Latest / NO FILTER / Joe Rogan Experience _2533 - Diana Pasulka

Transcript

Joe Rogan Experience _2533 - Diana Pasulka · NO FILTER

0:04
Speaker 1: The Joe Rogan Experience.
0:06
Speaker 2: Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night, all day.
0:17
Speaker 1: Of course I know who he is. And I believe him.
0:20
Speaker 2: I do too. I mean, he certainly seems believable. People
0:26
that tell the same story for decades and decades without
0:30
any variation to it, It's hard. I mean, you know,
0:34
I don't know what happened. But all the people that
0:36
were with him during the time we're talking about for
0:39
people just listening now, talking about Travis Walton, who was
0:42
a man who in the 1970s was a logger in Arizona.
0:46
And he was allegedly, according to him, abducted by aliens.
0:52
And the people that he was with saw him get
0:54
hit by a beam of light. They freaked out, took off.
0:57
They were driving away and they were like, we got
0:59
to go back and get him. We got to go
1:00
back and get him. They turn around, went back and
1:01
got him. Try to get him. He was gone. The
1:04
craft was gone. And he disappeared for five days and
1:09
then turned up and had this insane story.
1:14
Speaker 1: Yeah. And then he's taken those tests like polygraph.
1:18
Speaker 2: Yeah.
1:19
Speaker 1: Polygraph tests like every year or something like that. He
1:22
takes them regularly and he always passes them.
1:25
Speaker 2: Well, so did the people that were with him.
1:27
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. And I've seen people interview the people that
1:31
were with him even just recently. And they're like, well, whatever,
1:35
regardless of what I think about Travis as a person, yeah,
1:38
that happened.
1:39
Speaker 2: Yeah, one of the guys actually got in a fistfight
1:40
with him the day of the abduction. The guy did
1:44
not like him. Like they hated each other. And then,
1:47
you know, they were young guys.
1:49
Speaker 3: Yeah.
1:49
Speaker 2: And then he had to testify. And he was like,
1:53
it happened.
1:53
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah.
1:54
Speaker 1: Whatever it was. So, yeah, I believe him. And his
1:57
interpretation has changed a lot too through the years. Not
2:01
the facts. The facts are all the same. But his
2:04
interpretation of them, like, you know, were they– because he
2:07
thought they were pretty malign, like bad, right? He didn't
2:10
enjoy being abducted. Let's put it that way. But then
2:14
over the years, he said, well, maybe something spiritual happened.
2:16
But I don't know where he's at right now. I
2:18
haven't seen a recent interview.
2:19
Speaker 3: Yeah.
2:19
Speaker 2: There's an interesting one that's out now with him and
2:22
Bob Lazar sitting across from each other. Oh, wow. Yeah,
2:25
in a diner. It's very weird. And they're sitting there
2:28
eating pie, talking about, you know, what they think this
2:33
whole thing is.
2:34
Speaker 1: Uh-huh, uh-huh.
2:35
Speaker 3: Yeah.
2:35
Speaker 1: Yeah.
2:37
Speaker 2: So what's new in the world of all this? Well,
2:41
a lot, right?
2:42
Speaker 3: Yeah.
2:43
Speaker 1: The government has been releasing UFO files since May, 2026.
2:48
And this is something that a lot of people think
2:53
is really important. And, you know, it's a form of disclosure. Uh,
2:58
they're pushing the group that is pushing this and happy
3:01
that this is happening. They're also wanting the president to
3:05
come out and say, yeah, we, there are these things. Um,
3:09
I saw J.D. Vance on your show the other day.
3:12
That was really interesting. He's– of course, I was interested
3:15
in what he had to say. You kind of pushed
3:17
back on his– what he was talking about in terms
3:20
of calling– I don't want to use that word, the
3:22
D word, right?
3:23
Speaker 2: Demons?
3:23
Speaker 1: Yeah.
3:23
Speaker 2: Why don't you want to use that word?
3:25
Speaker 1: Because I must take this opportunity now to say that
3:29
I am speaking on your podcast as a private individual
3:32
and I don't represent my university talking about this, OK?
3:35
Speaker 2: OK.
3:36
Speaker 1: So, I mean, seriously, look what happened to him. So
3:39
he basically, you know, was honest and said, yeah, I
3:42
think that these are, you know, demons. Well, you know,
3:46
that was the headline, Joe. But when you actually listen
3:49
to what he had to say, it was more complicated.
3:52
And so I thought that he did a good job
3:56
of talking about it with you. And if you want,
3:59
we can talk about that, why he would think that.
4:01
He is Catholic. Um, I'm Catholic. I do history of
4:04
Catholicism is part of what I do. Um, by the way,
4:08
I'm a professor of religious studies at a university. So, uh, yeah,
4:13
so I've been like looking at that. I've been doing
4:15
Catholic history my whole life. So I started doing, looking
4:18
into UFO experiences in 2012. And, um, Yeah, so lots
4:26
of stuff is new, okay?
4:28
Speaker 2: I didn't think that he had a very satisfying explanation
4:31
as to why he would say, I think they are demons.
4:35
Speaker 1: Yeah, I can fill that out.
4:36
Speaker 2: Okay.
