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

I think that there are people in NASA who know more. Ken Johnston Sr. says he was told to destroy a bunch of first-generation Apollo negatives because they had some anomalies on them and they're not supposed to be there and they don't want to release them publicly. You see some bluish, metallic-looking streaks that are very bright in a certain area and if you zoom in, you see that it almost looks like an insectoid-type, probe-like metallic object. Buzz Aldrin probably knows more than he can say. Edgar Mitchell probably knew more than he could say, "They've been observing us and here for quite some time." And he says Ed Mitchell confessed to him that, "Yeah, we saw these blue or black lights following us or, you know, from the lunar surface." It's really wild how many early astronauts were at Remacence. They were all Remacence. There are all these apocryphal stories of Neil Armstrong saying we were told not to come back to the moon. Armstrong, we've overheard that a party is saying that. Really? Yeah. NASA knows a lot more about UFOs or UAP than they're letting on, even still today. They actually have a term for UFOs in space. It's a fast walkers. It's a code word. Is that the booster or is that an actual sighting? What's being shown there is craft of some type exhibiting extra human propulsion capabilities. It's very plausible that our solar system has been visited by ET visitors in the past. And if that's the case, and they built some sort of structure, it would be highly eroded by now. There are a number of these images from Mars Global Surveyor showing what look like they could well be, maybe the skeletal structure of fossilized, large forms of life on Mars. Wow. For the audience, what is your background? Well, I am a physicist by training. I did a PhD at Utrecht University in the Netherlands and Stins at Clemson and Stony Brook University in physics. I also have worked in the area of philosophy of physics, which examines more of the foundational assumptions underlying our mainstream physical theories. And over the years on the side, I've also dabbled in a statistical analysis of parapsychology studies specifically the Gantzfeld approach and the remote viewing approach. So I've published a bit in that area too. And most recently, I've been very interested in and involved in or doing research on evidence of anomalies, anomalous phenomena, structures, formations on the surface of the moon, as well as Mars, and I've recently given a number of presentations on that topic for mainly about lunar anomalies and potential evidence of technological signatures, non-human technological signatures on the moon's surface for a Ross Colthart in his show on News Nation. So first, if we brighten this image, few anomalous things show up. Can we see this weird cut out or irregularity in the bright and dimmich, a blueish guy, and a bluish something, yeah. He did an amazing job. And you go through all of these lunar anomalies and from these hazy lights, where it's unclear what the source is to heat signatures, that seem pretty anomalous to astronaut sightings and encounters to structures, real structures on the backside of the moon. So yeah, I'm excited to get into all of that with you. You said something else in your initial kind of, you know, background introduction, which is that you were at Stony Brook. Stony Brook, as you may or may not know, is the center of a lot of conspiracies, or my former colleague, Eric Weinstein, you know, says that Renaissance technologies and Jim Simons, you know, might be the center of the theoretical physics component of the UFO legacy program. You've got Brookhaven National Laboratory. You've got State University of New York at Stony Brook, a mid-level university with an out-of-this-world math and physics program. And you've got a hedge fund that makes more money than anybody can possibly imagine. And if it is, then you would have to say that Stony Brook is like the feeder for that academically. Is that the case? Well, I've been inside Renaissance technologies campus a couple of times as an undergraduate for some lectures or colloquiums that they would have. And I've spoke to Jim Simons a couple of times when he was alive when I was an undergrad. To me, if it really were the hub of some sort of ultratop secret, UFO crash retrieval or ETUFO crash retrieval program, with all the top physicists clustered there, my suspicion would be that it would be much harder to actually go inside of the complex or there would be maybe some information would be leaked. I mean, I interacted heavily with basically all of the leading professors of theoretical physics at Stony Brook at the time 2004 to 2008 in the Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics in the math department. I was president of the math club for like a couple of years. So I spoke to the various prominent mathematicians. I never came across any hint or trace of any sort of interest in UFOs or their research in fundamental theoretical physics from my vantage point then never seemed to tie into anti-gravity or the possibility of that or faster than my travel or warp drives or wormholes or any of that. People did many people did things on like string theory, for example, maybe general relativity. But much more abstract mathematical and from my vantage point today as a professional theoretical physicist, I don't really see how their research could sort of tie into that. So I'm generally skeptical that a Renaissance technologies is a hub of that. My suspicion is that if there are these retrieved craft that the US military or other government agencies have. The reason that leading theoretical physicists are not brought into these programs or maybe like only very few are is because the intelligence agencies, the deep state of the Department of Defense or whatever, they're extremely concerned about secrecy and many theorists don't have a military background like maybe theorists did and you know 50 years ago or so. There's a question of like their politics and whether or not they can be trusted to keep secrets of a certain kind. My guess is that secrecy trumps the credentials or the abilities and that's why there's this kind of separation between the two. Yeah. That's my guess. Sure. Yeah. And I have no idea if Einstein is right. I will say a few data points high level that maybe point to, you know, corroboration for his theory is I think at Renaissance, you sign these like super hardcore NDAs for life. I believe his idea wouldn't be necessarily that like Renaissance itself is like the vital, you know, like they're working on craft or something. But I think he had a conversation with Jim Simon's once who was like, you know, you'd be disappointed if you knew how we made our money. They've made 30% year-over-year returns since 1989, the medallion fund and it was like $100 billion. I gave him this entire theory that all of modern neoclassical economics is actually differential geometric. He says, well, that's brilliant. If you knew what we were actually doing, you'd be very disappointed. And so like, is it like a slush fund where they're like putting the money to work on some of these things? Brookhaven National Labs, I believe there's a crash, a UFO crash in 1992 where everybody in that town, South Haven, basically saw the national labs itself recover this craft, collect it and like take it into the national labs. It's about 7 o'clock at night and being November, it was full dark and all of a sudden it was lighter out than it is right now. Brookhaven National Labs is a site of, you know, the largest particle accelerated in the US as well called Cosmatron and so it seems like a UFOs seem to show up around particle accelerators as well. So I have no idea. And then for the final data point would be David Spurgel who was head of the Simon's Science Foundation, ended up in 2022 on the NASA review panel. He was kind of cheering it. So it, look, I have been on the other end of, you know, bullshit conspiracies and I know they're not, you can, I can cherry pick data points for anything and say. it's real. And so I don't want to say that I'm below 50% even with all of those data points. But do you think there's anything possibly there? I guess it's always possible because I didn't actually work at Renaissance. So I wasn't privy to maybe whatever all the secrets they have. So I have to keep an open mind about that. And I can't really refute the revelations and age of disclosure from people like how put off and Eric Davis and others about a legacy UFO program. So I think as an honest scientist, I have to keep an open mind that there might be something there. I just didn't see it. But just in terms of what I saw, I didn't see any. I couldn't see a connection or a trace. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Can I tell me about the Clementine mission and tell me about the public facing, you know, messaging around its purpose. And then maybe what it was actually for. Yeah. Clementine was a joint Department of Defense NASA mission to send a probe to the Moon in 1994 or so. It wasn't made publicly widely known that there was this joint mission. And the publicly stated purpose of the mission, according to NASA and the DOD was to scientifically study the surface of the moon. It's mineralogy, it's morphology and broad things like that. There are still documents that you can find from NASA and DOD about the Clementine mission's objectives. And that's what you see. And it did apparently discover water ice at the poles of the moon as like a first discovery. But that was at least publicly the only stated objective of the mission is just to do scientific analysis and maybe to test out certain new sensors in space. But one of the former deputy managers, a deputy manager to the like missions manager of the Clementine mission. His name is Dr. John Brandenburg, who I know you've interviewed. Obviously. He is on record in 2014 in a documentary called Aliens on the Moon, like the truth exposed. But it was a serious interview with Brandenburg. And Brandenburg says that the Clementine mission was basically a photo reconnaissance mission to see if someone was building bases on the moon that we didn't know about and were they expanding them. That's almost a verbatim quote of what he said in that interview. And since 2014, to me what's interesting is that nobody has come out from Clementine or DOD or from either the NASA or DOD side of the Clementine mission to say that he's lying or that he's saying bullshit or anything of that sort. And he had a serious position in the mission as a deputy manager. That's confirmed. That's all publicly available information. And so, and then the fact that the DOD and NASA did this mission together jointly raises questions as to why DOD would be so interested in sending a probe to the moon in 1994 to take images of the surface. And certainly if what he said is true, that would be an obvious like motivation for the DOD to do that. There's also just the observation that NASA and the Department of Defense have always been very tightly linked in law through the Space Act of 1958, which created NASA by Congress, the Congressional Act. Essentially the act says in many, many parts that NASA is tightly overseen by the DOD and its space missions and objectives have to be in the interests of US national security. And if any discoveries are made in its space explorations that could threaten national security, that information can be withheld from the public and from Congress except those members of Congress that are, you know, qualified to see it. And so essentially NASA is an arm or an extension of the Department of Defense in law. And so if there was something that NASA saw maybe in the Apollo missions or the pre Apollo missions to the moon with lunar orbiter, for example, it would make sense that they would want to take a closer look perhaps and do some sort of a joint mission and that they wouldn't tell the public what the true reason was. If anybody from the Clementine mission wants to come out and refute Brandenburg I'd invite them to do so. But so far I have not seen that. And that to me is what's interesting, combined with the obvious legal incentives to not be totally transparent with the public about some type of discovery along those lines. Yeah, do you think NASA just knows a whole lot more about all this stuff than meets the eye? I mean, I sort of go back and forth there and to with this new Department of War drop, with either there've been kind of a series, but the first batch really focused on kind of space exploration and astronaut encounters. And basically forced Jared Isaacman, who's the current NASA admin to say, yet we're not talking about reverse engineering UFOs necessarily or confirmed alien bodies, nothing like that. But these sightings were unexplained, which is a huge update because from 1958 until that point, for decades, NASA had just been gaslighting the public. There was no budging on whether this they were all everything had an explanation or everything was sort of to be laughed off. So yeah, do you think NASA knows a lot more about UFOs than meets the eye or at least has a lot more data than they're sort of admitting? I think that there are people in NASA, probably not the very top, not necessarily Jared Isaacman, but maybe people below him who've been there for many decades, who know more. I mean, I could name probably a few names here and there as my as to who I suspect probably knows more about this, but I don't know if I should because there's some maybe some effort to talk to them and private and try to get some of this information out. Well, I think you naming them only helps with that. I don't think you're calling them out necessarily because there should be some sort of truth and reconciliation process, but can you say what I've heard is that certain people like Pete Worden know a lot more about NASA's knowledge about the UFO phenomenon or about astronauts, observations of anomalies and space. But who's part of this position at NASA? I don't remember his official title, but it was a fairly high, I believe a associate administrator position of some sort, but he was heavily involved in the clementine mission from what I understand. And there are public documents that also like mentioned this so. Well, he also, I believe, connected Tom DeLong in general, Neil McCaslin. This is public information. So, you know, it seems like he had some sort of interest in UFOs. And I think he was involved as an admin in the breakthrough prize as well, right around sort of exotic signals and space and stuff. And I think he moved to like Belgium or something, but I ordered a book of his that he wrote in like the early 2000s. That was very strange as well. I think it was Luxembourg. Yeah, maybe Luxembourg. Yeah, okay, that makes sense. Yeah, it's really interesting. So he might know a little bit more. Yeah, I would suspect that he would be one person. Probably there are past administrators at NASA. I suspect that maybe Dan Golden, maybe Bill Nelson. Yeah, I suspect Buzz Aldrin probably knows more than he can say. I suspect Edgar Mitchell probably knew more than he could say publicly. I suspect it's, I mean, maybe even Dr. Harrison Schmidt, one of the last men to walk on the moon for Apollo 17 Eugene Cernan. Schmidt is alive, by the way. Yeah. But he's never commented on any of the NASA UAP file drops. Interesting. I would love to see what he thinks. And because also I've found a number of UAP type anomalies in photographs from Apollo 17 taken from the lunar surface. Not just the trio of blue lights that was released in the first tranche. I had discovered that also like a year or so more than a year ago on my own and made it public in certain forms. What are those exactly from Apollo 17? There's just a photograph taken from the lunar surface. I think the frame number is AS 17 147 22470. And there's a hill, a lunar hill. And then above the lunar hill, a little bit to the left in the black lunar sky. If you zoom in on this photograph and the raw scan is available. So a scan digital scan of the raw image is available. You see three solidish looking blue lights, almost equally distant from each other. And in a very small area of the lunar sky. And there's just there and if you brighten the image a little bit, increase the exposure to brighten it a little bit, you see that the center region or the region in between gets significantly brighter than the rest of the lunar sky. And that's just that maybe those three bluish lights are perhaps attached to something and not just three independent lights. When