Latest / Lost Civilizations: Ancient Aliens & Forgotten History / Brad Olsen, Antarctica & Operation Highjump: Hidden History or Historical Myth?

Transcript

Brad Olsen, Antarctica & Operation Highjump: Hidden History or Historical Myth? · Lost Civilizations: Ancient Aliens & Forgotten History

0:21
Hello and welcome back.
0:22
Today we are going to discuss Brad Olsen
0:25
and he has a number of theories that
0:27
I would like to share with you.
0:31
I just think I'll start.
0:34
First of all, Brad Olsen's look at Antarctica
0:38
as a center of, should we say, hidden
0:41
history.
0:43
He sees Antarctica as the most important area
0:48
on the earth, where a lot of secrets
0:50
about the human past and future is.
0:56
His main idea is that Antarctica is purely
0:59
researched, basically, that we have large areas that
1:06
is under kilometers of ice and therefore entire
1:11
ecosystems, civilizations, or perhaps alien bases might exist.
1:17
He points out that there is more than
1:20
150 subglacial seas under the ice that isolate
1:26
its ecosystems with unknown bacterias and probably larger
1:30
life forms.
1:32
And then there's the geothermic activity that can
1:35
generate heat under the ice.
1:38
His point is that if life can exist
1:41
in these environments, perhaps also advanced installations or
1:46
civilizations are hidden there.
1:49
A central part of his argument is that
1:51
Antarctica can have previous civilizations and that he
1:58
built on old maps.
2:00
He particularly points to the Paris map, to
2:03
the Orange-Finney map, and the Philippe Boucher
2:07
map.
2:08
Sorry for my pronunciations.
2:10
If you read, if you need, look at
2:12
the transcript.
2:13
There it is.
2:14
But according to Olson, this map shows Antarctica
2:18
without ice, it shows a different coastline, and
2:22
it shows multiple or possible, should we say,
2:26
land bridges and fjords.
2:28
He also means, or his conclusion is, that
2:32
these maps must have been copies of much
2:34
older cards from the lost civilizations.
2:43
Because of these cards and so on, or
2:45
sorry, or maps, I keep calling them cards,
2:47
I'm sorry for that.
2:49
But because of these maps, his conclusion is
2:52
that the prehistoric global civilization must have existed,
2:57
that the civilization has mapped the entire planet
2:59
before it was destroyed.
3:04
Another important part of Brad Olson is that
3:07
the Nazis.
3:10
A very central point of his, should we
3:13
say, telling is about Nazi Germany in Antarctica,
3:17
and he especially points to the expedition in
3:20
1938-1939, where the Nazis, they mapped the
3:25
entire areas about Neuss-Schwabenland.
3:30
They also discovered geothermic areas without ice.
3:35
They built base 211 or slash New Berlin,
3:39
and this area should be particularly attractive because
3:43
of warm springs, hidden fjords, and access to
3:48
underground facilities, basically big rooms.
3:54
He means that a lot of the Nazis,
3:56
they escaped using submarines to South America and
4:02
to Antarctica.
4:03
He also claims that perhaps up to 250
4:06
,000 Nazis escaped, and that Hitler perhaps did
4:12
not die in the bunker.
4:16
And from there the Nazis should have carried
4:18
on with their projects.
4:21
One thing I learned a couple of years
4:23
ago was that Stalin, he kept looking for
4:28
Hitler after the Second World War, and that
4:31
search only stopped when Stalin died in, I
4:33
can't remember if it was 53 or 55,
4:36
whatever.
4:38
Stalin never took Hitler's death for granted.
4:43
Back to Olsen.
4:45
Olson also claims that the Nazis developed advanced
4:49
flying airplanes.
4:55
He claims, for instance, he names the Hanabu,
4:58
the Glocke, and anti-gravity engines.
5:03
This technology should be based on reverse engineering
5:06
of UFOs and in cooperation with aliens.
5:11
According to him, this aircraft was moved to
5:15
Antarctica in the late part of the war.
5:22
Furthermore, Olsen also means that Operation Highjump, that
5:27
was a secret war in Antarctica.
5:32
And that expedition in 1946-1947 was not
5:37
a scientific one, but a military assault, basically.
5:41
He described the following scenario, that U.S.