4:36
Speaker 1: Okay, or fill that in. All right, so he's coming
4:40
from the perspective of Catholic theology. So in Catholic theology,
4:44
there are generally, if you're looking at anomalous phenomena, which
4:48
they do, supernatural anomalous phenomena, a lot of weird stuff
4:52
happens there. Within the history of religions. OK, so they
4:56
have categories for understanding this stuff. And the categories include
5:01
three different categories, basically three different types of things, supernatural
5:07
things which they think can't be explained and that they're
5:10
like miracles. You know, someone terminally ill prays for a
5:15
saint intercession. And then they become healed and doctors say
5:19
we can't figure that out. That's supernatural. That's a miracle
5:23
from God.
5:23
Speaker 2: Okay.
5:24
Speaker 1: That's one category. The other category is the natural. So
5:28
things that are within nature, we can explain them. Everybody
5:34
knows what a natural kind of event is, hurricanes and
5:36
things like that. But there are events that cannot be
5:40
explained but don't merit supernatural, the supernatural category. And those
5:45
events– by the way, there's a word for it, and
5:47
they call it the preternatural, okay, the preternatural. And this
5:51
has been a category that Catholics have had since at
5:54
least the medieval time period. And because they're trying to
5:57
figure out– let's just talk about UFOs. If UFOs are
6:01
here now, most likely they've been around for a long time.
6:04
And so whatever Catholics were seeing in the medieval time period,
6:08
they had categories for trying to understand it, just like
6:11
we're trying to have too. And so they say, the
6:15
theologians at the time said, like Aquinas, Thomas Aquinas, he said, okay,
6:19
the preternatural, these are events that happen. And they're either angelic, like,
6:25
you know, good things like that, or demonic, which are
6:29
fallen angels, or other things, because God has created other
6:32
things other than He's created the unseen and the seen,
6:37
some things that we can't see. So in the preternatural,
6:40
there happens to be experiences that people have with things
6:45
that seem to be similar to what people talk about
6:50
when they're talking about being abducted by UFOs, beings that
6:55
appear and disappear, beings that can seemingly read your mind.
7:00
So this would be the theological category that Catholics have
7:03
called the preternatural. And I think that's what J.D. Vance
7:07
was trying to get at.
7:08
Speaker 2: But why would you call that a demon?
7:10
Speaker 1: OK, so this is a good question. And that's where
7:12
I'm going to kind of like help push back on you.
7:16
And then you can push back on me again. All right.
7:18
So the fact is, is that we don't know.
7:22
Speaker 2: OK, we don't know.
7:22
Speaker 1: So there's analogous experiences that people have. Now that I've
7:28
been doing this since 2012, a long time, it is
7:32
beyond a doubt that there's a pattern match between people
7:36
who have these experiences and people who have demonic experiences.
7:40
That's an analogy, but that doesn't prove that they're identical.
7:44
Speaker 2: When you say pattern match, what do you mean?
7:45
Speaker 3: Yeah.
7:46
Speaker 1: So I'm talking about what people actually experience. So when
7:49
people have these experiences, what happens to them? They report
7:53
things like things appearing and disappearing, luminous lights, lights showing up,
7:59
aerial phenomena. They also report beings, beings that can change.
8:04
somehow read their minds. They also report that sometimes they
8:08
feel like these beings put thoughts in their minds.
8:12
Speaker 2: Okay.
8:13
Speaker 1: These are all things that Catholics who know the history
8:16
would say, wow, that sounds like this kind of situation.
8:20
Does that mean it is that situation? There's no, no,
8:24
we can't say that it is. And that's where your
8:26
point is relevant. Your point is that how do we
8:29
know that they're demons? We don't know that they're demons.
8:32
But it warrants an investigation I think into the similarities.
8:38
Speaker 3: OK.
8:38
Speaker 2: But when you think about demons, most people think about evil.
8:43
They think about something that does horrible things to you, possession,
8:49
something that causes you to murder people or something that
8:52
wants to murder you or something that wants to steal
8:54
your soul. That doesn't seem at all like what we're
8:58
talking about with these UFO experiences. What it seems like
9:02
is you're encountering something that has a superior intelligence of
9:06
superior technology, something that's very different that communicates telepathically. But
9:13
they don't seem to have vicious intentions. So I don't
9:17
understand the distinction. I understand why you would call that
9:20
a demon. Unless you're just using that in this old
9:24
school term because the people that were experiencing this supposedly–
9:29
Or assumedly, when we're talking about ancient times and they
9:33
didn't have words for it and they didn't know what
9:35
they were experiencing, they would call that a demon.
9:38
Speaker 1: Yeah.
9:39
Speaker 2: Okay.
9:39
Speaker 1: So this is a really good comment. And this is
9:42
something that I'd agree with you like before 2016. I'd say, yeah,
9:48
you're right.
9:48
Speaker 2: What changed?
9:49
Speaker 1: Okay. I did a lot of research. And what I
9:54
found was that– let's take an example because examples are good.
9:59
Speaker 2: Thank you.
10:00
Speaker 3: Ranch.
10:01
Speaker 1: So there are a lot of people who are associated
10:04
with looking into UFOs who are well-known to UFO people
10:11
who work at Skinwalker Ranch.
10:13
Speaker 2: Okay.
