1: because you've spread all of the data in front of you. Well,
Speaker 1: if you don't have the data, you can't come up
Speaker 1: with the with the solution. But if I can get
Speaker 1: the data out to as many people, maybe somebody else
Speaker 1: will come up with the hypothesis that unifies the story.
Speaker 1: So it's part of like the I mean, I think
Speaker 1: of it as the open source data approach or the
Speaker 1: open science where you get the data out for everybody
Speaker 1: because somebody paid for it, So maybe you shouldn't keep
Speaker 1: it in your you know, in your desktop drawer or
Speaker 1: these days and a folder on your computer. Get the
Speaker 1: data out there so that other people can use it.
Speaker 1: Does that make sense?
Speaker 2: Okay, so so far it makes sense. I've got more questions.
Speaker 2: So you started by assessing the medical problems of a
Speaker 2: small subset of people whose symptoms didn't fit the pattern,
Speaker 2: but whose self reported stories had it their own characteristic
Speaker 2: and that their symptoms had their own identifiable characteristics. Now
Speaker 2: I'm not sure how you got from that to the
Speaker 2: Soul Foundation. Now, my understanding is that because you had
Speaker 2: worked on that that hypothetical alien corpse and debunked that,
Speaker 2: and then you got involved with this CIE project, that
Speaker 2: more of these stories were coming your way.
Speaker 1: Yes, is that? And yes? Okay?
Speaker 2: And so what other kinds of stories? And tell us
Speaker 2: about the foundation itself and who's involved? And then I'm
Speaker 2: also extremely curious about your conclusions. I mean, I'm sitting
Speaker 2: here thinking you're obviously studying anomalous phenomena. Why would you
Speaker 2: make the why or have you even derived the inference
Speaker 2: that apart from the the isotopes, why would you derive
Speaker 2: the conclusion that extraterrestrial origin is the most likely.
Speaker 1: No, I never said that, culprit or.
Speaker 2: No, okay, fine, fine, fair enough, fair enough, you didn't,
Speaker 2: and so that well, that's exactly why I'm posing the question.
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to corner you yet.
Speaker 2: I want to know, like, you're studying anomalous phenomena, you
Speaker 2: know of Charles forty? Yeah, yeah, yes, okay, okay, okay.
Speaker 1: Did you ever watch Magnolia? No, the movie?
Speaker 2: No, Oh, Magnolia is a great movie, by the way,
Speaker 2: and it's about Charles It has a sub theme of
Speaker 2: Charles Fort. So if you're interested in Charles Fort, Magnolia
Speaker 2: is very much much worth watching. It's a great movie,
Speaker 2: also beautifully put together musically. And of course Charles Fort
Speaker 2: studied anomalist phenomena his whole life, and Magnolia happens to.
Speaker 1: Be about that.
Speaker 2: But okay, so you're studying anomalies, lay out the realm
Speaker 2: of hypotheses because there's military experimentation, I mean, there's all
Speaker 2: sorts of obvious competing hypotheses. So tell me what you did,
Speaker 2: you know, what you've gone through, more about your foundation
Speaker 2: and what you've concluded. So the principal reason for starting
Speaker 2: the Soul Foundation was that I was because of let's say,
Speaker 2: my public persona about this, more and more scientists were
Speaker 2: coming to me and saying, hey, I want to help, how.
Speaker 1: Can I do it? And then it a common friend
Speaker 1: of Peter and Peter Skayfish and I along with David Grush,
Speaker 1: who I had met through all of these events. And
Speaker 1: David again was the guy who sat in front of
Speaker 1: Congress and testified about the alleged reverse engineering programs of
Speaker 1: which he was aware. And I met with Dave and
Speaker 1: spoken with him, you know, very deeply and watched every
Speaker 1: element of his body language as I possibly could to see,
Speaker 1: you know, look for evidence of being of misconstruing him
Speaker 1: in some way, and as far as I can tell,
Speaker 1: he's telling at least as far as he's concerned, the
Speaker 1: truth about what he knows. And I said, okay, well,
Speaker 1: we need a more formalized way to approach this. And
Speaker 1: so what do you do as a scientist in a
Speaker 1: new area. You start a society more or less, or
Speaker 1: you start a foundation that becomes the lead foundation for
Speaker 1: other groups to come together. And the Soul Foundation pretty
Speaker 1: much has established itself as a non partisan umbrella group
Speaker 1: through which the many individuals who are interested in UAP
Speaker 1: and talking about you know, in a professional manner, can
Speaker 1: come together in our next actually event, it's going to
Speaker 1: be historic. It's going to be in Italy, and we've
Speaker 1: got people from the European Parliament. We've got a number
Speaker 1: of former, let's say, US officials who will be there
Speaker 1: to talk about these matters. And again it's I don't
Speaker 1: expect a revelation. I expect just from this people to
Speaker 1: come and know that there's a place where they won't
Speaker 1: be laughed at, but they can share, maybe give ideas.