5:44
sends a big fleet to Antarctica, they try
5:49
to attack the Nazis' bases and so on,
5:53
they meet advanced flying saucers, and the navy
6:00
was repelled.
6:02
He claims that several airplanes were lost, a
6:06
destroyer was chopped up by an energy weapon,
6:10
and UFO came out of the ocean.
6:13
This should explain why the expeditions ended earlier
6:18
than anticipated.
6:22
Furthermore, Olsen also put a great weight on
6:26
a diary from the Polar Force Admiral Richard
6:32
Byrd.
6:33
According to this history, Byrd, he flew into
6:36
a big hole at the South Pole, and
6:40
in the inner earth he found a green
6:43
valley, he found mammoths, and he found an
6:47
advanced civilization called Ariane.
6:51
This, should we say, aliens, or whatever we
6:56
want to call them, should be a lot
6:58
more technologically advanced.
7:01
They should be concerned about our use of
7:06
atomic weapons, and they asked Byrd to give
7:10
a message to the governments of the world.
7:15
In Antarctica, the Nazis should have cooperated with,
7:19
should we say, non-human aliens, and he
7:27
described a couple of types.
7:28
First of all, he describes the Draco reptiles
7:32
as evil, but they cooperated with the Nazis,
7:36
and they gave the Nazis technology.
7:39
There should also have been a Nordic, or
7:41
the Andromedans, they were more polite, and they
7:45
communicated telepathically.
7:50
And then, of course, the last one, the
7:52
Ariane, the inner earth civilization, that is a
7:56
very old civilization, and they live inside the
7:59
earth under Antarctica.
8:04
Based on this technology, Olson means that the
8:07
Nazis has the technology to a secret space
8:10
program.
8:11
He claims that the Nazis created a dark
8:16
fleet, that the dark fleet was first to
8:21
the space before the US, and the US
8:25
later made agreements with the Nazis' dark fleet.
8:33
According to Olson, this, that secret bases were
8:40
created, that there were cooperation between military and
8:44
aliens, and technology were hidden from the public.
8:50
Olson also claims that this history caused a
8:57
new power system.
8:59
According to him, fourth rights exist, a global
9:02
elite, and then we have secret organizations like
9:05
the Majestic 12, called MJ-12.
9:09
They control UFO technology, alien contacts, and secret
9:14
projects.
9:16
And he also claims that even not even
9:18
the US president has full clearance for this
9:20
information.
9:22
Another important idea in the worldview of Brad
9:29
Olson is the black goo.
9:31
According to Olsen, that is a black, intelligent
9:35
compound with AI, and it is able to
9:45
manipulate biological life.
9:48
He claims it was stored under Antarctica.
9:50
It was found on the South Thule Island,
9:54
where it was taken by the UK under
9:58
the Falkland Wars.
10:01
Later, it should have been transported to British
10:07
laboratories, and from there it was lost.
10:12
Basically, it was escaped into the wild.
10:21
If we look at Antarctica, then Olson claims
10:27
that the satellite picture shows that we have
10:30
pyramid-like structures, that we got enormous disc
10:35
-shaped objects under the ice, and we can
10:38
see the remains of a very old civilization.
10:42
His argument is that the nature can have
10:45
not done these perfectly squares, therefore the structures
10:51
must have been artificial.
10:54
He furthermore finds it superstitious that a lot
10:59
of well-known persons has visited the continent.
11:03
He mentioned politicians, religious leaders, astronauts, and so
11:08
on.
11:09
And his speculation is that they are visiting
11:12
secret installations, that they see some kind of
11:18
artifacts or spaceships.
11:23
So, if I try to round up what
11:26
Olson claims is that there was once a
11:33
prehistoric global civilization, its legacy was that it
11:37
left maps and technology.
11:41
Antarctica is saving, should we say, the remains
11:44
of this civilization.
11:47
The Nazis during the Second World War discovered
11:49
the secrets.
11:51
They escaped after the World War II Antarctica.
11:56
They developed advanced technology.
11:58
The Nazis cooperated with aliens.
12:03
U.S. tried to attack them during Operation
12:08
High Jump, and today there is a secret
12:10
space program, and a global elite is covering
12:15
the truth.
12:19
A large part of the argument from Olson
12:21
is built on historical maps and old documents.
12:26
For instance, he used the Paris map.
12:28
He used the map of Orange Finée.
12:31
He used the map of Philippe Boucher.