10:14
Speaker 1: So I learned about Skinwalker Ranch pretty early on, 2013
10:16
or so, and I learned it from Gary Nolan. All right.
10:23
So he said he was talking to me about it.
10:26
He said, yeah, a lot of my friends were working
10:27
out there and they want me to go out there
10:28
and do some study of what's going on. There's anomalous phenomena.
10:33
They think it's associated with UFOs because UFOs show up
10:37
and this and that. And I said, oh, are you
10:39
going to go out there? And he said, no, I'm
10:41
not going out there. And so I was like, well, OK, why?
10:46
And he said, because it's really negative. The things that
10:49
happen to people, they get something called the hitchhiker effect.
10:53
And so the hitchhiker effect is when this scary stuff
10:56
that's associated with like a haunted place follows you home.
11:00
Speaker 3: Right. I've heard of that before.
11:02
Speaker 1: Yeah. The hitchhiker effect. I think it's called the hitchhiker
11:05
syndrome or something. And so I met a lot of
11:08
people who had this happen to them who had had
11:11
UFO experiences. experiences. So I would say that, no, not
11:15
all UFO experiences are like that, but enough of them
11:19
are like that for me not to ever have one.
11:22
And also to associate the preternatural, that's what I started
11:26
to understand that, well, the preternatural is still the best
11:30
category that we have for looking at this because not
11:33
all preternatural phenomena, even for Catholics, is negative, right? Some
11:38
of this is actually really positive. But the thing, the
11:41
problem is, is that Human beings have a hard time
11:44
figuring it, figuring out like, you know, it could be deceptive.
11:47
This is another thing where Gary Nolan comes in. He
11:50
was on Tucker Carlson, I don't know, like four years
11:53
ago or something. And he said and I've talked to
11:57
him about this, too. Tucker asked him about, well, what
12:00
do these things– what do they say? And he goes, oh,
12:03
they lie. They're deceptive. And he's a guy who doesn't
12:07
have a dog in the race in terms of religion.
12:10
Like he's not affiliated with any religion.
12:13
Speaker 2: So– When he said they lie, like what specific examples
12:18
does he have of them lying?
12:19
Speaker 1: OK. So listen, when we start to look at this
12:22
type of situation with these experiences and so forth, What
12:27
a Catholic would do, like what a Catholic priest say
12:30
would do, would be to identify if there's deceit happening,
12:36
to identify if there are negative effects. And, you know,
12:39
because there's criteria for looking at the preternatural. And so
12:45
a lot of things that happen are when you have,
12:49
you know, these abductions, you which some people view as positive,
12:54
but some people don't. They don't like these abductions. So yeah,
12:59
they'll say things that aren't true. Like what? I don't know.
13:03
They'll say like, okay, I'll take an example. I'm not
13:07
going to out any experiences that I know, but I
13:11
know a lot. So at this point, I've had like,
13:14
I don't know, about a thousand people talk to me
13:17
about their experiences. So- One in particular regularly gets prophetic messages,
13:25
some of which come true, most of which are not true.
13:30
That means when you have one or two prophetic messages
13:33
given to you by an anomalous being or whatnot and
13:37
it comes true, you're willing maybe to believe it, right? Oh,
13:43
this is telling me good information. But then they start
13:48
not to come true. And then if that person makes
13:50
this public, that person then is– people associate them with
13:58
falsehood and deceit. And that's not a positive thing.
14:01
Speaker 3: Okay.
14:01
Speaker 2: But have you taken into consideration that this person might
14:04
be mentally ill? Of course. Of course.
14:07
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
14:08
Speaker 2: So this idea that they're getting all of these– like
14:12
whatever it is, visions. I mean how are they receiving
14:15
this information? Are they receiving it telepathically? Like when you
14:20
say prophetic.
14:21
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. So they're different. So you asked me what
14:25
kinds of people, like what they would say, right?
14:28
Speaker 2: If these things are deceiving them, so they have these
14:32
prophetic visions, right? How are these visions manifesting themselves in
14:37
their mind?
14:37
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
14:38
Speaker 2: Is it coming as a voice? Are they seeing an
14:40
event happen?
14:42
Speaker 1: Okay, so– There are a variety of ways in which
14:47
people receive this type of information, like prophetic information. I
14:53
would say that some people actually see things and the
14:56
beings like impart telepathically, like mind-to-mind transmission, something. This is
15:01
going to happen. And then they believe it. Okay. This
15:05
happens within like angel events, like Marian apparitions. It happens
15:10
to people. It happens to people in abductions as well.
15:14
And You know, I mean, that's what happens to them.
15:18
They see things. They sometimes have visions in their dreams.
15:21
So there are a variety of ways that people can.
15:24
Speaker 2: Get this information. Right, but let's stop right there. Visions
15:27
in their dreams could also just be dreams. Like, how
15:30
can they make a distinction between just dreams? Like, oh,
15:34
Godzilla was chasing me. I was on a skateboard. I
15:37
ran into my cousin. We hid in his basement. And
15:39
then I woke up. Like, that's just a dream. That's
15:41
not a prophecy. And if they're having those dreams as
15:43
well— as these visionary dreams that they think are inspired
15:49
by some entity. How are they making the distinction between
15:53
the two of them if both of them exist at
15:55
the same time in the same person's mind?