NASA released this image in the first tranche, there was a description about it next to the image and they say in the description that the Department of War and NASA have opened a special investigation for this particular image because preliminary analysis suggests that these lights are part of probably part of a physical object. And so they said that they've acquired the original film from Apollo 17 of this particular image and they're going to analyze it and report the results. But there are many more like that and even more I think impressive UAP anomalies from Apollo 17 as well as earlier Apollo missions. Images taken from the lunar surface that NASA has not for some reason released in the last two tranches. I'm not even sure. Isaacman administered or Isaacman is aware of them but there are even more impressive examples outside of the three the three blue lights and then what else? Before we dive into this wild episode, I want to give a huge thank you to one of today's sponsors. Dose. Dose for your liver is an extremely high quality drinkable supplement. It tastes absolutely delicious. It helps you feel your best and all you have to do is take it once a day. As you might know, I love nerding out and finding the best new health and wellness hacks and it's super easy to overlook the biggest internal organ in your body. The liver. It's your body's most metabolically active organ. It runs over 500 functions every single day. It processes everything you consume. It filters it daily and it supports your energy levels and your digestion. What I appreciate most about Dose is that they actually have serious research behind it. Two double blind placebo controlled studies showing positive impact on liver enzyme levels and liver function. Having data like that is very rare in the supplement space and it's the reason I was fired up to work with them. New customers can save 35% on your first month of subscription by going to dose daily.co/jesse or entering jesse at checkout. Again, that's d-o-s-e-d-a-i-l-y.co/jesse or J-e-s-s-s-e for 35% off your first month subscription. I want to thank Dose so much for sponsoring the show. Now back to today's episode. There are even more impressive examples. What outside is the three blue lights and then what else? From Apollo 17, they're on the lunar surface and I forget the exact frame number for this particular one but I can find it later. They've done a lunar excursion in the lunar rover because you can see the tracks of the lunar rover on the surface. Up in the black lunar sky, you see some bluish metallic looking streaks that are very bright in a certain area. If you zoom in on it, it looks like a physical metallic object of some kind. If you brighten the image a little bit, you see that it almost looks like an insectoid type, probe-like metallic bluish metallic object. Wow. And as you brighten the image further, you see that the rest of the lunar sky becomes this kind of reddish orange-ish bright cascade of lights. It just becomes like a noisy reddish orange color but there's a black envelope surrounding this particular object in the black lunar sky. And well, it's sort of surprising and it also really does look like there's a physical thing in the sky that's maybe reflecting sunlight from the correct direction in the image and that somehow, for some reason, the way it limits light from the camera produces this sort of envelope-like distortion. I'm not quite sure what it is but it, to me, looks like the most compelling example and it was probably photographed either by Eugene Surnin or Harrison Schmidt because they were the only two that one on the lunar surface. NASA has not released that one. In that same image, there's also another similar looking object just above it with the similar envelope-ing effect when you brighten the image too. And they also both have contrails when you brighten it. You see that there are these like debris tails in each of them and you see a similar thing about, I think, eight frames later in that same image sequence in the lunar sky, a different metallic looking object. You brighten it. It has an envelope and it has a trail. In between, you don't see anything, but we don't know how much time elapsed between the different frames taken. So all of this is a mystery, but it's all there in NASA's public image archives and NASA doesn't comment on any of these things in the actual image archives. What's the conventional explanation? There's none publicly stated, at least for that one or for many of the others. Can you even come up with one? Like, if I were to give this to a Neil deGrasse Tyson, what would he say? If you give this to Neil deGrasse Tyson, or probably Avi Loeb, or Mick West, or whoever, my guess is they'll say, this is probably either a camera artifact of some kind, maybe like an electrical spark after the image was actually taken. That produces this weird optical effect on the frame. Maybe it's a cosmic ray. I know Avi Loeb has actually suggested this as the most likely explanation of the trio of blue lights in Apollo 17. That cosmic ray just hit the frame or hit the film, I guess, in equally distant points on the film in a very small region of the sky, and they produce that effect. Those are the two most common, or sometimes people say, well, it's lens flare. That's another possibility. What lens flare is, there is lens flare in some of the Apollo images, but to me, they don't look anything like that. As far as cosmic rays, I think that is an improbable explanation for a number of reasons. One is that cosmic rays, and this has been studied by various astrophotographers. NASA has studied this as well. Yeah, why is that imposable? Neil deGrasse Tyson came out with specifically a kind of a debunk of Apollo 17 sightings. Sighting basically that it was a case closed cosmic rays. I found it to be smug in tone, but also somewhat substantive. Maybe he's right. Why do you think that that's imposable? When cosmic rays hit digital cameras, or antredigital cameras, they produce thin long streaks, typically, because they don't come in orthogonally or perpendicular to the camera sensor. They typically come in at an angle, and the effect produces thin long streaks, and NASA has produced many of its own examples of cosmic rays in various digital images, and they're thin long streaks of some kind. They're not these solid bluish dots in the sky. Also, radiation tends to produce a fogging effect on film, and that's not observed in these Apollo 17 frames. And then also just the odds of cosmic rays impinging on the film equally distant in a very small region of the black lunar sky is, I would say, statistically a very improbable event. Yet, you see a trio of lights like that, not just in Apollo 17. You also see it in Apollo 11. There's a frame showing that as well, a similar such trio. Apollo 11, so weird, because you have Buzz Aldrin openly admitting in multiple interviews that you had this thing following them. And it's, it's, he then kind of dismisses it and he goes, well, I went back to sleep and didn't report it, because we would have been looked at as sort of ridiculous. But he's admitting that it was like a UFO, like it was by its very nature inherently unidentified, and he will openly say this. As much as he, you know, was sort of, it seemed like kind of trained or like, you know, forced into the orientation of being anti-UFOs, he will say there was a thing following us, and I don't know what it was. 60 seconds. I saw this illumination that was moving with respect to the stars. We were smart enough to not say Houston, there's a light out there that's following us. So technically, it becomes an unidentified flying object. He said this in one interview, he said, I don't know what it was, [BLANK_AUDIO] Subsequent interviews one in particular on Larry King Live in like 2007 where James Fox is there to and Santa and Friedman, he says, "Well, I'm now almost certain that it was a panel of like the S4B rocket booster that just broke off and was just moving along with us." We saw one of the four panels, the 99.999, and these are three guys who have flown in space twice, and I've looked out at the stars and all sorts of things. But the S4B was 6,000 miles away. Yeah. And so the explanation he seems to propose is that one of these panels, I guess, got free and just kind of drifted along with the Apollo capsule for multiple days as it was moving towards the moon. I don't think that's a plausible explanation. It's completely implausible. Unless it's like its own gravitational source, which it's not big enough to be in free space, it doesn't make any sense. Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me either. Like, unless it was super close and like literally like kind of attached or something because it doesn't really make sense. No. I agree. Yeah. And then that Larry King interview was also very interesting because James Fox called them out on another sighting he had had as a fighter pilot over Japan, because Fay and Potter his sister had told Fox that he had had two sightings, one on Apollo 11 that was clearly a UFO in her readout, which she had had all these private conversations, that's her brother. And then also like a UFO in Japan. Quick question. Yeah. When you were a test pilot, I think was it Edwards Air Force Base? I commanded a test pilot school afterward. I was not a test pilot trained. Okay. And I was told by a very close source of yours that you actually saw something other than that. A lot of people have said things. Other than I saw. That doesn't mean that. I don't know where it is. You saw it in your. Someone's right close to you told me that you had another sighting that you actually chased to. In your years of flying as you've seen strange things. I was flying a T-33 I guess and I looked out and saw a star out there. But it wasn't a star. It was Venus. But it kept following me all along. And you would swear that it's another object out there and you can turn and I want to congratulate you on your magic show last night with all the illusions because now we're getting a lot more illusions tonight. And I really trust James Fox. He is so like, you know, he's just very honest. And he chased Buzz Aldrin all around the world to get like just some statement from him on UFOs because he was so sure that these two sightings were genuine UFO sightings. And he chased him all the way to Monte Carlo and Buzz Aldrin was like, you know, at the very last minute when he was about to give him an interview, he goes, "What would my testimony do anyways?" Paul Allen just invested in SETI and he got labeled a UFO freak or something and I can't jeopardize my initiative. I'm working with Congress right now. I'm trying to get money to develop a rocket. It's going to help put civilians into space. I can't do it. He's implying that he has something to say about UFOs, but if he did, it would hurt his reputation. Then he said, he said, "How's my story going to change anything anyway?" And so it's not saying, you know, I didn't see UFOs. That's saying, you know, this is going to hurt my reputation. And he even cited, he just said, he said Paul Allen who was, you know, backing SETI. He was the, you know, Microsoft founder. He was getting all sorts of shit for backing SETI at the time, which is kind of conventional, but it's looking for alien signals. So he was like, I don't want to get, you know, similarly criticized. So it's like, it's so obvious. Yeah. It seems very likely, very obvious that Buzz knows more than he can say publicly. I've actually tried to approach him through one of his assistants at Buzz Aldrin Ventures about showing him some of the Apollo 11 imagery of UAP that I've found, and also the Apollo 17 imagery. I got a polite reply saying that unfortunately he's not available to look at any of these images or do any analyses of anything. But I still hold out hope that maybe someday he'll maybe make a confession or at least show some interest in looking at some imagery and just having a public discussion about it. And same with Harrison Schmidt. You see him getting visibly embarrassed on Larry King and then and then he sort of resorts to mockery and he says, well, you guys saw Chris Angel last night at a show. How much of what he did? Could you not explain like, and can you explain everything that happened with Chris Angel last night? No, you can't explain. He doesn't make it. That's right. Exactly. And he gets kind of red in the face. Yeah. You're like, oh, you're covering for something, dude. Like, it's a behavioral science 101. You wouldn't put any sort of like, you know, lie detector person like up against that guy and they'd be like, that purse, he's lying. He's lying. So certainly how it seems to me and yeah, I on the one hand, I, I'm like you, I'm skeptical of his explanations. At the same time, I don't want to be necessarily too critical of someone in his position because of what, if he knows something and he was told you can't say anything because of certain consequences, then sure. Yeah. It's just one of the unfortunate things about the military secrets that we, these people have to hold on to. Definitely, but it's, I think it's irrational at this point, especially as the Department of War puts their own stamp of approval on saying these things were unknown. Just say, yeah, I was told I couldn't say it was unknown. It's the, I'm at the end of my life. I mean, a recent albeit anecdotal story, but one that was powerful for me is I was in Japan just recently and I interviewed this guy named Takenau Jowson who has all of these modules and boosters and stuff on loan 100 years from NASA. It's like a NASA, it's a full on NASA museum. He also has Soyuz, you know, Russian rocketry there. It's really amazing. And he was personal friends with Eugene Cernan and he goes, yeah, I was friends with him and one time we were talking about Apollo 17 and I said, why didn't you, why didn't we go back after Apollo 17? And I will say Apollo 18 and 19, I think we're canceled before 17, you know, actually took off. But I guess his reason for there never being anything after that was that when he was on the way to the moon and Apollo 17, he got some sort of telepathic message saying, we don't really want you here. Really? Mental download, you know, you might think that's crazy, but there are all these apocryphal stories of Neil Armstrong telling similar stories in Washington DC saying we were told not to come back to the moon. You think they said, don't come back without permission? Well, Armstrong was overheard at a party saying that. Really? What party? Uh, some party in Washington DC with big wings and several people said that he said that. And then you have Edgar Mitchell and Apollo 14, who literally, uh, apparently privately told somebody that they were like, you know, aliens following them all the way or something. He also has this telepathic conversion experience that he's what public about this telepathic kind of parapsychological conversion experience where he, his whole worldview updates on the way back from the man. Yeah. He had a mystical experience on his, I think it was his Apollo mission. And yeah, this is, this is, uh, discussed by our mutual friend Ross Koltharz in his book, uh, in plain sight, I believe it's called, uh, he quotes an anonymous source, which who he calls the spaceman, who was apparently very close personal friends with Ed Mitchell. And he says Ed Mitchell confessed to him that, yeah, we saw these blue or like lights following us or, you know, from the lunar surface, flying around above the lunar sky. And, uh, apparently Mitchell said he's not sure if they are extraterrestrial and origin, but we definitely saw them and they're not camera artifacts on the other hand, publicly speaking, Mitchell was, you know, very clear that he believed that at Roswell, an extraterrestrial spacecraft had crashed and that the government had recovered it and that there is a legacy, a secret UFO or retroengineering program. He was clear about all of that, but he said there's like a cabal, yeah, and the government. Yeah, but what's odd to me is that he says he himself never publicly, he says he never saw anything on any of his missions or, uh, that would count as a UFO of some sort or another. And he and Richard Hoagland actually had a long debate on art bells coast to coast show in the 90s. It's on like rumble, I think, and, uh, and in that debate, he's very skeptical and even dismissive of Hoagland's ideas about the possibility of structures on the moon glass like structures or debris above the lunar surface. And, um, so that's potentially another case of an astronaut who knew