12:34
He claims that he has seen that Admiral
12:38
Byrd's diary, and he sees letters from submarine,
12:44
German submarine crew, and from general Nazi documents.
12:51
The general assumption is that if you have
12:55
an old document where you have something weird,
12:59
then he seems to take that as an
13:03
evidence of lost knowledge, and that knowledge must
13:08
come from lost civilizations.
13:11
For instance, the Paris map shows, according to
13:15
him, Antarctica without ice, which he takes as
13:18
evidence that an older civilization that mapped the
13:22
continent before it froze.
13:26
Sorry, I still have the remains of a
13:29
coat.
13:30
The important thing here is that it's also,
13:35
I mean, we can discuss how much is
13:39
required, but I'm personally under the impression that
13:43
if something is covered with ice, then you
13:49
have no idea what it is, beneath, unless
13:52
you have some radar or something like that.
13:55
And the thing is with that Paris map
13:57
is that, as I mentioned in one of
14:00
my earlier podcasts, is that it's from the
14:02
15th century, and at that time, LiDAR and
14:06
other kind of radars was not invented.
14:08
So when you have a map that clearly
14:10
shows, at least in headlines, the valleys, the
14:15
rivers, and so on, then this knowledge must
14:18
have come from somewhere.
14:20
That is not something you can invent.
14:23
The probability of that is non-existing.
14:27
It's far easier to win the big jackpot
14:33
in Lotto every week for the next four
14:36
months than it is to do a map
14:38
that is actually covering the sea.
14:42
Furthermore, a large part of Bayrouz's material is
14:47
actually building on personal, should we say, witnesses
14:51
from whistleblowers.
14:53
He mentions military pilots, scientists, technicians, people that,
15:00
different crew from research stations, and so on.
15:04
And those persons claims to have seen UFO,
15:08
they've seen secret bases, they have seen advanced
15:12
technology.
15:14
For instance, I remember one of them was
15:17
when a fleet officer explains that during a
15:23
trip over Antarctica, the entire crew saw a
15:27
gigantic hole in the ice, and they were
15:29
ordered to forget it.
15:31
The problem is here is, is it true
15:35
or is it not?
15:36
Because we know that USA has policies that
15:43
is clearly perhaps the spread of this kind
15:48
of information.
15:49
It's not only the Manhattan Project, it's all
15:52
over.
15:52
When you have NDA, non-disclosure agreements, where
15:57
you cannot share what you see.
16:00
So that is what is on in the
16:04
one hand, and then the other hand you
16:06
have, I mean, if you want others to
16:11
believe in you, you must have some kind
16:13
of evidence.
16:15
And that is, by the end of the
16:18
day, the problem here, because those guys, they
16:22
know they cannot claim, sorry, they cannot prove
16:25
their claim.
16:27
And that's the issue here.
16:30
But if we go back to Olsen, he
16:34
also claims another type of proof, and that
16:40
is what we could call visuals anomalies.
16:43
When he shares Google Earth pictures, satellite photos,
16:47
and so on, we can see that there
16:51
is something.
16:52
He concludes that it's pyramids, it's spacecraft under
16:57
the ice, and it's artificial structures.
17:00
The argument is typical that nature cannot do
17:04
perfect angles, therefore it has to be artificial.
17:13
In terms of traditional, should we say, archaeologists,
17:17
we might have a small problem here, because
17:20
Brad Olsen, he often cites other persons from
17:27
the same, should we say, environment, like Corey
17:30
Goat, Linda Moldenhau, Joseph Farrell, Harold Kautzweller, and
17:37
they seem to use it as, should we
17:41
say, authority through repetition.
17:45
The problem with that is that it might
17:48
seem, should we say, more trustworthy, but the
17:52
thing is that when you start analyzing this
17:55
kind of argument, then you have some problems.
17:59
One of the most common one is what
18:01
you could call a change of assumptions.
18:05
Let me take an example.
18:07
You have an old map that shows Antarctica.
18:12
You make the assumption that the maps are
18:16
accurate, so they must come from an older
18:21
civilization, and this civilization has advanced technology, and
18:26
that civilization is global.
18:29
But each of these steps is a new
18:32
exception, sorry, is a new assumption.
18:38
So that means that if one goes, the
18:41
entire chain goes.