Speaker 1: And one of the sets of ideas of what's going
Speaker 1: on right now is there's a big movement for what's
Speaker 1: called the UAP Disclosure Act that for your listeners, for
Speaker 1: the last two years, Senator Rounds and Senator Schumer, supported
Speaker 1: by multiple representatives on both sides of the aisle, have
Speaker 1: put forward a part of the bill that goes into
Speaker 1: the Defense Department bill, sixty pages of which talks about
Speaker 1: the reverse engineering programs and extraterrestrial or not necessary not
Speaker 1: even extra trust grow non human intelligence, and that for
Speaker 1: the next five to ten years there will be an
Speaker 1: oversight group which will collect and gather all of this
Speaker 1: information for potential benefit of humanity. Now you just asked
Speaker 1: me about ruining my career. Would Senator Schumer, the head
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party, and Senator Rounds, an important figure
Speaker 1: on the Republican side, come out and make any of
Speaker 1: these kinds of statements or allow for their offices to
Speaker 1: be the vehicles through which such a bill would manifest
Speaker 1: itself if they felt that they were going to be
Speaker 1: derided on the floor of the Center. Probably not. And
Speaker 1: so there's Marco Rubio has come out openly and talked
Speaker 1: about this. He's now our Secretary of State. There's twenty
Speaker 1: minutes of part of a film that he's in where
Speaker 1: he's openly talking about the fact that there are these
Speaker 1: objects moving in ways that we don't know. I was
Speaker 1: speaking with your producer prior to your getting to the set.
Speaker 1: The Soul Foundation. One of our purposes we put together
Speaker 1: press kits of like fifteen different snippets from former heads
Speaker 1: of the CIA, THEDIA, NSA, President Obama, etc. All saying
Speaker 1: there's something that we don't understand, and it's moving in
Speaker 1: ways in our atmosphere that we can't explain, and it
Speaker 1: appears to be technology. Now they'd like you to think
Speaker 1: that it's some thing out of Lockheed perhaps, but you
Speaker 1: know it was. These things were being seen before Lockheed existed, right,
Speaker 1: They were seen in World War Two. They were seen
Speaker 1: subsequent to World War Two, long before we had any capabilities.
Speaker 1: So what is it. I don't care. I don't care
Speaker 1: if it's human or not. I just want to have
Speaker 1: reproducible findings. And yet somehow, for some reason, the government
Speaker 1: won't release the information that it has. I mean, just
Speaker 1: recently there's a there was a Freedom of Information Act
Speaker 1: release of the so called mosil orb ou m O
Speaker 1: s u L Mossel Iraq and a solid silver ball.
Speaker 1: That ARROW, the which is the Anomaly Resolution Office of
Speaker 1: the Department of Defense, came up and said, yeah, we've
Speaker 1: see lots of these things. The former assistant director of ARROW,
Speaker 1: which is the office programmed and set up up by
Speaker 1: the DUD to collect the kind of information around these anomalies,
Speaker 1: openly stated just three weeks ago on a podcast that yeah,
Speaker 1: we see, we've seen multi We have videos of these
Speaker 1: black triangles that move in ways that we don't understand. Okay,
Speaker 1: if it's our technology and we can move in ways
Speaker 1: like that. Why are planes still crashing at Reagan Airport right? What?
Speaker 1: Why are we letting you know airplanes use fuel when
Speaker 1: we have some other kind of technology that can move
Speaker 1: the way that these things can and as being kept
Speaker 1: a secret?
Speaker 2: Is that just forget you talked about black black triangles
Speaker 2: and silver orbs. Can you go into a little bit
Speaker 2: more like what I'd like to know that the central phenomena,
Speaker 2: What where do you think most of the signal resides
Speaker 2: with regard to these anomalous sightings? What's the pattern?