something privately, experienced something privately, but said the opposite. I, I, I, note that, um, Dean Raiden, uh, he, on his latest uh in his podcast with Joe Rogan recently he uh relays that he was part of the project project stargate the remote viewing program that was initiated by the CIA while he was while was under how put off some direction and he says that while he was part of stargate he couldn't not only could he not talk about it but if someone was asking him about remote viewing or he was in the room and someone brought up the topic he had to go along with what the mainstream narrative was and say oh it's all bullshit and nonsense right because he couldn't even say I can't say one thing one way or the other because that would give too much information away so that's a clear example of where secrecy forces scientists who are working on something or who know something to disparage a certain idea or topic um for the purposes of yeah I guess disinformation yeah so it's entirely plausible to me that Mitchell dismissed the possibility of uh UAPs or structures on the moon that are of non-human origin because he was told that that's what that's what you have to do yeah and that's also much weirder than meets the I want to get into Richard Hogan in his shift dark mission and the idea that they are there are like occult rituals and and you know you have launch pad 33 and the idea that launches are timed at certain you know equinoxes and stuff for success and then you have Diana Pizzolko also saying that second century Latin was written unscribed on you know some of these missions like sort of the rockets and stuff so I don't know what to make of all of that it's almost like it's this like gnostic pagan cult or something are you familiar with any of that or I'm familiar with some of these arguments and evidence uh I do know for fact that well buzz Aldrin says himself in one of his books that he's a 33rd degree Scottish right Freemason all of the astronauts were like almost all glenn all so there's clearly a type of secret society brotherhood among the astronauts buzz Aldrin planted they did like communion and then buzz Aldrin like it was a Masonic ritual on the moon yeah so when you have things like that and you know that Freemasonry is a secret society and they have secrets they're not going to tell the public everything we know that many powerful people in American history were Freemasons like a disproportionately large number of the astronauts and also NASA engineers during the Apollo era were Freemasons I think it's entirely plausible that there are some sort of ritualistic aspect maybe to some decisions about when to launch a rocket or where to land perhaps on the moon and that's all entirely I think plausible um in terms of how that would tie into like how far it goes exactly I'm not sure about that myself or in terms of what connection that might have to secrecy about any discoveries made of an E.T. you know origin and on the moon I it that part that connection is not entirely yeah I've never been entirely clear to me but but NASA's much weirder than meets the I I think like there's a director at NASA Ames and his name's Stephen Hubbard I believe and he wrote psychic spy manual for the CIA like people don't know that that that cross over this actually pretty fast yeah Kevin Knuth who's another you know obviously studies UFOs believes in UFOs was at NASA and felt kind of gasoline on the whole topic you know actually brought that up on my show so he yeah it's really wild you can like look it up it's public and then you have Gary McKinnon I don't know you're familiar with this story I just interviewed him in England and like he's amazing because he's just like a cool hapless guy he's in his you know you know he's got some IT skills you know at the time and he's like in his girlfriends I think ants basement and it's like 3 a.m. and he does some like basic password phishing techniques to break into army navy NASA DOD DOE like everything and gets into NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston they're building eight the reason he targeted that is because Donna here was this whistleblower who had come out with Stephen Greer's disclosure project and she had said that she was basically involved in this kind of scrubbing of photos that were being stored specifically in that building by its very nature UFO means unidentified so I did not know what this was but I realized at this point that it's very secret that it was kept secret because I asked him what are you going to do with this piece of information and he said we always airbrush these out before we sell them to the public and McKinnon then sees UFO pop up on his screen he sees a tick-tack UFO that seems to be orbiting Earth pop up on his screen so that's another really interesting data point and then this guy talking out Johnson again then this NASA you know curator museum host curator patron in Japan who's also you know he's been to all these places and he was at NASA Johnson Space Center and he said he went to a specific building and they showed him photos of UFOs and did you see pictures in video of UFOs yes and wow and it was the UFO footage yes the UFO footage yes Utsubotaro みたいなもがいっぱい飛んでるとか怪しいもが横見るとかあれはその 僕ですねそれが2個ついてくるとかですね was it at Johnson Space Center in Houston there's also Ken Johnston senior who was one of the pilots who trained the NASA astronauts and was like a backup astronaut for the Apollo missions if I remember correctly and he says he was told to destroy a bunch of like first generation or early generation Apollo negatives because they had some anomalies on them and they're not supposed to be there and they don't want to release them publicly and he actually saved some of them and put some of his copies on line and have you seen them yeah they're publicly available do they love and archives and they're negatives they're not okay he says they're like like like early generation copies of the very original photographs okay most of the copies do they look legit to you do they look like they match other NASA really yeah they have some differences on them for sure yeah and compare so there is a NASA archive called March to the Moon which is said to be the latest scans of NASA's original films from the Apollo missions if you compare what's on those films with what Johnston has shown or even in other scans actually from other other branches of NASA you find that there are a lot of actually obvious inconsistencies lights UAP type lights or structures of some kind or another are clearly blacked out in some versions some NASA scanned versions and they're not in others so there are provable inconsistencies across different NASA archives really same frame do you have a specific example of like something where yeah you see a photo of a UFO or like some anomalous thing and then it's blurred out yeah and in a couple of my interviews of the Ross call thread I give I show a number of examples of this you go to one scan from the lunar and planetary institute this is an archive that NASA has managed since the 1970s and it's an Apollo 14 photograph with Ed Mitchell standing on the lunar surface and he's I guess he's doing something on the surface and one of the other astronauts took a photo of him you see his long shadow stretched out and I'm blanking on the exact frame number but I can pull that up another time and show it essentially the lunar sky is completely black in this version you zoom in everywhere it's completely black however if you look at the march to the moon version of that same frame which is managed by Johnson Space Center and Arizona State University there is a blue orb in the lunar sky very clearly it's very obvious above Mitchell and if you brighten the lunar and planetary institute version of that same frame you see that there's a weird blackish cut out or discoloration in the exact spot where that blue orb is in the more recent frame and there's also a weird like light anomaly there's almost like a mushroom like cloud in the black lunar sky that gets unusually bright and there's like a bright streak here and a bright streak there which none of that should be there because there's no atmosphere on the moon there's no a dust debris field that can scatter light to produce visible effects there shouldn't be any sort of unevenness in the lighting and the sun is out of the frame to the right so it's not even I don't think it can be lens flare but yeah there's a clear discrepancy between these two frames, and there are many other examples of that sort that I've found examining different archives. So I find Johnson's claims that the more recent, uh, maybe scans don't show everything that's actually on the originals to be fairly plausible just on that basis alone. That is wild. They literally pinpoint the blue orb. Yeah. I just want to add that Johnson himself in connection to the secret society stuff in NASA. He himself is apparently a 33rd degree Freemason. Why is he in such a high position, kind of whistle blowing about all of this? I don't know. Johnson. Ken Johnson, senior guy who says that, uh, maybe that he was told from a secret society or maybe it's a, I don't know, maybe, but, uh, no, Freemasonry, and look, I sort of, you know, I think a lot of people who talk about Freemasonry controlling everything are ridiculous people. But, um, with the NASA thing, it's pervasive. It's everywhere. It's really wild. How many early astronauts were Freemasons? They were all Freemasons in an anomalous way, even for that time. It wasn't like the founding fathers or whatever, where like a lot of people in the elite American society were Freemasons, uh, it's, it's, it's almost bizarre. And then you have the Freemasonic ritual, you have Werner von Braun and Walt Disney making a movie around, you know, the space age that's like this Disney cartoon with 33 being this like recurring symbol, you have Launchpad 33, Freemasonry was played a part in, you know, the creation of the launch program. It's very strange. Yeah. It's very, it is and, um, there might be some sort of an interesting story, their background there that someone could dig even further. They might be able to come up with it or expose something. I don't know. But, yeah, I think it's worth looking into further and, uh, there are, in, in connection to Gary McKinnon's, um, um, discovery or, or this tic tac shaped craft above the earth that he saw in this image that was gradually, uh, downloading, um, one of the things that made lens plausibility to that as well. And also I think reinforces the notion that NASA knows a lot more about UFOs or UAP than they're letting on even still today is that in the 1990s, uh, at least two space shuttle, uh, NASA space shuttle videos were, um, made publicly known by some independent researchers. One is STS 48 from the 1991 STS 48 mission and the other one is, uh, STS 80 in 1996. In both cases, they show UAP type objects exhibiting on analysis. If you analyze those, those videos carefully, propulsive capabilities that are clearly impossible with any human propulsion technology of rocketry jets or magneto hydrodynamics or anything we could remotely produce. And yet when NASA astronauts of those missions were asked about it, they said, oh, we didn't see anything except for just ice particle debris. And then they've, uh, put out people like James Oberg saying, oh, yeah, it's just ice debris, that's all it is. There's nothing really to see here. Um, and I think it's pretty clear if one carefully analyzes those videos that those explanations are in contradiction with the available facts in the footage, they're clearly false. And so, uh, what's being shown there is craft of some type exhibiting, uh, yeah, beyond extra human propulsion capabilities. So if that's true, then, yeah, it's possible that there is, uh, that maybe NASA does have an archive of like some showing some sort of tic-tac shaped, uh, craft above the earth and that McKinnon just stumbled on it. Fascinating. This guy in Japan said that they had, uh, he spoke, he was close with Edgar Mitchell as well. And he said that they had, um, code names according to Edgar Mitchell, uh, bogey was one. I believe Santa Claus might have been another, I know moon pigeons was another, um, and so, and then this is funny. I hadn't heard about like the bogey one, for example. And then in the Department of War drop, which occurred after I got back from Japan, I'm hearing Frank Borman and Gemini Seven talking about, you know, we've got a bogey. Yes. And I'm like, holy shit. Yeah. Like so it, that seems correct. Yeah. They had, they used these code words to describe, uh, unidentified craft of some kind. And yes, NASA published even a report in the early 70s called moon pigeons and essentially another way of saying UFOs above the lunar surface are seen by astronauts while orbiting the moon. Right. Um, it was just a, I guess a cover phrase to not create a UFO flap in case maybe the document leaked or someone else. Uh, it was a way of talking about that subject without maybe. Yeah. And it's, it's funny. His Borman kind of downplayed his sighting for the rest of his life as with all of these other astronauts. It seems like there was some blood pack to bait or something. But if you actually listen to the audio, it's like, that sounds like a UFO. It's like, I don't know what this is. You see, it sounds kind of freaked out. All right. Jim and I. I'm here. You know, you read loud and clear seven go ahead. This is Houston. Say again. Seven. Seven is that the booster or is that an actual sighting? Say again, seven. You have any more information that has to make distance or size? And we also have the booster inside. Understand. You also have the booster inside, Roger. And then you also have Simkinson NASA archive UFO. Shout out to Chris Ramsey actually for recommending this to me. And I believe this is a real like photo of something from the Gemini 11 archive Gemini 11 famously, do you want to tell this story? There was like a like a power outage and there's even audio around this. Do you know? I don't know the details of this particular story. But I am vaguely familiar with this particular image. So this was airbrushed on, I think. So it's not a real photo because it'd be the best photo of all time. But I think clearly in reference to something we have audio and facts around and I spoke to Kevin Knuth about. And it seems like there was an actual UFO around Gemini 11 that caused this electromagnetic outage. And so this looks like this tongue and cheek joke done by the NASA archivists probably to like denote this whole event. It'd be great to see if we can find a scan of the maybe the raw version of that film or maybe prompt department of war or NASA to release the images of the raw film at some point. That would be great. And then you have structures. So you have this wishbone structure on the backside of the moon. And it looks, I'm not going to lie, it looks pretty weird. But it also looks like it could be some natural geological formation. We use some interesting kind of deductive principles as to why it might not be. So how would you justify that? Yeah. Possibly being an artificial structure. The thing we have to remember is that if the moon has been visited by extraterrestrials at some point in the past, it's very, it's most probable that it happened a really long time ago. Perhaps millions, hundreds of millions or even billions of years ago. And if that's the case and they built some sort of a structure, it would be highly eroded by now because of micrometeoroid bombardment. Essentially, because you have no atmosphere on the moon, any structures on the moon, if it's like a spire type structure, it would be pulverized in all directions by little micrometeors and occasionally larger ones. And eventually it would be flattened or smooth or rounded. So over time, you should expect that structures on the moon become very smooth and rounded and spire like structures can't just persist for a very long time. Moreover, they are unlikely to form naturally on the moon, especially after like three billion years ago or a billion years ago when volcanic activity ceased and tectonic activity more or less stopped or at least still intrinsic tectonic activity stopped. So what I basically do is just to say, look, these structures are very unlikely to have been formed naturally by meteoric erosion, erosive processes. And other erosive processes are far too weak and also irregular and random to account for these particular structures. So this, for example, this wishbone structure, some spire structures as well. There are structures in Paracelsus C, another crater on