18:46
And another thing is that we could also
18:48
say something like, we do not know what
18:50
this is, so hence it must have been
18:52
something extraordinary.
18:54
For instance, if we see objects on the
18:59
seabed, satellite pictures and so on, then
19:08
a lack of explanation can be taken as
19:16
evidence of something as artificial.
19:21
If I should try to summon up the
19:24
the academical critic of Bertholdsen, that is that
19:28
if you want to keep it short, you
19:29
could say that Bertholdsen, he works primarily what
19:32
they would call synthetic speculation.
19:36
For them, it means that he collects a
19:38
lot of anomalies.
19:41
He connects them in a common story, but
19:48
without strong empirical documentation for his conclusions.
19:56
I would like to highlight that does not
19:58
necessarily mean that all the questions he raises
20:01
is irrelevant.
20:02
For instance, is it a fact that Antarctica
20:05
is still purely researched, that there are historical
20:14
mysteries, and old maps are interesting study objects.
20:23
But the conclusion he has is a lot
20:27
more, extends a lot further than the evidence
20:34
justified.
20:36
I think that is a lot of, sorry,
20:38
that covers a lot of traditional archaeologies.
20:42
He goes too far, they would say.
20:45
One of the key problems here is that
20:48
when we discuss things like Antarctica, we say
20:51
that the Nazis are living there, and they
20:55
have a secret space program, etc.
20:58
It is well known that states all over
21:02
the globe does not share knowledge.
21:07
They sometimes go exactly the other way around.
21:12
We have, for instance, if we take the
21:15
Manhattan Project, that is actually a school example
21:21
in how to do a secret program with
21:23
compartmentalized, should we say areas, or should we
21:28
say work silos.
21:30
So that means that what they do in
21:32
one building, nobody else is doing.
21:35
So in the next building, there could be
21:37
another one.
21:38
But yet again, they do not know what
21:39
they do in the first building, and so
21:41
on.
21:42
So when you have this kind of structures
21:44
in your government, that is also having, should
21:51
we say, clear policies regarding information sharing, or
21:56
should we say lack of, then it makes
21:59
it a little problematic, you know, to discuss
22:01
this kind in the open.
22:04
Because if he is right, it's very likely
22:07
that the U.S. will not admit that,
22:10
you know, hey guys, you remember the Nazis,
22:14
you thought we won, we actually didn't.
22:17
You know, that kind of message might not
22:20
be politically acceptable in, not only in the
22:25
U.S., but in the entire world.
22:28
But it could be the fact anyway.
22:33
So how do you research into this kind
22:35
of areas?
22:38
So in order to do a proper scientific
22:41
analysis in this, then it's easy to say
22:45
that conspiracy theories exist.
22:49
But it's well known that what is called
22:54
conspiracy theory has actually proven to be science.
23:01
There's a lot of these examples in the
23:03
history, where you have, where the states say
23:09
something like, not only the U.S., but
23:11
also the rest of the rest of the
23:13
world, they lied, or they hide, or they
23:18
did things.
23:22
Just to mention a few, we know the
23:24
Manhattan Project, 130,000 people worked on the
23:29
project, but the public knew nothing.
23:33
We have, from the later years, the F
23:36
-117, the stealth, that existed for more than
23:39
10 years in operational service before it was
23:42
public.
23:43
We have the Area 51, where the existence
23:46
was first officially acknowledged, I think it was
23:50
in 2013.
23:52
And then you have a lot of other
23:55
things, like the Tuskegee experiment, where U.S.,
23:59
they hit medical experiments on black Americans for
24:05
decades.
24:06
We have the CIA program, MK-ULTRA, with
24:10
the secret experiments with LSD.
24:13
So science cannot say something like, that the
24:20
state never lies.
24:22
But the more is that the state often
24:27
hides information, especially regarding military technology.
24:33
There can be good reasons for this.
24:36
I mean, you're going to have the military
24:37
strategy, if your enemies know the technology, you're
24:43
losing your advantage.
24:45
You can have diplomacy, where negotiations and conflicts,
24:50
they require secrecy.
24:54
And then there's also political responsibility, where the
24:59
governments try to hide errors in order to
25:04
avoid scandals.
25:07
And then you have the general bureaucracy.
25:11
Institutions have a tendency to protect themselves.
25:15
So we can call this the secretary state.
25:22
But reality is that in this kind of
25:25
area, it is, the state is actually working
25:29
against the science.