Speaker 1: The pattern, the the best pattern are what it is
Speaker 1: that the military sees. And those are the ones that
Speaker 1: where I have a focus and where actually I'm involved
Speaker 1: with another group that's funded privately called Skywatcher, And what
Speaker 1: we're doing is we've been setting up sensor systems in
Speaker 1: what we call cleared areas where we know that there's
Speaker 1: no overflight and we do sometimes work in concert with
Speaker 1: the FAA and others to make sure where we're setting
Speaker 1: up for repeatable measurements and sensor systems to see things,
Speaker 1: and we're seeing stuff that doesn't make sense, and so
Speaker 1: we're not coming to conclusions, but we're collecting the data
Speaker 1: and because I'm a scientist, I'm like their principal advisor
Speaker 1: to this group, and we're setting up and doing the
Speaker 1: kinds of measurements that I think are necessary because I'm
Speaker 1: not going to wait for the government, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: not going to wait for daddy government to tell me
Speaker 1: what's right. I'm going to I'm a scientist, going to
Speaker 1: go out and do it myself. And so that's what
Speaker 1: we've done, and we've raised significant funds. I mean, and
Speaker 1: you can go look up Skywatcher on the Internet and
Speaker 1: what it is that we're doing. And part of what
Speaker 1: we're doing is it's it's it's two purposes. One, it's
Speaker 1: it's basically aerial surveillance, partially just for drones because we've
Speaker 1: seen what drones can do in wars. So and we
Speaker 1: knew and you know about the drone incidents in New Jersey,
Speaker 1: right and all of the hubbub that that caused. Well,
Speaker 1: we were actually there, we were actually measuring things. What
Speaker 1: was that? What was that Some of them were simply drones.
Speaker 1: Some of them, though, were moving in ways that would
Speaker 1: be hard to explain by drones. But all the stuff
Speaker 1: that we observed close to shore was clearly human activity.
Speaker 1: But so we're setting up we're setting up Skywatcher as
Speaker 1: sort of a dual purpose. One is to work with
Speaker 1: the government to hopefully or defense contractors or anybody who
Speaker 1: wants to pay for our services to collect aerial data
Speaker 1: basically as rapidly as possible, because often you can't deploy
Speaker 1: the necessary equipment on site quickly enough to collect the
Speaker 1: data when there's an anomaly that shows up. I mean,
Speaker 1: our principal goal is protection of the United States, but
Speaker 1: if in so doing we happen to collect other information
Speaker 1: about some let's say, anomalous objects, we will have the
Speaker 1: tracking data necessary to say, hey, well this is we
Speaker 1: don't understand this, and it's important to know because if
Speaker 1: it isn't a human adversary who have capabilities that we
Speaker 1: don't appreciate, even if somewhere in Area fifty one they
Speaker 1: have something that does that, it's good for, i think,
Speaker 1: arry the more public aspect of our military to know
Speaker 1: that these objects do exist and report them when you
Speaker 1: see it, because it might be the Chinese, or the
Speaker 1: Russians or the Iranians. Right. You want to know this
Speaker 1: because if you ignore it, you could be ignoring the
Speaker 1: data point off the line that is important to know
Speaker 1: about always back to that. Don't ignore the anomalies because
Speaker 1: anomalies just about every single Nobel prize that was ever
Speaker 1: awarded in physics and chemistry or biology is because somebody
Speaker 1: paid attention to the anomaly.
Speaker 2: Right right, right, Yes, So so tell me, tell me
Speaker 2: about the patterns of anomalists activity that characterize that defines
Speaker 2: something as an unidentified aerial phenomena, and then tell me
Speaker 2: what you've concluded as a consequence of your of your
Speaker 2: investigations and where you Yeah, let's do that.