the backside or far side of the moon that also have unusually precise geometries. All of these geometrically anomalous or geologically anomalous structures or formations are all candidates, serious candidates for ancient ruins. on the moon from a past E.T. visitation. And so the project that I've been pursuing is essentially to identify geologically anomalous objects, structures, formations, and phenomena on the moon as potential candidates for ancient highly eroded ruins of some kind. And then the next step, of course, is to send some sort of a probe or a robotic rover of some kind, or maybe manned mission to examine the most promising ones, much more closely, to see if that's the case or not. To people who think we're crazy, too, it's like, what is the rational decision for the government to make? Is it for them to film for all civilians to see the first time they encounter anything on a new structure, a new planet, or a new moon? Obviously not. Like, obviously, they would encounter the thing first. They'd want some asymmetric access to it if it could confer a tactical advantage, or if it has the potential to freak out the population, you're going to keep it secret. And so, yeah, like you said, you have the space act of 1958 where NASA was explicitly, kind of, you know, an extension of the DOD. And then you have Trump saying it's like, you know, an intelligence agency, you know, last year. And that's just sort of, you know, calling a spade a spade. That's saying it is what it already was. And even before that, NASA commissioned the Brookings Report in 1959. It was published in 1960. And the recommendations of that report from the Brookings Institution commissioned by NASA was explicitly that it's possible that artifacts from an ET visitation will be found on the moon, or Mars, and our future space explorations of those planets. And if so, there could be potentially negative catastrophically and negative consequences for societal stability. Well, there might be, there's reason to consider withholding this information. That's an explicitly recommended consideration to make. So you put that together with the space act of 58. And then on top of this, you get now the Trump administration's executive order saying that NASA will be considered an intelligence agency for various purposes. The default assumption should be that if NASA discovered anything on the moon, or on Mars, or elsewhere, more likely than not because of the national security implications of that, such a discovery, they probably would not have just outright told the public or the scientific community. That should be the default, I think, expectation of. Yeah, apparently John Brandenburg, who we brought up earlier, who's a physics PhD, really smart guy, who worked in Sandia for a lot of his career, and knows head haunches at a lot of these places. He was going around theorizing about ancient structures on Mars, on Sidonia, a lot of this stuff that Richard Hogan also reports on. Lately, we've had this ridiculous square object that doesn't look at all around Mars. Natural, yeah. That's pretty remarkable. And so he actually took it a step further, and he said that argon 40 and xenon 129 exist in excess of what you would ever expect with just natural radioactive isotope decay, implying that there was a nuclear holocaust on Mars. And apparently when he did that, Carl Sagan of all people called him up, and he said, Brandenburg, why are you causing this trouble? No way. Yes, he says, why are you causing this trouble? And we know that Carl Sagan held really high clearances. We know that he was part of Project A119, which was a plan to nuke the moon as a show force against the Soviets in 1958. So I think what you're saying is correct, that you have power structures at the top that are really, they have to think of themselves as like guardians of the world and like calculating, you know, what can people handle. And there's this, you know, rumored sort of committee around this in the UFO topic called the Majestic 12. It's very sort of riddled with controversy, it's unclear if that's a real organization, but it makes sense that there would be an organization like that that is almost containing reality, like their modern platonic guardians of our reality. Right. Yeah, and I've also heard rumors of the so-called Collins elite, if I remember correctly. Yeah, it was a Christian group of, I guess a group of religious Christians who believe that UFOs represent some sort of a demonic phenomenon that perhaps should not be studied closely or at least, maybe information about it should be controlled. So that's another possibility. I should mention, and maybe there's overlap between those two groups. Oh, yeah, very, very, very likely. I mean, very plausible, I think. In terms of Sagan, I should mention that he was very two-faced about the possibility of UFOs or structures on the Moon and Mars when he was alive on the one hand in 1963. He published himself a scientific technical paper where he used Drake's equation to estimate the number of probable galactic technologically advance civilizations in our galaxy and the likelihood of Earth having been visited and he came up with estimates on the order of probably 10,000 visitations of the Earth have occurred in like the past billion years or so. And he even said that because of erosion from weathering and whatever other geological phenomena, the Moon would be a natural place to put a base if they wanted, for example, to monitor Earth over time. And that future missions to the Moon should bear these possibilities in mind. He explicitly says this and he never retracted his analysis in later papers. He also wrote a 75 paper saying that if we want to look for possible signs of technologically advanced life on other planets, one way to do that is to look at the surfaces and to find thermodynamic disequilibrio or basically thermodynamically anomalous structures, rectilinear geometrically precise structures that are hard to explain, natural geological terms of the planets' geological processes. And so he found that. - We found that, yeah, I would say on the Mars, I think there are countless examples on the Moon, I think also, and so Sagan was suggesting this himself and saying this is a worthwhile thing to explore and he even had correspondences with Dr. Mark Carlotta, one of the early researchers of the Face on Mars, expressing interest in Carlotta's various analyses of the Face on Mars. He even said, I agree with you that Gerald Soffen, the, I think he was the lead project scientist on the Viking mission, which took the first images of the Face on Mars. Soffen said, oh yeah, this is, isn't it interesting what a trick of light and shadow can do? It can make just a simple hill look like a face. And Sagan agreed that what Soffen said is actually mistaken because the face still looks like a face when it's imaged under other lighting conditions. And he even said, this was like an unfortunate thing and he even said that, yeah, it's worthwhile if we're gonna go to Mars, we should take a look at the Face on Mars at some point. Send a manned mission there. But publicly he ridiculed people like Richard Holglund and Carlotto and Brandenburg, but privately in communications, he was quite receptive to what they were doing and even supported some of their research. - Apparently, in his early diaries, he read about UFOs all the time, he was clearly interested and he would debate his mentor saying, keep an open mind and then he sort of flipped when Jalen Heineck went the opposite way. It's very, very interesting. Yeah, it's almost like he was sort of this citadel scientific spokesman who had to like kind of manage the narrative in some way. And it's yeah, plausible explanation of his contradictory kind of behavior on this. - Well, 'cause he, I mean, look, he wrote pale blue dot and he wrote contact and like both seem like he knows more than he lets on about the topic. Even in contact, you have the first transmission to Earth being Adolf Hitler and making a speech which is really trippy and weird. But I think he's talking about these long delay echoes, which are this phenomena that occurred in the 1920s and 30s at the invention of the radio where you would send a signal out and then you'd get the same signal back with a little bit of delay. And so, you know, really, really trippy. Interesting phenomena. But it seems like he always just knew more than met the eye. - I think so. I mean, Hulkland has also relayed Richard Hulkland, relayed a story to me directly once about Sagan that after some sort of a hearing, I believe it was either a congressional hearing or some sort of other public hearing. Sagan apparently came up to him and put his hand on his shoulder and said, keep up the great work like whispered into his ear and then walked off and so. And Hulkland says, yeah, he knew Sagan personally, there were friends and well, if that's true and that's what Sagan said, then that says it all, doesn't it? and you said he had C. Top Secret clearances. - And he's calling Brandenburg, and he's saying. "Why are you causing so much trouble?" And he was interested in Brandenburg's work about the face on Mars too. Yeah, he said, "Oh, can you send me images of this other face that you've seen too?" Totally. And then I think Brandenburg went into a meeting, or maybe this was actually my buddy, Science Bob McGuire was in a meeting about, you know, with the top scientist on Venus, on the planet Venus, and there was some anomaly or something they were looking into there. And Sagan was in the meeting with, like, the White House Science Advisor, something like that. Carl Sagan was sitting in the room. No way. Yeah, Sagan was sitting there. Wait, this is crazy. So it's clear that Sagan was somehow, like, super deep. I only thought he was deep on the inside, 'cause he-- I don't mind 'til he's past, I don't mind. He had a contractor green badge with a picture on it. You don't get that if you're casual. And so he just was, yeah, as cleared as it gets, really high up. And it seemed like he was kind of meant to, like, disseminate or trickle out in for me. Like Don Menzel, who was caught destroying astronomical plates by his, kind of, assistant, who was an astronomer in her own, right? At Harvard, Dorit Hofflight. And he was sort of meant to kind of manage the narrative too. It seemed like he knew more than he kind of let on about UFOs, he held very high clearances. And then he just was dogmatically opposed to any sort of openness to the topic. He would always say, you know, whether phenomena, temperature, inversions, you know, things, things like that. And then now we have Beatrice V. O'Reilly. Are you familiar with her? - Yes. - She's at Stockholm University. And she's found all of these on the Palomar Observatory, which is one of the most prominent observatories in use at the time in Mount Wilson and San Diego, California. She, there are 10,000 plus transients. These light reflecting would seem like mirror, like metallic objects, a year, for eight years from 1949, 1957, before we ever put Sputnik up in space. And then she was like, I looked into it and I spoke to NASA. And they were like, oh yeah, we call those uncorrelated targets. Like they just sort of like try to reduce all the noise around this stuff. And then she was, she looked into it further and somebody told her, oh yeah, space force tracks those. - They removed this background of uncorrelated targets from the total number of things that they see in order to calculate the number of objects in space. However, I think that they don't do it themselves. It's done by militarists and it's classified lists. So it's kind of becoming a little bit more fun. I'm trying to look into this right now. - Well, in fact, US space force, Northcom space, NORAD, they actually have a term for UFOs in space, which it's a fast walkers. It's a code work and slow walkers too. And John Greenwald, Jr., of the black vault, he has tried to submit FOIA requests for all of US space forces documents. The DOD's documents referring to fast walkers and slow walkers. And the response he got was that all such documents are actually exempt from FOIA disclosure under some special, you know, subsection of the FOIA act. And so, yeah, then also I think last year or two years ago, Arrow was appointed to head some sort of a space tiger re-study team to examine UAPs in space of some kind or another. So there is clearly evidence there that's exempt from declassification, even to the degree, like they don't even want to release documents and redact them. They're even beyond that. I would say Villarreal's research on these transients also lends further credence to the hypothesis that these lights and orbs seen these Apollo images from the lunar surface could well be of extraterrestrial and origin. Perhaps the common, there's a common cause explanation both for those and for these transients seen in these photographic plates in the 50s and whatever. And her studies remarkable because it correlates the transients showing up with nuclear. It's 60% more likely to show up within 24 hours of a nuclear detonation, which is wild because we all know that UFOs are connected with nuclear weapons, Allah Robert Hastings work where you have nuclear bases all over the US and all of these guys who are cleared to pretty insensitive stuff. And they're on the PRP program where they have to report if they're taking ibuprofen and they see tick-tax saucers often messing with the nukes that he has 167 of these whistleblowers. So the fact that there's a correlation there is fascinating and she's working with this other scientist at Vanderbilt, Dr. Steven Bruehl, who's doing the stats on this stuff. And like, I don't get any grifty vibes from either of them. Like they seem pretty legit and you have Sabina Hassanfelder, Brian Keating, you know, being like, we don't know how to explain this. Like, you know, you, this requires further inquiry. And I think she just updated the public that one of her colleagues in Germany, I think his name is Ivo Busco or something. I'm blanking out his name. But he, you know, has all sorts of impressive astronomical space experience. He basically figured out that the number one debunk on her work was that these were like issues with like chemical staining and plate defects over time. And cosmic rays as another, I've heard as another. Okay, interesting, interesting. Especially from Avilo. But I think she refers to Busco. Yeah, Busco's work as debunking the cosmic ray explanation. So apparently that proves that these patterns aren't from chemical stains or plate defects, but from what the light actually hit the optical circuitry of the telescope itself. The light came through the telescope. It is not an artifact of, you know, the plates drifting over time, chemically. So that that's pretty, you know, amazing. And it just seems like there's getting, you know, we're getting more and more proof there. And hopefully she gets a replication from another observatory because to me that would be this really exciting smoking gun moment. But to go to your point around fast walkers, there's an email as well from the WikiLeaks drop that involves Podesta, John Podesta, who is, you know, obviously this, you know, Clinton chief of staff, you know, helped manage Hillary's campaign. She is at, you know, some aerospace company or corporation in El Segundo. And I think he's with a guy and he's emailing back and forth with a guy named Bob Fish. Right. And he's talking about fast walkers there. And that email gets scrubbed from the internet. Right. So there's something about fast walkers, which were clearly, you know, used as a term. Yeah. As you're, as you're implying. Yeah. I, I think there's one of the things I would like to do at some point is if I can somehow get my hands on the defense support program satellite records, these, this is the satellite network that tracks fast walkers and slow walkers or has at least. Yeah, that's what they were referring to the DSP, which is the outer earth's kind of orbit, like it's like kind of the first defense against anything coming into the earth's atmosphere. Yeah. Apparently, the researchers, aerospace researchers, Lee Graham and Ron Riger, they, uh, claimed to have, uh, analyzed DSP satellite printout records in 1976 or 1977 at the day and time of the event of the Tehran UFO dogfight with the Royal Air Force of the Shah at the time. Yeah. And they claimed that the DSP, uh, satellite or at least one of them detected an infrared or heat anomaly over Tehran, Iran at this moment of that event and they've done some analysis of this. That story is wild because