25:34
You can see that in different, also in
25:37
the private, where you have the tobacco industries.
25:41
For decades, the tobacco industries tried to seed
25:46
some kind of, should we say, problems with
25:53
research in smoking.
25:56
You have in the oil industries, where some
26:01
companies, they knew about climate change long before
26:04
the public.
26:06
You have in military science, where projects are
26:11
classified for decades.
26:13
So when we discuss this, the scientists are
26:20
fully aware of that, should we say, powerful
26:23
actors can try to change the
26:32
research.
26:35
So how does science actually work with this?
26:39
Yeah, we know that, for instance, that science
26:41
into archives, where you, especially goes for document
26:47
that is released.
26:48
The thing is that this releases is often
26:51
after 20, 30, 50 years, perhaps more.
26:55
You have whistleblowers, that persons that, you know,
26:59
leaks information.
27:01
You got Freedom of Information Act that gives
27:04
access to state documents.
27:07
You have international sources, like other countries' archives.
27:13
If they have, you know, not 50 years
27:16
as retention period, but only 30, then you
27:18
might see something.
27:21
And for instance, examples are here, the Vietnam
27:24
War and the Pentagon Papers.
27:29
So science will often say something like that
27:34
the very large conspirations is hard to hide.
27:42
They will say something like that if you
27:43
have secret programs, then scientists in organizational structures,
27:51
they have researched this area.
27:53
And one of the key thing is that
27:56
when you have, when the number of involved
27:58
people raises, then the probability for a leakage
28:04
grows exponentially.
28:08
Mathematical models of this kind of conspirations shows
28:12
that the sequences, they will normally be released
28:21
pretty fast when you have a lot of
28:23
people.
28:24
The thing is that when I read this
28:27
studies, I'm not completely convinced that that is
28:31
correct.
28:32
Because one of the key thing is that
28:35
compartmentalization of work actually works by limiting
28:44
the number of involved persons.
28:47
So you can easily have a large project
28:52
where nobody knows what the other is doing,
28:55
and then you're going to have 100,000
28:57
or more working.
28:58
But since nobody is actually having the overview,
29:02
then where should it come from?
29:10
So from my perspective, that is a little
29:14
problematic because when you have a whistleblower coming
29:20
out, by the end of the day, on
29:25
a whistleblower is do you believe the guy
29:27
or don't you?
29:28
I mean, sometimes they have, like Edward Snowden,
29:33
a bag full of, or I think it
29:37
was a bag full of USB drives with
29:40
a lot of information.
29:42
But sometimes you don't.
29:44
But that does not mean that what the
29:46
whistleblower is saying is incorrect.
29:49
But, you know, bottom line is that do
29:52
you believe the whistleblower or don't you?
29:55
That's the key thing.
30:03
So when Olsen has these theories, so when
30:09
historians and others, they look for, you know,
30:13
is there primary documentations?
30:15
Is there independent sources?
30:18
Is there any kind of logical trace, you
30:20
know, budget, transportation, archives, and so on?
30:23
Is there scientific researches?
30:28
Then the answer is most likely not, no.
30:33
Because this kind of things is designed by
30:38
the project to be secret.
30:40
So it will often mean that the theory
30:45
is now considered as weak documented, even that
30:50
it might be true.
30:53
So you could say that the science, they
30:55
accept, should we say, state secrecy, but science
31:00
still requires documentations, sources that can be verified,
31:07
research data that can be reproduced, and so
31:10
on, despite that it is a true whistleblower.
31:25
So I think that we can conclude here
31:28
that lack of evidence is not the same
31:33
as evidence for exception.
31:39
So if we can't prove anything, it is
31:42
not the same as it does not exist,
31:45
basically.
31:47
The problem is that in history, the methodology
31:51
works with probabilities and not with logic.
31:55
Therefore, the historians will typically ask something like,
31:59
how many people should know this secret?
32:02
How many documents should exist?
32:04
How many logical traces or tracks should exist?
32:09
So if a scenario requires very large operations,
32:14
you will also expect to find many tracks.
32:18
So if we focus now on the Operation
32:21
Highjump in 1946-1947, it's very well documented.
32:30
But still today, a number of documents has
32:36
not been declassified.
32:42
Bluntly, Operation Highjump was a task force under
32:46
the command of the well-known Admiral Richard
32:50
E.