15:57
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. So within the culture of– within our culture,
16:01
we tend to put dreams in the same category. We
16:04
say the dream about Godzilla is like– all dreams are
16:08
the same, right? They're either bad dreams or good dreams
16:10
or neutral. Within– there are other cultures that distinguish different
16:15
types of dreams. And within the Western culture, there have
16:18
been times when people have distinguished different types of dreams.
16:22
Like say you take the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible.
16:25
You have Joseph, right? Joseph is a guy who's going
16:28
to be big. He's a prophet. And he has dreams
16:32
where he's able to tell the future. And he's able
16:36
to distinguish between those dreams. So within certain cultures, even–
16:40
cultures today, like different religious cultures, they have distinctions. The
16:45
Martu in Australia, they have, you know, they talk about
16:51
the dream time. So we're kind of a culture that
16:54
puts all dreams in the same category. And granted, that's true.
16:58
In terms of discussing whether or not people are mentally ill,
17:02
Travis Walton is not mentally ill. Right.
17:04
Speaker 2: But Travis Walton is not having prophecies.
17:07
Speaker 1: No, I know. But he's he's one that doesn't. And
17:10
there are others who do.
17:12
Speaker 2: I understand. But we got to this place because you
17:14
were talking about beings that deceive. Yes.
17:17
Speaker 1: So I'm saying I'm saying not all of them deceive,
17:20
but I'm saying that I'm trying to explain.
17:22
Speaker 2: I'm trying to ask you.
17:23
Speaker 3: Yeah.
17:24
Speaker 2: How are they deceiving?
17:25
Speaker 1: Well, I just told you.
17:27
Speaker 2: So they'll.
17:28
Speaker 1: Be giving people information about the future, some of which
17:31
is correct and some of which is not.
17:32
Speaker 3: Okay.
17:33
Speaker 2: So how are they giving them this information? Are they
17:35
giving it to them telepathically or is it coming to
17:37
them in a vision and a dream? They're two very
17:40
different things, right? Yeah.
17:41
Speaker 1: But it could be both depending on the instance.
17:44
Speaker 3: Right.
17:44
Speaker 2: But if it's in a dream, how do they know
17:46
it's coming from this entity and not just a dream?
17:48
That's my point.
17:49
Speaker 3: No, I know that. Yeah.
17:50
Speaker 2: They're being deceived.
17:52
Speaker 1: Well, a lot of them won't make that distinction. And
17:55
so that's where you need a.
17:57
Speaker 2: The abductees won't make that distinction.
18:00
Speaker 1: Because they've never had this happen to them before. So,
18:02
of course, they're going to think this is true. But
18:05
my position is that be careful because we don't know
18:09
if it's true or if it's not.
18:11
Speaker 3: Right.
18:11
Speaker 2: But, I mean, how are you making the distinction between
18:13
what is just their imagination and them being deceived? This
18:18
episode is brought to you by Blue Chew. I'm sure
18:20
you've heard of Blue Chew by now, but let me
18:23
tell you what they've been up to. They've been on
18:25
a mission to get you bricked up for years, and
18:28
now the number one brand for better sex. Over 5
18:32
million happy men have bought Blue Chew for better sex,
18:36
and you know what? Girls love the results too. Their
18:40
new four-in-one chewable Blue Chew Gold is for performance and passion.
18:46
Two ingredients maximize blood flow for stronger, longer-lasting boners, and two,
18:51
get you in the mood. It's designed to dissolve under
18:54
your tongue for fast results. They are number one for
18:57
a reason, and we have a special deal for our
18:59
listeners right now. Buy two months of Blue Chew Gold
19:03
and get the third free edition. with my code ROGAN.
19:06
You'll also receive free overnight shipping. Visit bluechew.com for more
19:11
details and important safety information. This ad and the products
19:15
being advertised are intended for a United States audience. Right.
19:20
Speaker 1: That's the good question. I don't know.
19:22
Speaker 2: So how is Gary Nolan saying they lie?
19:25
Speaker 1: Well, he's taking data and he's saying that they're telling
19:28
these people this information. And it's wrong information. And so
19:36
he's not making– he's not trying to make a big claim.
19:40
He's just basically saying– Tucker asks him why. What kind
19:44
of things are they saying? And he said, well, they're
19:46
being deceived, right? They say deceitful things. And my point–
19:50
by the way, getting back to the original.
19:52
Speaker 2: But it would be– it's very frustrating.
19:54
Speaker 3: Go ahead.
19:54
Speaker 2: No, no.
19:54
Speaker 1: I know you're frustrated. But the original question here is
20:00
what is J.D. Vance talking about when he's saying these
20:02
are demons? And I'm trying to explain that he's referencing
20:06
this theological category. that has been around for a long time.
20:10
And that is actually quite useful in adjudicating what's going
20:14
on when people are having these experiences now. I'm saying
20:17
that I'm not trying to propose that these are like experiences. Honestly,
20:22
I wouldn't want them to happen to me. And I
20:24
don't wish them upon anyone. But some people.
20:27
Speaker 2: You wouldn't want to meet an alien?
20:30
Speaker 1: Not the aliens that people seem to be meeting.