you have the, the pilot, I think in a James Fox movie might have been out of the blue or something, yeah, saying that he like shot at the UFO, and then he lost control of his aircraft. It like, you know, all the, I think, you know, some electromagnetic outage and it like just shut down on him. So you're saying that that correlated with the DSP archive sensing some sort of infrared signature right around Tehran or according to Graham and Riger, but apparently it's, uh, these records are still, um, like still classified to the point that you like the public can access those satellite records independently of what these guys did. But if someday we could get our hands on that satellite data, we could then try to look at these cross correlations with known UFO incidents and cross correlate the time that it happened with what those satellites may have picked up or the STS 48 and STS 80 UFOs, I would love to look at the DSP satellite records from those moments and see if there's some sort of a cross correlation there. So I think there's a enormous potential if we can get our hands on this classified data to show some maybe really explosive scientific corroboration of a, yeah, that'd be amazing. They should just let it out, you know, we should just figure this out. I think that the siop is that they don't fully understand what's going on. So I think they're now like letting things out because it's like, you know, they need to open source this time, especially with AI, it's like you're not going to get the new insight with in a closed system. Open system will always win. So you need, you need to update your strategy. Even if all you care about is tactical military advantage of the US, you still need to figure this is not a good strategy. I also think it's very telling that speaking of astronauts, Neil Armstrong, when he came back from the moon in 1976, he does this other mission at the edge of the Amazon through this Teos Cave system in Ecuador, which the only lore of which is, you know, this was written about in like chariots of the gods by Eric Von Daniken, and there's rumored to be this ancient alien metallic artifact in this cave system. And so why would you go looking for that if you weren't open to the presence of extraterrestrial life, possibly from experiences you had on the way to the moon? I completely agree. And I wonder if anyone has sat down with Armstrong before he passed away and asked them in detail. Why did you decide to do this? What led you to this? I'm not aware of that having happened. I just I do know there were some camera crew that filmed him doing this expedition, but no detailed conversation with them to ask his reasons for doing it. But clearly it shows that he's open to some really incredible. Yeah, why would you go look for that at all if you didn't think that there might be something up with the origin of mankind on earth or presence of nonhuman intelligence or something? Yeah. You have to have some sort of opening to do that. Otherwise, go be a conventional archaeologist. Like don't go looking for an ancient alien metallic artifact cave thing. Yeah. It's either you've like spun out and you've lost your marbles or like you think there's something there. Yes. And I think it's probably the latter. Yeah, Buzz Aldrin. Again, he himself was always he's always flirting in these circles with other people who are or for example, he's also insinuated that this monolith that NASA has imaged on Phobos, one of the moons of Mars is an interesting structure and we should go there and visit it and and maybe take samples of it and he's actually and NASA has actually proposed a mission to do precisely that in 2007 to send a probe to this monolith on Phobos and take a sample of it with the probe and do some direct analysis of it. How big is the monolith? This monolith is about it's estimated to be 90, 85 meters in diameter and then 90 meters tall. So 90 meters multiplied by three to get it in feet approximately, it's like 270 feet roughly tall. Which is called tall. Yeah. It's like a tall building in size. That's great. Yeah. Yeah. And it's I mean, I've examined those NASA those NASA images of that monolith and clearly there is no other structure anywhere else on Phobos nearly as large. There are smaller, much smaller monoliths. What do you think that is? Do you think that's remnants of an ancient? I think it's plausible enough. I mean, coming back to this general point that it's very plausible that our solar system has been visited by ET visitors in the past billions of years. Okay. And where are the two places in our solar system that they would have most likely gone? Mars in the earth. Mars in the earth. Especially because like three billion years ago. And then even in Phobos. Yeah. Three billion years ago, Mars was much more Earth-like as an atmosphere. Well, yeah. You had a biosphere, you had a magnetosphere and you had water. Nobody would dispute any of that. Right. And maybe independently evolved life. And if they wanted to monitor maybe that life, maybe they would put something on Phobos like a monolith to monitor it. Just like they might put something a base on the moon or maybe a monolith on the moon, which I think there are a couple of interesting candidates of that sort to observe Earth. So it's absolutely I think worth looking. Certainly the monolith is geologically anomalous. It doesn't seem to be a natural formation of Phobos. It's too large, too symmetrical. It's albedo or reflectivity is significantly different from the surface of Phobos. Interesting. But as it falls, I'll turn this in. It's this. And then he was also friends with Arthur C. Clarke, the notescience fiction author who also, you know, Kubrick made 2001 a Space Odyssey based on his books, right? And Tia is in one space out of that. He's riddled with bizarre symbolism. Yeah. That's like, you know, it doesn't seem like the space program is what it seems. Yes. Yeah. And Arthur C. Clarke was a very trippy, I mean, he lived in Sri Lanka and wrote a book about a portal in Sri Lanka. And, you know, given his personality, you think that he like walk through the portal or something. He wrote childhoods and about an alien presence that, you know, can't make itself known all at once. And so it needs to infiltrate the highest ranks of the government and speak through nonverbal, autistic children or whatever, which is, you know, it's this weirdly kind of maybe predictive around like what's happening with telepathy tapes and stuff. So yeah, did you, did you know that Clarke also in a media interview at his home in Sri Lanka, this was circa 2000. Buzz Aldrin was visiting him there. There's an image, a photograph of that media interview. And Clarke has asked about Mars. And he says, what's really shocking and exciting to me is that NASA has basically discovered large forms of life on Mars. Have a look at the pictures of Mars from Jefferson Laboratories. Take a look at these structures. I don't see any other interpretation other than that. These are gigantic forms of biological life on Mars. And Buzz Aldrin just sits there quietly, doesn't contradict them, doesn't disagree. That's another, I think, interesting connection. And I've seen those specific Mars images that Clarke was referring to, who also was, by the way, a proponent of studying the face on Mars more closely. And he thought those were promising candidates of E.T. built structures on Mars. He was, I think, basically correct. There are a number of these images from Mars Global Surveyor, now days from High Rise, showing what look like they could well be maybe the skeletal structure of a fossilized large forms of life on Mars, or perhaps technology of a some sort that's just more exotic. But I think he was onto something there. And soon enough, I'll be saying more about that in some upcoming interviews, showing some specific examples about what. So I recently did an interview with my friend and colleague, John Ward, who's on Mars anomalies researcher who does really excellent work. He's made some discoveries of anomalous formations and structures that look like ruins or look like maybe fungal structures that are, you know, spanning hundreds of meters in an area. In that interview, we examine the images in great detail. I apply some algorithms to evaluate that evaluate the likelihood that they can be naturally formed, fractal and texture-based algorithms. And I show that the algorithms imply that these these landforms are probably not of natural origin. And there are many other images of that sort from NASA's own High Rise and MGS images of the Martian surface. And so I think they corroborate what Clark had said in that interview and had said in other places. So then the question is, why is NASA not acknowledging that? Why are they putting these images out for the public to see? But ignoring these independent researchers or just saying, oh, it's all nonsense. It's kind of unclear to me what the motive is and all of that. But yeah, well, it's where there is one. It's, you know, see, like it's don't shut down all discourse on the thing. In fact, even see it in these kind of non-authoritative ways and then track it. And I think that's what's going on with the arrow and with all the modern UFO conversation. And it's, you know, it's, I don't think it's a coincidence that the, you know, a former NSA director is like, you know, the arrow guy where it's like they track all the comms probably around what's coming out. And like, you know, figuring out the unknown is going to be beneficial. I'm sure to them in many ways. And they're just going to track everything. And we know from Snowden and from all these, you know, revelations of the last 20 years that like all our shit is tracked all the time. So, so maybe they want people to work on these things and probably publicly. And they're hoping that someone will give some insights, but they just don't want to acknowledge these. They don't want to do it like officials. They don't want to say like, you know, because they worry that that will be destabilizing. And then they probably just want to like, seed it as much as they can. And so it's, yeah, it's not, it's not giving it the stamp of approval. It totally deserves because it's a real field and all this stuff is legit. But it's also not shutting down conversation in a way that, you know, they can, they can, they can always like knock on the person's door who's like essential to them when they need them or whatever. And then there's the other explanation is like the lights are on, but no one's home. And like they're, they literally don't get it. And they're like old gray beard bureaucrats who like don't understand this stuff. So I don't know. I go back and forth. But maybe this is also why when project blue book was released, the press release associated with, or at least with like special report 14 or the whole thing was, uh, Stanton Friedman, uh, did some research on this. And he said the press release said that, uh, we didn't find anything anomalous, even in the unknown cases or the unidentified cases, there was, it was only like 3% of all the cases. And we think that if we had more information, we could easily explain those. But then in special report 14 of blue book, you look at the actual report and the data table of identified and unidentified unknown cases. And it's something like 21% of almost a thousand different cases were unknown. And they even say in the report that, oh, yeah, we can't actually identify them. We, we're not sure that we can identify them with more information either. Same with they clearly lied about their own report that that was released to the public. Yeah, the analytical overlay, the stated conclusion was just false. Yeah. The same with the, uh, the Condon committee, which is synonymous with having, you know, shut down blue book as far as, you know, what we think of it. But if you actually look at the committee report, it's over 30% still unidentified. Same with air. We think of modern day arrow, you know, pre-Cuzlowski, you know, with Sean Kirkpatrick as like bad faith actors, they're trying to shut down the conversation. Then you look at the actual substance of like what they're reporting. And it's also over 30% still unidentified. So, you know, and then he just goes, but we don't have evidence for extraterrestrials. Well, I don't know if we do either, but I know we have evidence for a lot of anomalous stuff. That's worthy of worthy of further inquiry. And you're trying to shut down that conversation and, you know, almost acting as like a fly trap for the data. Um, so yeah, it's, it's very weird where like the, the statements don't actually match the data. And then it's like, is that some sort of dog whistle that's supposed to hit the right people who like are, you know, you're initiated if you, you can think for yourself and then get beyond the stated sort of look away, you know, blanket statement. I don't know. I don't understand how this stuff works. But there is a lot of talking out of both sides of your mouth. But I think that's probably the most promising explanation that you just gave the dog whistle one. Yeah, yeah, maybe yeah. Um, okay, there's some more really weird anomalies on the moon. You have a sheet signature. I want to take a moment to thank one of today's sponsors, Zbiotics, Zbiotics pre-alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to specifically tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's a buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration. That's to blame for the rough days after drinking. Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night, of course, drink responsibly and you'll feel your best tomorrow. I have Zbiotics before my first drink of the night and I wake up feeling totally normal the next morning. So go to zbiotics.com/jessie to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use jessie at checkout. Zbiotics is also backed with a 100% money back guarantee. So if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money. No questions asked. Remember to head to zbiotics.com/jessie and use the code jessie at checkout for 15% off. It happened to me in the woods. I was hiking solo. New year, no phone, no gear. I was just trying to find myself. That's when I saw it. Something glowing, silent, descending through the trees. A UFO. And stepping out from it wasn't an alien or an android. It was me. But better. Same face. Same great hair. But something was different. This guy had perfect posture. He was wearing the perfect gene. And they start at just $79. Six fits, sizes for every thigh on this timeline and beyond. Now, 2026 me. Where's the perfect genes? They don't crush my thighs or my dreams. They're soft, but dangerous. For a limited time, our listeners get 15% off their first order plus free shipping at the perfect gene dot NYC or just Google the perfect gene and use code jessie 15 for 15% off. That's 15% off for new customers at the perfect gene dot NYC with promo code jessie 15. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you your khakis and get the perfect gene. There's some more really weird anomalies on the moon. You have a heat signature? Yeah, there is a place on the far side of the moon called the between two creators called Compton and Belkovich. And NASA has found an imaging infrared imaging of the entire moon that there's this one area that is emitting 20 times the average heat output of the rest of the far side of the moon. So 20 times the heat output in this one area between these two creators. And not only that, but this area has also an anomalously high concentration of thorium and I believe uranium, so radioactive elements. It's also anomalously glassy and highly reflective compared to the rest of the backside of the moon, far side of the moon. And in terms of the cratering of this particular area, NASA scientists have analyzed that and they've concluded that the number of creators in this particular area is anomalously low or few, indicating a much younger age than the rest of the far side of the moon. The ages they estimate based on the cratering rates, which is a standard technique used by lunar geologists, cell analogists, is about on the order of hundreds of millions of years old, whereas obviously the rest of the backside of the moon is much more ancient than that, three plus billion years old and even more. So there are anomalies on top of anomalies, on top of anomalies, on top of anomalies in this one area, this heat, this anomalously hot area, 20 times as well beyond some sort of expected standard deviation. And while it may not be an enormous amount of heat, it's that's being emitted. The fact that it's so much more than the rest is what makes it a particularly interesting geological anomaly. And what's more is that the best explanation that NASA and the planetary science community has been able to come up with so far is that there must be a massive 50 kilometer wide block of granite below the moon's surface kilometers below that's storing heat from billions of years ago and just emitting it through the lunar surface, and that's being seen at this particular spot called the heat anomaly. The researchers who came up with that hypothesis, they admit that this otherwise would not make sense geologically because for granite to form, you need massive amounts, you need water and you need tectonic activity. And for a 50 kilometer wide block of granite, you would need a massive amount of water to produce that, which doesn't exist on the moon and probably never existed, at least like in the standard picture of the moon, it never existed. And so they admit that geologically, it doesn't make sense that there could be such a massive block of granite. And it's only invoked as an ad hoc explanation of this particular heat anomaly. There's been no imaging, like ground penetrating radar has not found a block of granite like that of any sort. So it's just a purely ad hoc geological hypothesis that's geologically nonsensical too, according to everything we know about geological. The hypothesis that actually cuts against basic conventions of geology. Because there's been nothing like that has been found anywhere else in the solar system in terms of like granite in that large quantity. So I would say this is another obvious candidate place to go. Maybe there's a remnant of, I don't know, an underground base that was maybe, maybe had a nuclear reactor. Maybe there was, it was a landing site of somewhere else. These are all these possibilities. Well, that's where my mind goes. Because on Earth, it feels like UFOs show up at nuclear hot spots, but also places where they're rare earth mineral deposits. That sort of thing. So I wonder if there's some sort of, yeah, thorium deposit thing going on there. I don't know, would that connect somehow with UFOs showing up? Well, I think it would be interesting. Yeah, I don't know. In terms of, I mean, maybe the thing to do would be to send some robotic probes or rovers at this particular Compton Belkovich heat anomaly. And have them just point the cameras to the sky and monitor and see if any interesting, I don't know, anomalous orbs or whatever are seen. By the way, do you know if, in Hastings work, if this correlation between UFOs and nuclear sites includes just ordinary nuclear reactors? Oh, yeah. So he actually has an appendix. where it details six to eight civilian nuclear energy grids. And there's a famous case in Barra Loce, Argentina, apparently the Chernobyl spill, the Fukushima spill. There's a mountain in Japan called Mount San Gunmori, right next to the Fukushima civilian energy grid. That's dedicated to UFOs. There's a whole UFO museum at the top of the mountain. Well, if that's the case, then I guess we should expect that when NASA builds its nuclear reactor for this planned moon base, at least this has been stated that this is a plan to build a nuclear reactor on the moon, to power this moon base at some point, then maybe we should expect to see. Yeah, UFOs, UAP flying over the lunar surface, drawn to that nuclear reactor. At least that's a thing to perhaps look out for. It's totally, yeah, it's very, yeah, exactly. You also have this anomalously bright crater, right? It's called Aristarchus, and that kind of connects with one of these Apollo 11s. Apollo 11 is when it was, it was noticed, but well, so apparently some astronomers in Germany saw this crater as unusually bright. And mission control told Apollo 11 about this while they were in orbit before they landed, and they were asked to take a look at Aristarchus from orbit around the moon. And yeah, Armstrong and Aldrin and the other guy, I think Collins, they looked at it and they said, yeah, it looks unusually bright, almost like fluorescing. We can definitely see that. It was also considered to be a potential landing site for Apollo 18, which never happened as a mission, but they were interested in it. It's also in NASA's own multiple studies of transient lunar phenomena. So NASA has this archive of transient lunar phenomena dating back hundreds of years from amateur astronomers, professional astronomers on earth, about half of them have been identified coming from Aristarchus as well. And they don't know why, nobody knows why. There are some hand-wavy guesses, speculations, like maybe there is some sort of outgassing of some type coming from deep within the moon of some unknown gas that somehow then creating electrical phenomena or sparking of some kind, but that's just a guess. They have detected anomalous quantities of radon, which is a byproduct of other radioactive elements. And it's still not known what is causing the transient lunar phenomena around Aristarchus or just anywhere in general. There are some very tentative explanations. So this, I would say, is another potential site. It's anomalously bright in the visible spectrum in the ultraviolet spectrum. And it produces flashes of light. Occasionally, apparently, it changes color in anomalous ways. It becomes hazy in anomalous ways. It exhibits all kinds of phenomena that, again, do not fit the standard geological explanation of what the moon is. So we got to take a closer look. It's squarely one of the best anomaly candidates we have. And there appear to be potential like cave-like entrances at the base of Aristarchus, which have been found by some lunar anomalies researchers in. So that's wild. And I wonder if maybe that's, this is part of the reason NASA wanted to go there in Apollo 18 was because. - Sent some rovers. - Yeah, they haven't even done that, interestingly enough. - They've never sent rovers to Aristarchus. Do you think some secret program has sent rovers or perhaps? I was recently learned that the Air Force had detailed plans for like an Air Force manned mission to the moon. - Yeah. - Called Loonex, which was designed in like 1957 to 1961. - Yes. - And. - It was at Vandenberg Air Force Base. - Yeah. - So the manned orbiting laboratory. - Right. - And they wanted to build the base and send multiple Air Force, I guess, personnel to the moon and. - And then nominally it was Cannes. - And nominally it's canceled, yeah. - And because it was like, oh, we'll have NRO satellites, which nobody knew what the NRO was at the time. But it was like, you know, NRO would image things better than humans. But if you have things like Aristarchus, which are real lunar anomalies with seemingly some sort of internal cave network and, you know, brightness and, you know, associated with it, why wouldn't you send a person there? You probably would. And so that Air Force, you know, manned orbiting laboratory, I always think another interesting place to look for truth is, you know, really ridiculous narratives. Like what's directly adjacent to that? So there's this whole idea of secret space program, of Corey Good going on Gaia, saying, oh, we have, you know, we have all these people have gone 20 and back into like the deep solar system. And it's just insane. And it's so there are all these logical fallacies involved in it, you know, it's not even worth getting into and debunking because it's so prima facia sort of ridiculous and bad faith. But like, and then you think it, when you say the word secret space program, you assume that we have no secret space program. So it did its job. That's what I think its job was. You know, it's almost like pizza, gate, and Epstein or something. Like it's very adjacent and similar to, so of course we have a secret space program. Of course there is some, I don't know what it is. You have a Reagan diary entries from the 80s saying, I, you know, met with top astronomers from NASA, you know, and the Navy, I think. And you know, it turns out we can put, you know, up to 300 people in Earth's orbit. Right now we have, if you count, you know, International Space Station and Soviet and Chinese equivalents, we have like 10, 11 people in space. What are you talking about? 300 people, we have the capability in the 80s to put 300 people, like according to, I mean, maybe it, you could say, you know, it was some bureaucrat show boating, you know, there are ways you can explain that away. But then you have the man orbiting laboratory stuff, which was nominally canceled. But like, why wouldn't you also have, again, people going to some of these sites where we've discovered anomalies to figure out, you know, if there's some super kind of, you know, again, one line of code update on everything, you know, a person has to analog, you're not going to send some robot and like just, you know, figure it out optically. Or if you do, then you're going to send a person after that. Yeah, I mean, I think there's no question that there is a covert or secret space program, which is more or less admitted by US military. If you go and look at potential job applications and various private aerospace firms, they talk about, you have to have knowledge about maybe space systems and space vehicle propulsion. And then we know that at Vandenberg Air Force bases there are classified payloads that are launched into space routinely. And NASA has even launched classified DOD payloads into space through the shuttle missions, for example. And even after there was the joint DOD clementine mission as well. And there's no question that there is a secret space program to some degree. The only question is how far does it extend? Does it include secret manned missions in orbit, for example? Aside from NASA, does it include manned lunar missions or potentially even beyond that that we don't know about? And well, yeah, given how little we know, given how much secrecy there is around these covert space programs, I think that's all possible as we have to keep an open mind about that. Totally, yeah. What about the idea that the moon is partially hollow? So you have like Apollo 11 and 12. We're ring like a bell, then they put size monitors and they intentionally crashed the booster into it. And it rang even more for longer. This is all documented. You have Gordon McDonald, Eisenhower's space advisor, saying the only way in which the moon makes sense is if it's somewhat hollow. So is that significant somehow? Is that maybe it's sort of this-- if you want to get really crazy, some people say it might be this geo-engineered structure? Well, there are, I think, a couple of explanations for why it rings like a bell in these-- or why it rang like a bell in these Apollo experiments. One is, OK, yes, it's bone dry. So that allows sound waves to propagate more easily. It doesn't have water, except for just a little bit of water ice at the poles and microscopic amounts of water elsewhere. That's one thing. But NASA has also imaged the subsurface of the moon using a probe called Grail, which measured basically changes in the gravitational field of the moon. And it's found that there are massive caves and caverns extending even potentially kilometers below the lunar surface. Irregular, it's not uniform everywhere, but there are clearly major-- gaps in cave-like structures below the lunar surface. So that probably, that has to also contribute to the explanation. Now, beyond that, is it hollow if you go like straight to the core? I don't know. But if it has these anomalously large caves and caverns like one in particular, which is connected to a lava tube, it's considered a gigantic lava tube. It is so large, you could take Manhattan and the burrows and fit it inside of it. And it's something like, I think nine kilometers tall or something like that, it's enormous. That's, it's possible that it's been geo-engineered. If there was a past E.T. visitation, one of the logical places or logical things you might do to build a base, establish a long-term presence is to build it underground, to just avoid micro-medioric bombardment or solar flare activity or radiation. And so it's very possible that the reason there are these massive hollow expanses at certain portions of the moon is because it was basically built out at some point in the past. And so I think we have to just go and look. And it regulates the tide on the earth and the environment. There are Zulu myths of like pre-moon society, like this idea that like it showed up at some point. Or even if you read the Quran, the moon opens up. So who knows what any of that means? But isn't it even conventionally thought of as anomalous, the fact that it's tidal locked, that you never see the dark side? And it is, isn't it unusually close and big for a moon as well? Well, what's special is about the tidal locking, in this case is that, I mean, multiple moons in our solar system are tidally locked to their planets like Phobos and Damos, the moons of Mars are tidally locked. But what's unique about our moon is how large it is compared to earth and it's tidally locked. And then, yeah, the fact that it's at this particular distance that regulates the tides in such a way that life could basically evolve without or develop over time in a fairly stable way that the tides are not destructive to the gradual development of life on earth. That's an interesting anomaly. And then also I think, I mean, the question is is like, what is the odds of a moon being tidally locked at this particular distance such that it regulates the tides in this way? That's not really fully understood. And then the other thing is how did the moon form in the first place? The leading explanation is a glancing blow from a Mars-like planetoid body four billion years ago, just came out of nowhere and just crashed into earth. What are the odds of that particular collision? - Makes no sense. - Doesn't really make sense to me either. - The sphere would pop out and then move into some orbit point or what it doesn't make that. - It doesn't make a lot. There are a lot of ad hoc aspects. - And then also it doesn't pattern match to the earth. The more you dig on the moon, you get into kind of less dense layers. And obviously maybe that's, if you get to the core, maybe that changes somewhat. But with the earth, it's just more dense all the way down you go. You would expect it to match. If some perfect slice, proportional slice of the earth popped out of the earth, you would expect it to match the earth. - Yeah, the distribution of mass below the surface of the moon is anomalous too. I mean, I mentioned the cavernous gaps, the big gaps. There are also areas of the moon that apparently have enormous concentrations of mass. And these turn into gravitational anomalies. So even the lunar, the Apollo spacecraft while orbiting the moon, they had problems with landing or they had to correct their orbits because of these gravitational anomalies, like uneven gravitational pulls of the moon because some places there's enormous concentration of mass and we don't know why. And some places there's a big gap of missing mass underneath and we don't know why. And it's really hard to understand that in terms of this conventional explanation of Théa, this Mars-like planet just crashing into the moon and then the debris just coalescing. And I think if you press lunar scientists enough on these points, they'll admit that yeah, there's a lot of, there are a lot of mysteries here about how the moon could have formed naturally. So they'll admit to it. What they'll probably be reluctant to do is to consider the possibility of the moon as maybe artificially formed or at least, maybe geoengineered in some way in the distant past. But I think when we take into account the improbability of these particular properties of our moon and the way it could have formed naturally, we have to consider those scenarios seriously. And I think also the fact that life on Earth, the way it could have evolved, or first of all, the way that DNA and RNA could have spontaneously formed and then from that complex biological life evolved, I think, frankly, that there is no remotely plausible, natural physical, chemical explanation of how that occurred. I don't think the standard Neodar-Winion synthesis of that has provided particularly plausible explanations. - No, it's a reason, like Francis Crick, was like, there's no way that DNA could have formed in 100 million years. So, you know, he started to write about life, he wrote a book called Life Itself in 1981 about directed pan sperma, and he wrote a paper about it as well. Carl Sagan was very interested in this too, because