32:50
Byrd, five stars, and below him he had
32:54
4,700 sailors slash marines.
32:59
He got 13 ships and 33 airplanes.
33:03
According to the official documents, it was to
33:05
train in polar war scenarios, it was test
33:12
of equipment in extreme cold, it was mapping
33:16
of Antarctic, and it was establishments of bases.
33:24
To put it bluntly, it looked more like
33:31
a military invasion force than a science force.
33:37
I remember some years ago, I saw in
33:39
the Russian state TV, it was a TV
33:45
show back from, it was recorded in the
33:49
60s, and there the Soviet, Russian officers, they
33:55
were analyzing the composition of the force, including
34:01
the material, the aircraft carrier, whatever there was,
34:09
and they say that this is not for
34:11
science, this is for basically to invade.
34:18
And I must say here that I place
34:21
more stocks in this assessment than I do
34:25
in others, because this is a person that
34:28
knows what is required to do these kind
34:33
of things, but it's also a person that
34:36
has no, should we say, no stocks in
34:41
whatever goes out.
34:42
Is it right or wrong?
34:44
So this, I believe it was not a
34:51
colonel, they have below a one-star general
34:55
and a colonel in Russia, they have, should
34:59
we say, a super colonel, whatever he was
35:01
that.
35:03
Anyway, the composition of this task force was
35:08
quite military, and it's the only time that
35:12
this composition has been in the Arctic, not
35:16
before, not later.
35:18
So if this is a normal, should we
35:20
say, test, you should, you know, expect that
35:23
this composition was to be found again.
35:27
From my point of view, it does not
35:29
make sense, because during the Second World War,
35:36
Greenland, Denmark was occupied, and the Danish ambassador
35:40
in Washington, he made an agreement with the
35:43
USA that they could use Greenland for this
35:46
military operation.
35:49
So that meant that during the Second World
35:51
War, I think it was about 50 air
35:53
bases and so on, they created all the
35:55
way from Alaska to the East Greenland, where
36:01
the airplanes, they could simply, you know, fly
36:04
from airport to airport, and then transport the
36:09
planes from USA to Europe, where the war
36:12
went on.
36:13
So that means that for a couple of
36:15
years, they have 50 bases plus, I don't
36:19
know, hundreds of perhaps thousands of airplanes that
36:22
was passing through Greenland.
36:25
And Greenland is, despite of the word, a
36:28
pretty cold place.
36:29
So I see no point in why they
36:32
should go to Antarctica to test the same
36:38
equipment once more.
36:40
I mean, in Greenland during winter, you can
36:44
easily have minus 50 Celsius.
36:47
So it's, that's not a problem with that.
36:50
So from my perspective, it's a little, you
36:53
know, why do you want to test it
36:55
twice?
36:55
It does not make sense.
36:57
To me, this kind of explanations of this
37:01
is, you know, science, we want to test
37:02
the material and so on, blah, blah.
37:05
Okay, anyway, back to here.
37:09
In 46, the, should we say, the beginning
37:14
of the Cold War was starting.
37:15
And the military was interested in, should we
37:18
say, Arctic as well as Antarctic operations.
37:23
Also with bases in the Polars, and so
37:26
on.
37:27
One of the thing was that with atomic
37:30
weapons placed on rockets, you might now have,
37:33
should we say, a different flight path.
37:35
Now it suddenly makes sense to send it
37:38
through, to send rockets through Greenland or Antarctica.
37:47
Anyway, back to the Operation IJOMP.
37:52
Bottom line was that there was almost no
37:55
scientists.
37:58
Yes.
38:02
So why does it stop early?
38:06
Yeah, you know, the thing is that the
38:10
common explanation in the fleet reports was that
38:13
it was bad weather, that there were several
38:16
accidents, that there were logistical problems, and then
38:20
there was a starting winter.
38:23
And especially the last one, I think, I
38:25
mean, if you know just a tiny thing
38:30
of Antarctica as well as Arctic, it is
38:35
that, you know, the winter comes almost on
38:36
the same day every year.
38:38
So when you start late in this, then
38:43
you should not be surprised if the winter
38:45
comes as scheduled.
38:48
And that is one of the things that
38:50
I personally have a little, you know, come
38:53
on, man, you cannot say that you are
38:57
surprised that the winter comes, you know, more
39:01
or less the same day every year.