20:33
Speaker 2: Which one would you like to meet?
20:35
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know. I mean, hypothetically, like, I'm not sure.
20:39
Speaker 2: I like to put it out there. I'm down. If
20:40
they want to meet me, I'm down.
20:42
Speaker 1: Okay.
20:42
Speaker 2: I'd love to meet one.
20:43
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
20:44
Speaker 3: Yeah.
20:45
Speaker 2: I mean, I want to know. I'm not scared. But
20:48
they don't seem to steal you. They don't take you
20:51
away and never bring you back. They just interact with you.
20:56
I'm down with that.
20:58
Speaker 1: I mean we have to distinguish between– yeah, go for it.
21:01
Meet an alien, Joe.
21:01
Speaker 2: You don't want that? You wouldn't want that? Look, if
21:04
aliens– You are a person who writes books about aliens.
21:09
Speaker 1: Yes, I do write books. Well, somewhat about aliens. I
21:11
write about the religion about aliens.
21:14
Speaker 2: Yes, but a lot of the subject matter has to
21:17
do with extraterrestrial intelligence or whatever it is.
21:21
Speaker 1: Yeah, we don't know what it is.
21:22
Speaker 2: That's the point. It might not be extraterrestrial.
21:23
Speaker 1: It might be interdimensional. Yeah, yeah.
21:26
Speaker 2: Or it might be here. Something that's of a superior
21:30
intellect that's been here all along.
21:32
Speaker 1: And it might be something within the category of the preternatural.
21:36
Speaker 3: Right.
21:37
Speaker 2: Yeah.
21:37
Speaker 1: So my point is that if it is– whatever it is,
21:42
you're right. I've been studying it and I can say
21:45
that– If those are the aliens, no, I don't want
21:48
to meet them. If they're the ones that like people
21:51
have come and told me about and said, I wish
21:53
this never happened to me, then no, I don't want
21:57
to meet those aliens.
21:58
Speaker 2: It's different people, right? And different people have different tolerances
22:03
for experiences. And when someone says, I wish this didn't
22:06
happen to me, it's because they can't handle it. And
22:10
whereas other people might be able to handle it.
22:13
Speaker 3: Right.
22:14
Speaker 1: Maybe, but like look at the things that the fighter
22:17
pilots like David Fravor and.
22:20
Speaker 2: They don't seem to have a problem with it. Like
22:22
they're not saying, I wish this never happened to me.
22:24
Speaker 1: No, but they are saying that this looks pretty dangerous.
22:26
I wouldn't want it to— first, I hope that this isn't
22:30
an enemy technology.
22:32
Speaker 2: Yes.
22:32
Speaker 1: They're like, if our enemies have this technology, it's done.
22:36
Speaker 2: It's game over. Yeah, yeah.
22:38
Speaker 1: So that's scary.
22:39
Speaker 3: Yeah.
22:41
Speaker 1: And if it's not, then it's definitely something that we
22:46
should take notice of, right? So that's what's in our skies.
22:50
And there have been reports of people. There is an
22:52
Australian report of pilots who have passed away because of
22:57
this type of thing, like they died and so forth.
22:59
Speaker 2: How so?
23:01
Speaker 1: I can't actually remember what it is, but it's a
23:04
report of an Australian young guy who encountered something in
23:10
the sky, and he was never found again. He was just,
23:15
you know, what happened? I don't know.
23:17
Speaker 2: So he disappeared in the sky?
23:20
Speaker 1: Yeah.
23:21
Speaker 2: With a jet?
23:23
Speaker 1: I don't know if he disappeared with a jet.
23:25
Speaker 2: I wish you knew more about this story.
23:26
Speaker 1: I know, I know. Maybe someone can get it up
23:29
for us and we can look at it. But it's
23:31
a really famous Australian report.
23:35
Speaker 2: Here it is. 1978, 20-year-old Australian pilot Frederick Valentike took
23:44
off on a routine training flight over Bass Strait. Everything
23:47
seemed normal until his radio transmissions began. Valentike reported a
23:51
strange aircraft hovering above him with four bright lights and
23:54
metallic surfaces moving at impossible speeds. Then came his final
23:58
chilling words, it's not an aircraft. After that, he vanished completely.
24:02
His Cessna was never found, despite extensive searches, and no
24:06
trace of him was ever recovered. Radar had detected another
24:09
object in the area, but never interacted with other flights.
24:12
To this day, no one knows if Valenti crashed, got lost,
24:16
or encountered something far more mysterious. Even decades later, this
24:20
remains one of aviation's most baffling disappearances, and the last
24:23
words of a terrified pilot still haunt those who hear them.
24:26
So there's one guy.
24:28
Speaker 1: I don't know. You can go meet that one, Joe.
24:32
And you know what?
24:33
Speaker 2: I think that— Maybe he's like in a cool place
24:35
right now. All right. Just chilling, having a good time
24:38
in another dimension, hanging out with these creatures. And they're
24:41
explaining to him the future of the universe.
24:44
Speaker 1: But, you know, the thing about what I do is
24:47
I have a lot of information that people impart to
24:50
me that I can't actually talk about, right? And that, sadly,
24:55
that happens to people in.
24:57
Speaker 2: Because they ask you not to?