it was the only explanation. So this whole prime-evil, primordial soup thing of how does chemistry turn into biology seems like a very unsolved question that we're just inserting placeholders in this sort of conventional explanation there right now. - Right, so if the human genome is genetically engineered by someone billions of years ago, if directed pan sperma is correct, it could well be that whoever seeded life on earth or engineered DNA and RNA may have also said, let's also engineer the moon of this planet so that this form of life that we're seeding here can develop over time without too much difficulty. - So I think that's entirely realistic. - Do you think there's a chance that we came from Mars? - Yeah, it's possible in some sense because Mars seems to have had a earth-like atmosphere for like over a billion years, according to even NASA's own studies. And this was like three billion years ago. Maybe life independently developed or maybe it was first seeded on Mars through some directed pan sperma scenario of some ET visitors. And then over time maybe they became space-faring. Maybe they came to earth billions of years ago or maybe meteor strikes took some of the, I don't know, the bacteria or the primitive forms of life and then they just went through space and then crashed into earth. - What about all the, you know, you're sitting in the chair that Joe Rogan sat in as my first guest in the spaceship and it was a total honor, it was really fun. And we just went off on this whole like, you know, maybe we didn't even go to the moon thing. And I don't think he would or I would say we definitely didn't go to the moon. I think we just wanted to instill some kind of epistemic humility or openness on the part of the audience because there are a lot of weird facts about the first Apollo missions. There are if the whole, I can say definitively that at the very least the perception of the entire thing was super managed and there are fake elements of the Apollo program and then it's just like how fake was it. And I'm inclined to believe, I'm in this sort of middle camp is how I net out that like we did go to the moon, we experienced some weird stuff along the way and that's what we're hiding. But is there a chance that we never went to the moon? Why have we not gone back? Do you have any explanations there? - I think we definitely want to the moon, at least as early as Apollo 11. I think that many of the. - You think Paul's not really ready? - Yeah, I mean, if the Air Force was planning making detailed plans for that in the '50s, even before NASA was formed and then afterwards, I mean, who knows, maybe, but I don't know. I would say just at least since Apollo 11, I think that what people like Bart Sebrell and other moon hoax proponents say, I think I can explain pretty much all of the main objections they have to the claim that we went to the moon and Apollo 11. So I think there are reasonable explanations for the apparent shadow discrepancies, for example, or for example, the Evalent Van Allen radiation belts and the question of how we could have gone through. But yeah, it does seem like some of the imagery was, So like, yeah, managed or at least, yeah, subsequently images released to the public may not have been the original imagery. There is this particular exchange between Buzz Aldrin and Conan O'Brien from many years ago. It's on YouTube, everyone can watch it. And Buzz and O'Brien asks him, what was it like going to the moon and walking the moon? And then Buzz Aldrin says to him, well, what you saw there was actually not the original image or real, it was like a manufactured image of some kind. And the audience is like, what? And O'Brien is like, what? And then he changes the subject. I remember my parents waking me up and we went down and we watched you guys land on the moon. - No, it is, no, you didn't. - What? - Because there wasn't any television or nobody taking a picture. You watched animation. So you associated what you saw with-- - I have very hazy memories. - And I don't know what Buzz Aldrin meant. - By that ex, it sounded like Buzz Aldrin was saying that some of the imagery was not real or it was a simulation or was simulated. That's, I mean, if you take his words at face value there, that's what he seems to be saying. - I mean, the video is so fake. - I would ridiculous. - It doesn't look, I mean, it's not impressive by today's standards and it looks like it could have been, I agree it looks like it could have been fake, but I think in the end, there are too many indicators that actually happened and that the more likely explanation is that it's just, it looks that way, but it's, it was genuine, it was just poor quality and that's why it looks so fake. - I have a friend named Jim Keller who's like one of the most famous chip makers and you built the chip that's like in all of our iPhones and he was working directly under Elon at Tesla and he's a very super impressive guy. He was, I don't know if his title was CT. He was de facto CTO of like Intel for a long time, he was a VP there, genius, like renowned guy and he can be pretty conspiratorial and he can beat anyone I know in a debate about the moon landing videos being fake and he will, he takes the, they're fake side. - Oh it does. - And he's super hard headed first principles and we almost did an interview for American Alchemy and he has so much like shareholder value associated with him that we sat, we were like, I literally flew up to the Bay Area to do it with him and he was like, Jesse dude, like when we talk, we just say a lot of crazy shit and like I don't wanna, I gotta raise money from my company and stuff. But he has a lot of interesting stuff from there being no dust on the lunar lander to the flag waving, all your kind of conventional things but then you go one step deeper even on the pro side and like he kind of dismantles any argument. So I know, yeah, that's where I net out that it was really optically curated and managed but we did go but I don't know. - Well, if it would be of interest, I'm happy to talk to him at some point. - That'd be awesome. - See his reasons and go step by step with him through it and see what we can maybe agree on. - That'd be cool 'cause you seem really hard headed and you mentioned a couple of things though in your intro that I wanted to dig into. One is that you studied kind of statistical analysis around parapsychology, so like remote viewing, mind matter effects, what prompted you to do that and how did you shake out? Do you think it's real? - Well, from the time that I was, I mean, my interest in this topic goes way, way, way back when I was like, I don't know, 9, 10, 11 and had an uncle who was really interested in these topics and he said, but it's probably all nonsense and there are skeptics like James Randy and other skeptic organizations that say all of this is not really true but it would be cool if it were true. Years later, I got in touch with Dr. Hal Putoff as a high school student. I was looking to do an Intel science talents search project on something to do with zero point fluctuations in the physics of that, so I ended up contacting Hal and I was at an on 10th grade or so. - How long ago is this? - It's like 2002, so yeah, I was, I mean, I had read a number of his number of articles about his physics work, the suggestion, his suggestion that gravity is a zero point fluctuation force and gravity and inertia are zero point fluctuation forces and I knew about Earth Tech and the experimental work that his team was doing. - As a sophomore in high school, you knew about all this. - Yeah, I was reading about claims of free energy devices and anti-gravity to buy fuel brown effect all of that from years before and Hal was someone who struck me as a serious physicist, obviously, with excellent academic credentials, mainstream credentials, who was also open-minded enough to consider some of these more maybe fringy ideas in physics and so yeah, I reached out to him and we established the communication back and forth for a while and then when I was in the 11th grade, I took like an AP Psych course and the textbook said there's nothing to parapsychology that people have done experiments, these two people, Russ Targ and Hal put off at Stanford, the 70s tried to do some experiments with Yuri Geller and with remote viewing, but James Randy debunked all of it. So I wrote to Hal and I said, "Hal, I didn't know you did research on parapsychology." And he said, "Oh yeah, I have." And yeah, what your textbook says is all wrong and here's an article that I wrote about the remote viewing program with Stargate and Scanate or DIA and CIA and so I was really surprised but also very interested and impressed with the carefulness of the article Hal gave me, the overview of the research done and his book Mind at Large, which is a compendium of his published papers in the IEEE and the 70s or so. And then I got in contact with the pair lab Princeton Engineering and Homeless Research Lab, Brenda Dunn and Robert John. I called them and I said, "Hi, I'm a senior high school student, I'd like to participate as a test subject for your lab, your psychokinetic and remote viewing experiments because if this is real, I'd like to see it happen for myself and I'd like to see how you run your experiments and all of that." And so they invited me and we established kind of a communication and I was kind of an intern at the lab on and off for a while. But at the same time, I had a foot in the skeptics community. I joined psychop and I interacted with those people. I wanted to have a foot in each to try to stay sort of scientifically neutral and to consider both sides and I didn't really settle on an opinion at that point and I kind of put it on hiatus, my interest in that subject until I got through my undergraduate studies. And then once I went to grad school, I decided that, you know what, I know enough statistics at this point that I should be able to do my own analyses of various size studies. And one of the ones that was most interesting to me was the Gantzfeld Protocol, which is a sensory deprivation technique developed in the '70s, really by German psychologists then used by parapsychologists like Charles Honerton and some others to try to amplify side effects of the telepathy or clairvoyance or pre-cognitive type. And since then, there have been thousands of trials conducted across hundreds of studies, across dozens of countries going back to the '70s. So there's this big public database of publicly available database. Explain the Gantzfeld method for somebody's not familiar. Essentially what they do is there's a sender and a receiver. The sender is in one room, the receiver is in another room. And the receiver is asked to look at a video screen or maybe a photograph of a particular image chosen from a set of four possible videos or photographs. And it's chosen randomly, according to some random procedure. And they're asked to try to telepathically send information about the target, the visual target, to the receiver, who's in the other room. And the receiver is put into this sensory deprivation state called the Gantzfeld. Gantzfeld is German for whole field. And essentially the way they do this is they take ping-pong balls, cut them in half, tape them over the eyes of the receiver, and they shine a red flood light onto their face. So they just see a uniform bright red visual field. And then they put on headphones and white noise is played so that auditorily, all they're hearing is white noise. And after about 15, 20 minutes, most people start to have mild sensory and auditory hallucinations, or at least they see imagery of some kind or another. And one of the experimenters prompts the receiver to describe what they're seeing and describe it scriptively. And as the receiver is saying, I'm seeing, I don't know, a man in a red suit, a fat man in a red suit. And I see a Coca-Cola bottle or whatever they write it down and write everything down, maybe draw some diagrams and then after about 45 minutes, they're brought out of the Gansfeld state. And this is all happening while the sender is in the his room trying to mentally project or send the imagery to the receiver. After the receiver is brought out of the Gansfeld state, they're asked more questions, maybe asked to draw what they saw in more detail. So all of this information, it's called "Amentation" is then used by the receiver and the experimentalist in the room with the receiver. To try and identify the target image from a set of four that's given to them on say a screen, for example, a computer screen that's like separate from the computer screen in the sender's room. And essentially they try to guess or identify the target and they have a one in four chance of doing so, but over thousands of trials, cumulatively the hit rate across the best trials, or at least the best quality studies, seems to be around 30 to 35%. And it seems that certain subpopulations, particularly artists, professional artists and musicians, perform significantly better on the order of like 40 to 45%, success rate where the sort of chance expectation is 25%. And so if you do some simple statistical analysis on that, something called an exact binomial test, you'll find the odds against chance of this is something like one part in maybe 10 to the 12, one part in a trillion or something like that. Yeah, so this is like the single line update of code that like changes everything. Like if if there is some sort of mind matter or interaction or like mental interaction across space time that like goes faster than light or whatever, you kind of have to throw out all your priors when it comes to physics, when it comes to even consensus reality, even the alien disclosure stuff, it's sort of impossible to have this conversation. Like you've done this statistical analysis, so has this woman named Jessica Uts. I believe she's at UC Irvine, and she was the president of the American Statistical Association in 2016. And she did this whole kind of meta analysis of stargate and the remote viewing stuff, which it sounds like you did along with the GANS field. And like she was like if this were any other field, this it would be beyond a shadow of doubt of a doubt. It's so it's so beyond, you know, replicable. And because it's called parapsychology, it's sort of, you know, laughed off. You mentioned Bob John, he was the dean of the engineering school, who's invented, you know, plasma propulsion, that's in satellites we use today. You know, and he's basically spent the last 40 years of his life working on random event generators and trying to prove out this mind matter effect. And no one would listen to him other than Navy Spooks who were extremely interested in what he was doing. So it's this weird bifurcation of like, you know, people like yourself who earnestly look into it. It's like obviously there, you know, Joe Rogan just had on Dean Raiden, you just earnestly look into it for like a little bit. And you're like, okay, this is obviously a thing. And then everyone, you know, in consensus academia, it just completely dismisses it and says it's sort of like a joke. I want to now talk about your physics theory because, you know, I find that to be fascinating. You know, there are very few people who are kind of, you know, coming from the hard headed physics world, who try to explain UFOs or who even open to UFOs. So what is your physics theory? If you were to describe it at a high level for not technical, but interested in the substance audience, the best broad explanation that I can see as out there from physics as we know it. Is that UFOs understood as extraterrestrial, the engineered craft of some kind. They are doing something called space time metric engineering or essentially engineering, the structure of space time. And this particular object called the metric, which is the central object of Einstein's theory of gravity known as general relativity, the Einsteinian description of gravity and space time. Essentially, they're probably setting up a type of metric called a warp drive metric. It's a particular kind that, I mean, the most well-known version was due to this guy Alcubier. Essentially, it can, it's a space time that involves the contraction of space in front of an object and the expansion of space behind the object. And this particular combination of contraction and expansion can actually tug or pull something inside of this metric region in between in the direction of the contraction. And it doesn't require any sort of conventional ejection mass or reaction mass of any kind. You don't need to throw something out the back. So