39:05
So if you know the winter starts at
39:08
December the 3rd, then, you know, you should
39:11
not be surprised if you have bad weather
39:13
one week later.
39:19
Anyway, bottom line here is that the mission,
39:24
that was a military one, it has nothing
39:26
to do with science, that many documents are
39:30
still classified.
39:32
And then on the way home, Admiral Byrd,
39:36
he gave some interviews in, I can't remember
39:38
if it was Chile or it was Argentina,
39:41
anyway, it was South America, where he gave
39:45
some cryptic interviews, where he says something like
39:49
during the next war we will fight enemies
39:53
that could fly from pole to pole very
39:55
fast and could, you know, basically he was
39:59
describing what we today we call UFOs.
40:02
So the bottom line
40:12
was instead of being on station for six
40:15
to eight months, the Operation High Jump was
40:18
called short to eight weeks.
40:22
And, yeah, and one of the things that
40:29
nobody has ever answered is that to me,
40:32
I mean, if it was, if the purpose
40:35
was to test, should we say, logistics on
40:40
large distances, etc., and you want to check
40:47
the materials in, you know, in winter conditions,
40:53
why not, you know, do it the year
40:56
after?
40:57
Perhaps this time a little earlier, so you
40:59
can, you know, so you don't have to
41:02
come there in the top of the summer.
41:06
Perhaps you should be there in the start
41:08
of the spring, so you can, you know,
41:10
have the entire summer up there.
41:23
Even that I'm not an intelligence guy, I
41:29
can't see any objective reason why documents from
41:37
Operation High Jump in 46, 47, that should
41:40
still be classified.
41:42
I mean, technology, well, I believe that the
41:46
technology we have there at that time, I
41:49
mean, I find it hard to believe that
41:52
it can still be classified here.
41:55
What is it, 47, 46?
41:58
46, that's almost 80 years ago.
42:02
And then, of course, there is, should we
42:05
say, the second and intelligence technique, but if
42:11
you have a document that is, you know,
42:15
is discussing cryptography or surveillance technique and so
42:21
on, then perhaps it can be, you know,
42:23
classified for a long time, but, you know,
42:25
still I find it a little hard to
42:27
believe that, you know, here 80 years later,
42:31
it's still, you know, valid.
42:34
Perhaps the simple reason is that it has
42:38
not been done yet, because nobody has asked,
42:40
to have it declassified.
42:43
And perhaps it also could be a resource
42:46
matter.
42:47
I mean, if you don't have enough resources,
42:50
you might not want to start with something
42:53
that nobody has asked for, and then perhaps
42:56
you will take the other areas where there's
43:01
actually request for declassifications.
43:07
One of the things is that, when you
43:10
have this, I mean, if you have something
43:12
that is classified, then the government say something
43:19
like, actively, they say this does not exist.
43:23
And, I mean, back to Area 51, for
43:27
decades, sorry, back to Area 51, we have
43:32
that officially denied for decades.
43:36
We got mass surveillance that is documented by
43:40
Edward Snowden, and we got MKUltra.
43:44
All of these things were denied publicly by
43:47
governments for years, for decades.
43:50
And then suddenly it's okay.
43:52
So, sorry, then suddenly it's declassified.
43:57
So, suddenly we have, oh yeah, Area 51,
44:00
yeah.
44:01
By the way, we are no longer using
44:03
it.
44:03
So, now you can, blah, blah.
44:05
The thing is here, the same methodology applies
44:10
to Antarctica and to Brad Olsen's, should we
44:14
say, views.
44:16
But I know that some scientists say that
44:20
there's almost every time small tracks before things
44:26
becoming declassified.
44:28
But the thing is that, what is enough?
44:32
I mean, if you, in a budget post,
44:35
in the congressional budget, find, should we say,
44:39
a vague comment, is that what you call
44:42
a trace?
44:46
The thing is that this kind of text
44:50
is always kinetic, and that could cover everything.
44:54
The same goes with satellite photos and so
44:57
on.
44:58
And when you have, like Brad Olsen, when
45:02
you have whistleblowers coming in here, you know,
45:05
by the end of the day is that,
45:06
do you trust the whistleblower or don't you?
45:09
So, it seems a little, you know, desaturated
45:13
when historians, you know, they ask for criteria
45:17
like logistical traces, technical or physical data, independent
45:23
sources, and this kind of things.