24:58
Speaker 1: Yeah. They say, I need help with this or this
25:00
is my experience and I don't want it public and
25:03
so forth. I mean.
25:05
Speaker 2: Even without disclosing their name?
25:06
Speaker 3: No, no.
25:07
Speaker 1: I know who they are. And so I've had people
25:10
who are pilots talk to me. Is this, by the way, coffee?
25:13
Speaker 2: This is ice cold coffee.
25:15
Speaker 3: How's it cold? What?
25:16
Speaker 2: It's ice cold.
25:17
Speaker 3: I boiled it twice.
25:18
Speaker 2: This coffee.
25:19
Speaker 3: I'll try to make it again. I mean, I made
25:21
it today. I boiled the water.
25:22
Speaker 2: It's ice cold.
25:23
Speaker 3: That's crazy.
25:23
Speaker 2: It's literally ice cold. That's weird. Are you sure?
25:26
Speaker 3: Yeah, I hit the button twice.
25:28
Speaker 2: It definitely didn't work.
25:29
Speaker 3: 200 degrees. It banged and everything.
25:31
Speaker 2: It must be broken. I mean, it's crazy cold. It's
25:34
like cold water.
25:35
Speaker 3: I'll start it over.
25:36
Speaker 2: How weird.
25:37
Speaker 3: Here, I got more information. A couple more descriptions from
25:40
that pilot.
25:41
Speaker 2: Maybe it's aliens. They're deceiving us. They fucked with Jamie's
25:44
cold water.
25:45
Speaker 3: Yeah.
25:46
Speaker 2: 7.06 p.m., Valentique contacted the Melbourne air traffic controller, Steve Roby,
25:51
reporting an unidentified aircraft trailing him at about 4,500 feet.
25:55
For the next several minutes, he described a long, shiny,
25:58
metallic object with a green light. The craft appeared to
26:01
be orbiting above him. It was moving at high speed
26:04
and playing some sort of game, in quotes. His engine
26:07
became rough idling and coughing. His final words, that strange
26:11
aircraft is hovering on top of me again. It's hovering
26:14
and it's not an aircraft. The transmission ended with 17
26:17
seconds of metallic scraping or keying sounds, then silence.
26:24
Speaker 1: So, yeah. So this isn't– so pilots and families of
26:30
pilots have told me things similar to this, not as
26:33
dramatic maybe.
26:34
Speaker 2: Can you get another cup too? I poured cold coffee
26:37
in this.
26:38
Speaker 1: So similar. And so I guess I just– it looks
26:45
pretty grim.
26:46
Speaker 2: That guy. That one.
26:49
Speaker 1: Yeah.
26:49
Speaker 2: Yeah.
26:50
Speaker 1: And there are others.
26:51
Speaker 2: That's like the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
26:53
I've always wondered like how much of that movie was–
26:57
there's so much of that that was based on previous
27:00
UFO encounters and even figures like Jacques Vallée. Jacques Vallée
27:04
plays– the French scientist in that movie is based on
27:09
Jacques Vallée.
27:10
Speaker 1: Yes.
27:11
Speaker 2: And so– There's scenes where these pilots show up from
27:15
like World War I and they've been gone forever and
27:20
now they're back and they haven't lost any time. I've
27:23
always wondered like how much of this is based on
27:26
stories and reports and folklore or whatever the government knew.
27:31
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that it's based on stories and things
27:34
that they– like Jacques has heard and so forth. And
27:38
by the way, Jacques thinks it's deceptive too. So his
27:41
idea– he spent of course his whole life studying this.
27:44
And he wrote a book called Messengers of Deception.
27:47
Speaker 3: Yeah.
27:48
Speaker 2: I think I read that one.
27:49
Speaker 1: Yeah. So once you do– I read a bunch of
27:52
his books. John Keel. John Keel doesn't have a good
27:55
idea about these things at all. Thinks they're pretty nasty.
28:00
Doesn't want them in– you know the Mothman Prophecy? Yeah.
28:04
So he wrote that and that movie is based on
28:06
his life. And he's down on it. He's a doomer
28:12
with respect to aliens.
28:13
Speaker 2: How so? What is his perspective? Okay.
28:16
Speaker 1: I'm going to give it to you right now. All right.
28:18
Speaker 2: Okay. Give it to me right now.
28:19
Speaker 1: All right. So he calls this– it reminds me of
28:23
Catholicism in the sense that he has a category for it.
28:26
It's called basically the super spectrum.
28:29
Speaker 2: Okay.
28:30
Speaker 1: And it's here with us now just like you said.
28:33
It's around us. But you and I can't see it.
28:37
But some people do see it and some people interact
28:40
with it and have– like it breaks into their reality.
28:43
And for those people, he thinks that they're unlucky because
28:47
all the things that happen to them, like men in
28:49
black show up. He thinks things like the beginning of
28:53
all religions is basically about someone who had an interface
28:57
with a para-being, like one of these para-humans in the
29:01
super spectrum. So it's kind of like an invisible reality
29:05
all around us according to John Keel. John Keel was
29:08
a pal of Jacques Vallée' s. He's passed away. But his
29:12
books are really amazing. And if you want to get
29:14
an idea about the super spectrum and the phenomena, you
29:18
should watch that movie of his called Mothman Prophecies. It's
29:22
really good.