Speaker 1: So there are let's say five characteristics of something that
Speaker 1: you would think of as an anomaly. One is instantaneous
Speaker 1: acceleration and deceleration. Right, There's very few things that we
Speaker 1: know of that can go from zero to five thousand
Speaker 1: miles an hour and then stop on a dime without
Speaker 1: squishing everybody on the inside, you know, sending them through
Speaker 1: the windshield. So when you see these things go from
Speaker 1: in the case of the I think it was the
Speaker 1: Nimitz or the Eisenhower, goes from sea level to space
Speaker 1: in less than a second. And they have the radar
Speaker 1: trackings of those things. And now imagine the size of
Speaker 1: the object. Let's say it's it weighs a ton. To
Speaker 1: instantaneously accelerate and decelerate at that level, it takes more
Speaker 1: than the would take the energy of more than the
Speaker 1: nuclear output of the United States for a year. Okay,
Speaker 1: so where did you get that energy? First of all,
Speaker 1: so instantaneous acceleration and deceleration. So seeing things that do
Speaker 1: zigzags across the sky, it means that somebody or something
Speaker 1: has control. If it's going fast enough and it's not
Speaker 1: doing an arc, it means something has control of momentum
Speaker 1: and inertia. They can negate momentum and inertia. So that's
Speaker 1: an observation seen hundreds, if not thousands of times by
Speaker 1: pilots all over the world. So what does that mean
Speaker 1: about our understanding of physics? First of all, so that's
Speaker 1: one thing. The other is no apparent flight services and
Speaker 1: no apparent exhaust so no energy output. So you're you're
Speaker 1: moving and doing these things, and yet if you look
Speaker 1: at them on with flur, which is a kind of infrared,
Speaker 1: you don't see any hotspots. If you were to look
Speaker 1: at a jet, all you would see is the plume
Speaker 1: from the jet. So no flight surface is meaning you know,
Speaker 1: basically Bernoulli's principle is not at play here, right, which
Speaker 1: is basically how the wings work and lift. So Bernoulli's
Speaker 1: principle is not at play. So you're moving without a
Speaker 1: flight surface and without an apparent mode of inertia. You're
Speaker 1: not putting something out so that you can move forward.
Speaker 1: And then the other one is what you would think
Speaker 1: of is what's called trans medium travel, meaning something that
Speaker 1: can go from the water to the air and then
Speaker 1: back again, or to the air and to space. We
Speaker 1: have nothing that can do something like that. Recently, there
Speaker 1: have now been drones made and talked about openly, and
Speaker 1: actually these are US drones just shown on a I
Speaker 1: saw on a military video recently where they can go.
Speaker 1: Drones can be underwater travel and then come out of
Speaker 1: the water and go do the attack. But that's only
Speaker 1: been developed in the last few years, not something from
Speaker 1: fifty sixty years ago. So those are the kinds of
Speaker 1: things that people see. And again it's you know, you
Speaker 1: ask me what I think of as real that those
Speaker 1: anecdotes are to me stories and why I get interested
Speaker 1: in the medical or the material side, is it's something
Speaker 1: I can repeat. I can't repeat these pilot observations, but
Speaker 1: I can repeat experiments on materials or experiments on experiments
Speaker 1: on human but reading the humans who have been harmed. Now,
Speaker 1: the thing about Skywatcher is is that we at least
Speaker 1: in a limited sense, have a signal that can be
Speaker 1: released that sometimes it seems to attract these objects. And
Speaker 1: so that's where the repeatability attempt is coming in. Explain
Speaker 1: that a bit more so. There's there's a because it's
Speaker 1: a company and I'm not the official spokesperson for it,
Speaker 1: and this is public information that's out there, is that
Speaker 1: there's a signal that an individual as part of Skywasher
Speaker 1: had determined when he was working with the military, not
Speaker 1: as it wasn't his purpose to develop it, so we
Speaker 1: didn't take anything out. It was sort of a he
Speaker 1: noticed something and then he refined the technique, and now
Speaker 1: he knows that he has let's say, an electromagnetic sequence
Speaker 1: that he can release that somehow seems to have these
Speaker 1: things objects show up, and I was there when it happened.
Speaker 1: We go out on these these week long events in
Speaker 1: like the middle of nowhere, and stuff shows up and
Speaker 1: you know, some of it's been on, some of it's
Speaker 1: you know, you can go find it on Twitter, but
Speaker 1: the stuff that's on Twitter isn't good enough in my opinion,
Speaker 1: I'm more interested in the data that we're more recently
Speaker 1: collecting with better cameras and better sensor systems, because the
Speaker 1: idea is just to do the science.
Speaker 2: So I think what we'll do on the daily wire side,
Speaker 2: because we have to wrap this up in relatively short order,
Speaker 2: I want to close here by asking you what you've
Speaker 2: concluded provisionally as an explanation for this, like what hypotheses
Speaker 2: you're nursing. And then on the daily wire side for
Speaker 2: everybody watching and listening, I'd like to ask you more
Speaker 2: about stories about what you've said, for example, when you've
Speaker 2: been on these SkyWatch expeditions and what the SkyWatch program
Speaker 2: is reporting. And then also to delve a bit more
Speaker 2: into the political you talked about the Shumer and I
Speaker 2: don't remember the other senator rounds this bipartisan proposal to
Speaker 2: declassify and make public some of the information narratives of
Speaker 2: sightings from pilots in particular. Okay, so we'll delve into
Speaker 2: that more on the daily wire side for everybody watching
Speaker 2: and listening, so you can join us there for an
Speaker 2: additional half an hour to close up here. I think
Speaker 2: it would be useful for you to let us know,
Speaker 2: if you would, what the hell you think is going.