it's a true example of a reactionless propulsion system and it requires massive amounts of negative energy density to do. Which we don't know how to engineer. We don't know how to engineer it. We only know how to engineer it in an extremely small object. You have sunny white with you can engineer the chasmere effect, which is this sort of almost like anti-gravity dark energy quantum black vacuum fluctuations related force, where you have two non-charge but conductive plates when they're placed very close together, they sort of attract in this anomalous way. And then he can harness that into like this like what is it 1.5 kilo volt or like some super low voltage chip. That's like amazing. I mean, if you can like light up anything and use that as like real electricity, that's nuts. But so yeah, so so you're saying if you can then scale that to, you know, much higher levels, then maybe you can operate a UFO. In principle, it seems, I mean, general relativity theory, Einstein's theory of gravity allows it in principle. One of the open questions still in the physics is there's a thing called quantum fluctuations or zero point fluctuations. Basically the, I guess you could say the energy associated with quantum fields and their lowest energy state. There's a question about how they would gravitate or what kind, how they would influence the space time metric. And this is an area of active research, but we don't really have a yet a consistent theory of how that would work. So it's still an open question and one possibility is that it might turn out that the way that quantum fields altered the metric. In other words, how they gravitate could destabilize. It could be such that they destabilize warp drive space times and make them basically unworkable. If that's the case, then it's got to be something much more exotic. It would mean that there is something fundamentally that we're missing in our current physics. But I think, but if it doesn't, then I would say this is the most likely. Because the Alcubi area thing doesn't require any sort of break in Einstein. It's consistent with Einstein, right? It's within relativity. It's just if you can harness, you know, negative energy, negative mass some way, then you can create this sort of, you know, space time metric engineering. So, okay, interesting. So that would be your top candidate. Is that we just figure out how it's more of an engineering problem than it is a theoretical physics problem at this point. I mean, I would say maybe it's a combination of both just because the theoretical understanding can also inform the engineering understanding. But then again, we also know that it's possible to engineer things to a very high degree of precision without fully understanding the physics behind the fundamental reasons why they work. That's true. Maybe the way that make progress is just to continue experimenting and tinkering and to try to prepare larger quantities of negative energy density and the right configurations and just make a work drive and see if it works. Yeah, don't worry about the theory not being up to speed with the experiments. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I think maybe that's the way to go. Have you ever been asked to be part of the legacy UFO program? No, I wish I would be I even asked how put off an air Davis once I said, well, if I were interested in doing that, how should I go about it and how do they recruit people and yeah, they gave some general pointers to me about how they would work or what you would have to do. What were the points? It was just that you would have to first apply to an aerospace corporation, one of the major ones that are implicated as one of being part of the legacy program work work for them for a few years on maybe on a more public project. Get top secret sci clearance express interest in the legacy program and then there will be like an internal call to applicants or if they think you're both interested and you're capable. they'll maybe reach out to you and then- If that's the only path where we're fucked. 'Cause I mean, I think you got to, I mean, that's crazy. That doesn't make sense. But that, I mean, that's interesting to hear, that that was directly from Eric and Hal, who I think of as, you know, being on the outside the closest proximity wise to the inside, as it can be. They seem like they really have an understanding of the map and the frameworks and all that sort of stuff. Yeah, and to some extent, a lot of my knowledge of this is I've built on their work on this, like, space-time metric engineering is a phrase that Hal came up with. Hal put off came up with. Yeah, I think it's appropriate terminology and he's written papers on this. Eric Davis is also written a number of papers on warp drives and traversable wormholes and I've studied their works and then I've I'm, you know, trying to build on this with a new type of framework that I think can potentially describe how quantum fields gravitate and that could be used to address these questions about. The feasibility of warp drives. Something I've been toying with recently because I had this discussion with Eric Davis and Eric Weinstein and it was super frustrating because we were talking to Eric Davis and we're like, so did you find any theoretical physicist on the program? And he was like, no, there are none of them were theoretical physics. He was like, maybe one guy Bernard Heish or something. Yeah. And we're like, what? What? No one. And so one interpretation is like the military industrial complex is like totally asleep at the wheel. Like has no idea what's going on. This is like, you know, it's like crisis mode. This is crazy. It's like this cargo cult. That's like super poorly run. And then on the other side of that, it's like the people who've seen these objects know that physics falls so far short of ever being able to ever crack these things open. And it's so much more consciousness related. These are like boundary condition celestial platonic objects that you know a la the holographic principle like we see that you know the 3D boundary of but they exist in some higher dimensional space. And we just, you know, we've tried but we could like barely get in and maybe we got in after 50 years to one of them or something and then we were really confused once we got in a like that sort of thing. Those are the only two explanations either super asleep at the wheel or it's not physics at all. And like, and they know it's not physics and the whole and then you get into like are there intentional conflations being made between these like exotic physics frameworks around, you know, high frequency gravitational waves gravitational manipulation with solid state superconductors and bio field brown and like all these things that like a real topological physics anomalies that lead to like really cool exciting lineages of science and breakthroughs is that being conflated with this UFO conversation, which is really just parapsychological and has nothing to do with like nuts and bolts science. My impression is, I mean from what I've understood, for example, how put off mentions that he was asked by the Bush administration, the second Bush administration to partake in some sort of a review and to ask about like, what would it take for disclosure to occur? What would be the cost and benefit, the cost and the benefits of that? And one of the conclusions that this review team came up with is that each aerospace company wants to keep their progress or their work proprietary and they don't want to reveal their secrets to the other one. And so there's this incentive for different aerospace corporations to just not talk to the other ones about their findings and to be extremely guarded about who they allow into the program. And so the incentive to keep these things secret and to control who can come in and who can't leads to limitations in terms of, yeah, who gets to know about what's being done actually in these or who gets to work on these programs and very few people from academia even think to say, oh, I'm going to go into aerospace and show an interest in UFOs. For sure. But if you really run that simulation, say like Lockheed has, you know, the Kingman craft from Arizona and it's some warehouse or whatever. And it's just like, no seams, no rivets, like this beautiful thing. And you really want to make it work because like you have this market cap that's like, you know, good, but like you need the quarter of a quarter growth, you have your shareholder meetings, you know, you have China and Russia and like, you got to make progress on this thing. Do you not think that at some point you'd be like, okay, like the tinkering hasn't really worked. The engineering's been tough. Let's get ahead hunter to find some theoretical physicists. Let's create a short list of the theoretical physicists that would be open-minded to this in the first place or qualified to work on this. Let's show them the goods. You know, do you not think that that would happen at some point? Perhaps at some point, but they might be extremely few, highly selected. And if they were there in society, they would definitely not be able to say anything publicly. And they might even be one of the people say, this is all bullshit, and it's none of its real. I think I vaguely remember some people suggesting that Edward Teller maybe was one of the maybe one of the physicists who if he if there is a legacy program, he was on it. If there is a legacy program for sure. Yeah. So then that would be an instance of this of extremely few people are selected, people that can have shown a track record of trustworthiness with secrets, even smaller secrets, for example. And I didn't know if you know this, but there's a project sign or grudge document from pre-blue book in the late 40s. And Edward Teller's name is on it where he's engaging in a real UFO review. So that's fascinating. You have that. And then you have the fact that you got Bob Lazarus job with EG&G, which I think you can almost definitively say at this point, there's too much data there to dismiss. And then you have the fact that he was, you know, friendly with Thomas Townsend Brown and was shown kind of a demo of his fan precipitator experiment and said, I have no idea how this works and freaks out. And then gets this guy, Floyd Oedlum, who's the majority or one of the biggest shareholder in Northrop pre-merger with Grumman to invest in Townsend Brown. And just thing after thing after thing. It's like he was, yeah. And he was a very obviously deeply associated with Lawrence Livermore Lab. He just had to have known something. And then he's, there's even a letter where he's talking about John Alexander. John Alexander is like, you know, synonymous with, you know, UFO research on the government side for the last 70 years. Like that guy has as much of a history or top of the pyramid understanding as anybody, again, in the kind of public world. And there's a letter where Teller is like commending John Alexander saying, like, you know, this guy has made all these important updates and non-lethal warfare. And so like that's a wild connection. Yeah, that's really interesting. So yeah, I think Teller would be somebody who would have been on legacy, you know, back in the day. Yeah. But, but you know, maybe to your point about it's just something so far beyond any of our theories and models of the world that there's just no point in trying to bring in, I don't know, Ed Witten from Princeton Institute for Advanced Study because it's just, there's no reason to think that anything he knows about string theory or physics could help. If we gave Galileo, I don't know, an iPhone, and we asked him to explain how it works based on just the limited principles of physics that he understood, he would get absolutely nowhere, despite being the greatest living physicist of his time. Even to Newton, he would get absolutely nowhere with that. Yeah, well, you'd have an interface, you can play around with the interface. Yeah, maybe that then. Yeah, but would you be able to know how it works like probably, you know, probably not in your lifetime? Yeah, the knowledge base at that time. Yeah, he would look at it under microscope. He wouldn't recognize what he's seeing. He wouldn't know anything about solid, safe physics, quantum, quantum mechanics, electricity, magnetism. There's just too much cumulative knowledge. And so they might not even be able to turn it on if it was like, let's say it was battery was dead. So maybe these people in this, you know, presumed legacy program, they've just assessed that there's nothing in the cutting edge of theoretical physics research that seems like it could be useful at all to actually getting these things to work. And that might just be another reason why they don't even bother to try is that's my best guess. I mean, I, but it's as always, you can't really say until you're, you know, yeah, involved with these people. Yeah. Well, Max, this has been a blast, man. A lot of fun. It feel like it's been like a comprehensive overview of all of the hard-headed evidence around anomalies on the Moon Mars with the space program. And anybody who's earnestly looking at this stuff should seriously look at your work because because it's seriously done in good faith that's done a regular job. rigorously. And I don't really see a lot of clear and easy debunks, you know, for it. I guess I'll end on a final question here, which is you have all of this data now. A lot of the data, you know, points to almost things maybe happening live on the moon right now. And then you obviously have structures that seem sort of more ancient when it comes to both the moon and Mars. So have you gone to the like theory layer or like the, you know, what is the, what is the analysis of all of the data? And do you have like a place where you net out on alien life and its current existence or past existence? I think the abundance, so I look at this as a cumulative case, maybe no one particular anomaly, say on the moon or Mars is definitive. It's a probabilistic cumulative case. You add up all these particular lines of evidence and you ask, in light of all of this evidence combined, what is the most probable explanation is that it's all just parodolia and natural geology that's just like fooling us or or is there an intelligent cause explanation of some kind or another. And I think that the inference to the best explanation of this cumulative data is that there was a past extraterrestrial presence of some kind or another on the moon and on Mars in the solar system more broadly. And we have some pretty strong evidence that there have even been craft of some kind or probe of some kind sent to the solar system. Here I'm referring to STS 48, STS 80, the two space shuttle cases that I mentioned earlier, probably the fast walkers, the DSP. So do you think those are probes or do you think those are live beings that are sentient on the inside that represent some other civilization? I don't know for sure, but my best guess would be that probes probably of some kind, at least if they're doing something really exotic in terms of their propulsive capabilities. But it could be something much more exotic than that. So I keep an open mind about that. But what I'm trying, what I would like to do just for the scientific community is to lay out these anomalies, explain in detail why the sort of remotely plausible geological or natural explanations don't make sense. That's all you need to do to then say, okay, there must be an intelligent cause explanation. And if it's an intelligent cause explanation, it's not from humans. So you're only left with one possibility, which is an extraterrestrial and origin, broadly construed. Well, you do a very good job of logically walking someone down that road. And you're reminding me when we were talking about probes, I think there's a former NASA guy named Stephen Dick, who's part of Avi Loeb's Galileo project, who talks about this as sort of some sort of AI layer, like protective layer of Earth. And there's another guy, I think, named Patrick Jackson, who has like a spear network theory. So yeah, I think I think the right thing to do is definitely to leave all options on the table. It's so hard to say and so hard to sense make around this. Again, going back to the top of our conversation, if the parapsychology stuff is at all real, all things are possible. I agree. But I really appreciate this conversation, Max. And yeah, hopefully we can run it back at some point. Yeah, it would be great. It was a great honor. Big fan of your works. It was my honor, man. Awesome. All right. Cool. [MUSIC]