29:23
Speaker 2: And so the super spectrum?
29:26
Speaker 1: Yeah.
29:26
Speaker 2: What does he think that is?
29:28
Speaker 1: So he thinks that it's like a space all around us.
29:34
It's been here forever. It controls us. It controls humanity
29:39
because it sends. things like he thinks UFOs are part
29:43
of it. He thinks Virgin Mary apparitions are part of it.
29:46
He thinks ghosts are part of it. So any kind
29:48
of woo thing is there in the super spectrum. And
29:53
sometimes some people have the ability to see what's in
29:57
the super spectrum. And he thinks they're cursed. Now, he
30:02
thinks angels are part of the super spectrum. So he
30:04
doesn't make any kind of distinction between the good things
30:07
in it and the bad things. He said they're all bad.
30:10
If there's one that appears to be good, it's actually bad.
30:14
So again, he started– he was kind of like a
30:16
Charles Fort type guy. So he started to get a
30:20
lot of these events and he studied them and everything
30:24
like that. And over years, he developed a theory that
30:29
these were nasty things and that they were– like even
30:32
if they appeared good and that they were at the
30:35
beginning of all religions. All religions come from the super spectrum.
30:39
Obviously not that part about how it's like Catholicism. But
30:43
religions tend to have theological categories that talk about things
30:47
like the super spectrum. So what Jacques talks about in
30:50
his books, it sounds very similar to his control mechanism
30:55
and is very similar to John Keel's idea.
30:58
Speaker 2: Well, it seems like– just speculating. But it seems like
31:03
we're dealing with a very limited framework that we operate in.
31:08
we as human beings operate do you want to take
31:11
this jamie do you need this okay um that we
31:14
operate in this world of the senses that we possess
31:19
sight sound feel touch all that you know smell we
31:23
we have these senses for understanding what's around us but
31:27
only those and it's not capable of detecting everything that
31:32
is reality everything that is the universe everything that is
31:37
From subatomic particles to whatever the fuck it is that
31:41
we haven't even discovered yet. That's all around us all
31:43
the time. And so if there is the potential for
31:49
other realms or other dimensions and these things exist in
31:54
some sort of a space where they can interact and
31:57
traverse in between these dimensions and interact with us at
32:02
will whenever we can, we're kind of left. in this
32:06
speculation space where when people have these very novel and
32:11
unique experiences like Travis Walton, and then we are supposed
32:15
to go, okay, did that happen? It didn't happen to me,
32:20
but is he telling the truth? Okay. Maybe he is.
32:24
If he is, well, let's see if he lies about
32:26
other things. Well, he doesn't seem to lie. He's been
32:28
around a long time. Travis has been around for a
32:31
long time telling that story, like almost 50 years now. Right.
32:35
Like when was his experience?
32:37
Speaker 1: I thought, yeah, a long time ago.
32:38
Speaker 2: It might be 50 years.
32:39
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
32:41
Speaker 2: You would think he would have a few other fibs.
32:44
Speaker 1: I agree.
32:45
Speaker 2: I agree.
32:46
Speaker 1: And he doesn't.
32:46
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah.
32:47
Speaker 2: If it was a lie, and I don't think it is,
32:48
but if it was, that's a big lie to have
32:51
only one, only one crazy cockamamie lie from 1970, whatever
32:57
it was.
32:58
Speaker 1: See, what you're doing is you're– this is part of
33:01
the criteria for assessing these kinds of events.
33:04
Speaker 3: OK?
33:04
Speaker 1: It's called taking time.
33:06
Speaker 3: Right.
33:07
Speaker 1: So over time– so when an anomalous event happens within
33:12
like say Christian culture or whatnot.
33:16
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Jamie. Appreciate it. The cold is
33:19
all right but it's like– it's crazy. It's cold.
33:23
Speaker 1: That is weird. Yeah.
33:25
Speaker 2: Dude, something is going on. Put your finger in it.
33:28
Feel how cold it is. It's cold like cold water.
33:30
I understand.
33:31
Speaker 3: I know what happened.
33:32
Speaker 2: Oh, do you?
33:32
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
33:33
Speaker 2: What happened?
33:34
Speaker 3: You have to hit the start button to make it boil.
33:36
I didn't hit the start button. Oh. User error.
33:40
Speaker 2: But it beeped, I thought you said.
33:41
Speaker 3: I did. I did. I beeped because it was turning off.
33:44
Speaker 2: Okay, this is hot.
33:45
Speaker 3: Here we go.
33:45
Speaker 2: Da, da, da. My bad. As quiet as the French press.
33:55
Where were we?
33:57
Speaker 3: Um.
33:57
Speaker 2: Uh, the categories.
33:59
Speaker 1: Oh yeah.
34:00
Speaker 3: Yeah.
34:00
Speaker 1: You were basically just making a move, a strategy.
34:03
Speaker 2: Uh, yeah, sure.
34:04
Speaker 1: Thank you.
34:07
Speaker 2: Yeah. Like looking at, like, I mean, that's my perspective
34:10
on Bob Lazar. You know, Bob Lazar has been telling
34:13
the exact same story forever. I've had many conversations with Bob.