Speaker 1: On and what this has done, what this has done
Speaker 1: to you too.
Speaker 2: I mean, this has got to kind of come out
Speaker 2: of left field, so to speak, in a severe way.
Speaker 2: So I imagine it's put a bit of a bump
Speaker 2: into your life. I mean, maybe one that's mostly interesting,
Speaker 2: but still, you know, it's to call it strange is
Speaker 2: to barely scrape the surface. So what are what are you?
Speaker 2: What do you make of this?
Speaker 1: That there's something non human here and it's been here
Speaker 1: for a long time is my provisional conclusion. And you know,
Speaker 1: the question is not that people should ask, is not
Speaker 1: is there something here? You have to ask the question first,
Speaker 1: can there something be here? And the short answer is,
Speaker 1: of course there can, because the universe is fourteen billion
Speaker 1: years old. You could have gotten from one side of
Speaker 1: the galaxy to the other in our galaxy in Elon
Speaker 1: Musk's tesla if it were traveling at ten thousand miles
Speaker 1: an hour, right, But what got on in the first
Speaker 1: place doesn't mean the same thing as what gets off
Speaker 1: on the other side. So yes, the short answer is
Speaker 1: something can be here. What it is, I'm not one
Speaker 1: hundred percent sure, And I feel very uncomfortable with the
Speaker 1: sightings of biological beings, if only because they they just
Speaker 1: look a little too much like us. And I just
Speaker 1: can't see from a genetics point of view, how why
Speaker 1: the human form is so or even you know, two
Speaker 1: legs and two arms is necessarily biologically the most you know,
Speaker 1: successful shape. So I think there's something here. I think
Speaker 1: the data, the evidence of the hypothesis, there's more than
Speaker 1: enough evidence to say that it's worth investigating. So I
Speaker 1: would ask my colleagues to just hold their you know,
Speaker 1: hold their sarcasm for a while, because how do you
Speaker 1: deny thousands of reports like this? And you know, I
Speaker 1: don't want to sound conspiratorial, but I mean I did
Speaker 1: get a phone call from somebody representing the White House
Speaker 1: because I was talking about something that they felt was
Speaker 1: a little too on the edge. They said, you need
Speaker 1: to just shut up, Gary. I mean, I'm just telling you.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've I've I've briefed Canadian Parliament. I went
Speaker 1: to your parliament in Toronto and I briefed all three
Speaker 1: parties on it. I don't even the only ones who
Speaker 1: didn't want to hear anything were the separatists, so interestingly,
Speaker 1: but no, I spent two days there on that, and
Speaker 1: we've briefed the European Parliament as well on it, and
Speaker 1: they're aware of what their own some of their own
Speaker 1: military are talking about. So that I conclude that there's
Speaker 1: definitely something here. But I think the more interesting conclusion
Speaker 1: is if they are. If something is here, it's likely
Speaker 1: been here longer than humans have even been civilized. So
Speaker 1: it really opens the question. And actually it's something that
Speaker 1: I think Charles Fort actually said is you know, Earth
Speaker 1: is probably somebody else's property.
Speaker 2: Well, that's a hell of a place to end. So
Speaker 2: I think we will end there for everybody watching and listening.
Speaker 2: We're going to continue our investigation on the narrative side
Speaker 2: and the political side behind the paywall at Daily Wired.
Speaker 2: So if you want to join us there for an
Speaker 2: additional half an hour, that would be good. Thank you
Speaker 2: very much, doctor Nolan.
Speaker 1: That was.
Speaker 2: Interesting, to say the least. It's very difficult to know
Speaker 2: what to make of it. Obviously, you have an incredibly
Speaker 2: credible background and a very wide ranging mind, and it's
Speaker 2: very fascinating to see your reaction to this set of
Speaker 2: circumstances that have come your way, and thank you for
Speaker 2: sharing it.
Apple Podcasts
Castbox
Castro
Goodpods
Moon FM
Overcast
Pocket Casts
Podbean
Podcast Addict
Podcast Republic
Spotify