45:25
Because they don't exist.
45:28
And if they talk, they go to jail.
45:30
So, this kind of things is a little
45:35
problematic.
45:41
So, historians, they have one way of working
45:46
but that's contradicting, should we say, the experience
45:54
that we see in the system.
45:58
From my point of view, I see that
46:01
a lot of these historians, they could be,
46:08
should we say, a little too conservative by
46:15
accepting that, you know, perhaps alternative explanation exists.
46:20
Where the same persons, they look at themselves
46:23
as they say, we don't want to, you
46:26
know, conclusions without proper documentation.
46:30
So, the thing is that when is enough
46:32
enough?
46:39
Some years ago, I tried to look into
46:41
the congress budget post and what I found
46:46
was very generic.
46:48
I mean, it could be something like classified
46:50
research or special projects and that's it.
46:54
No address, no area, no topic and things
46:59
like that.
46:59
So, how on earth should you connect that
47:01
to, for instance, Antarctica if that was the
47:05
case?
47:07
So, this kind of things seems to be,
47:10
should we say, optimized against the scrutiny.
47:16
Somebody is clearly, you know, looking through the
47:20
budget before it's public in order to avoid
47:24
that you can read this kind of sentence
47:26
out of the budget.
47:32
But then you have, should we say, rumors
47:36
and indiges and so on.
47:38
The thing is that, yeah, it's used in
47:40
history, but it is not something you can
47:50
prove.
47:51
I mean, by the end of the day,
47:52
that is the definition of a conspiracy theory
47:55
we are discussing here.
47:57
Because you have no idea what it is,
48:00
you just have an idea that, you know,
48:04
I don't know, something happens and it is
48:07
not supposed to happening.
48:10
So, you could call it a signal that
48:12
something should be investigated, but it's not a
48:15
proof.
48:16
And if you don't have the money or
48:18
the resources to do this research, then then
48:25
it ends there.
48:29
So, to do a conclusion of Brad Olsen,
48:33
he is a writer in the area of,
48:38
should we say, alternative history, where he tries
48:41
to collect a number of mysteries into a
48:46
common storytelling regarding the human, should we say,
48:51
past.
48:52
His work is related to especially three themes.
48:57
He talks about lost civilizations and the Deluvian
49:01
history.
49:02
He talks about Arctis, sorry, and Arctis as
49:06
a possible center for hidden discoveries.
49:12
And he talks about secret military projects and
49:16
state's secrecy.
49:20
He often looks at the, should we say,
49:23
anomalies.
49:24
He looks at old maps and archaeological mysteries.
49:28
And then he looks at military, military story.
49:36
And then, of course, he also looks into
49:39
whistleblowers.
49:41
The key thing is to argument that the
49:43
official story does not tell us the entire
49:46
story and certain should we say recordings or
49:50
technologies can be hidden.
49:54
Brad Olsen's works also have some, should we
49:58
say, properties that makes it interesting for a
50:02
lot of people, because he asks questions regarding
50:06
the established explanations.
50:10
The history shows that states and institutions sometimes
50:13
can hide or, should we say, keep information.
50:18
He connects different historical things where he tries
50:23
to generate a larger telling that is connecting
50:28
geography, archaeology, and geopolitics.
50:31
And then he's pointing to real historical mysteries.
50:37
Things like Antarctica, old maps, secret military projects,
50:43
are, should we say, science areas.
50:50
If you look at the critics of his
50:52
works, that is basically that they think that
50:55
he has a weak documentation, because you cannot
50:59
have the information you want.
51:04
Brad Olsen will say, yeah, of course, because
51:06
the government will not give me what I
51:09
need.
51:11
Then he, then one of the other areas
51:15
where they want to criticize him is that
51:17
he makes big conclusions out of small anomalies.
51:22
And then he takes the different stories and
51:27
mix them all together.
51:29
And then the last one, that is, if,
51:38
should we say, lack of evidence that is
51:41
because of secrecy, then the theory becomes, should
51:46
we say, hard or impossible to test.
51:55
For me personally, I see his shows and
51:59
his books as inspirations to investigate the history
52:04
further, where others see them as examples of
52:09
how complex historical questions can be overdone.
52:16
Anyway, nice to have you back.
52:18
See you next week.