34:17
I've had dinner with him. I've hung out with him
34:18
a few times. I've dinner with him several times, hung
34:21
out with him in the studio. He showed us, uh,
34:23
that most recent documentary before it was released, uh, With Luigi,
34:28
the guy who made it with him. I don't, you know,
34:31
I know a lot of people that are full of shit.
34:34
I meet a lot of people that are full of shit.
34:35
I've had people sit here in front of me and
34:38
then somewhere in the conversation, I'm like, oh, this person's
34:40
not being honest. This is, this is some, they've got
34:43
an agenda. They're pushing something or they're pretending they know
34:46
some things because it sounds good, but they don't really
34:48
know some things. I get real suspicious of people. I'm
34:51
not suspicious of him. It's weird. He's obviously incredibly intelligent
34:57
and very well studied when it comes to science, when
35:01
it comes to whatever it is, whether it's elements, particles.
35:09
He understands what he's talking about in a very deep way.
35:15
And when he's explaining these experiences, when he talks about
35:18
this craft and his experiences at S4, he seems to
35:22
be telling the truth. And then since then, we know,
35:26
first of all, that no one knew about S4 back then.
35:30
But he did. He knew where it was. He knew
35:32
exactly where it was. And he knew about the flights
35:35
that take people out there. He had a total understanding
35:40
of Los Alamos Labs. I mean, he went there. He
35:45
knew the people that worked there. He knew how to
35:47
get around the building. When George Knapp took him there,
35:50
he knew everything about the facility. Yet they claimed that
35:53
he never worked there. And then they found him on
35:55
the employee roster. So he did work there.
35:58
Speaker 1: Yeah.
35:59
Speaker 2: So they lied and they tried to cover up. Why
36:00
would they lie and say that he didn't work there?
36:03
Speaker 3: Yeah.
36:03
Speaker 2: Well, probably because he was involved in some shit that
36:06
they wanted to keep secret.
36:07
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah.
36:08
Speaker 2: That's right. There's a lot of weirdness to the Bob
36:11
Lazar story. And then when you see some of the
36:15
footage that was released, particularly after the New York Times
36:19
story of 2017. The footage that's released mirrors the way
36:24
he describes this craft operating.
36:26
Speaker 1: Yeah.
36:26
Speaker 2: And so how would he guess correctly in 1989?
36:31
Speaker 1: Those are all good points. So, yeah, I told you
36:34
last time I was on here that Tyler, right, in
36:37
my American Cosmic book, told me that he was the
36:41
real deal. Even though I had people who, you know,
36:45
Eric Davis and, you know, telling me, no, Diana, this
36:47
guy's no, no. I believe Tyler. So everything that you say,
36:51
I agree with.
36:52
Speaker 2: Yeah.
36:53
Speaker 1: I don't know.
36:53
Speaker 2: I mean– You're always going to have people– when you
36:55
have a fantastic story like Bob Lazar's story, you're always
36:58
going to have people that want to say that the
37:01
guy is full of shit, that there's something wrong. He's lying.
37:04
It's not true. It's fake.
37:06
Speaker 1: But I mean Eric Davis would be a person who
37:08
might know, right? So he's a physicist who studies this
37:12
and even briefs Congress on– but no. So I don't know.
37:18
I tend to– When Tyler tells me things and now
37:21
that he– everything he said kind of has come true,
37:24
I believe him. I believe that it's true.
37:29
Speaker 2: But if Bob Lazar is telling the truth, it's so disturbing,
37:32
the idea that there's a group of humans that operate
37:37
in our government that have information that the general public
37:41
does not have and that they're the gatekeepers of this
37:44
information and they've determined for whatever reason– That either it's
37:48
not wise to tell people or it wouldn't benefit them
37:52
to tell people. Like whatever it is, I think it's
37:55
a crime against humanity. I think if you're a person
37:58
that knows for a fact that there's something here other
38:02
than us that either visits us or exists amongst us
38:06
or travels here from another dimension, I think you have
38:10
an obligation to tell people.
38:12
Speaker 1: But what if it's not that? What if it's actually
38:15
something we've created and we don't want anybody to know
38:18
about it and Lazar happened to find out and that's
38:21
why we don't want– I mean think about it from
38:23
the perspective of people who are trying to keep Americans safe.
38:27
So just to push back a bit.
38:28
Speaker 3: OK.
38:29
Speaker 2: Go ahead.
38:31
Speaker 1: What if that's it?
38:32
Speaker 2: So if that's the case, why would they bring a
38:33
guy in to tell them how does this work? Show
38:37
us how this works because that was his job.
38:40
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
38:40
Speaker 2: They brought him in and said, tell us how this works.
38:43
And he was like, well, what are you talking about?
38:45
This is ours. It has an American flag sticker on it. Like,
38:49
don't you know how it works? Why are you asking
38:52
me how it works? This seems kind of crazy. That's
38:57
not what you do if you have super advanced technology.
39:01
What you do is you bring in people to improve
39:04
it and make it better. You don't bring in people
39:06
and say, how does it work? Yeah.
39:09
Speaker 1: Okay, wait. I have a couple of comments about that.
39:12
Speaker 2: Okay.
39:12
Speaker 1: So– when I first started, I was aware that people,
39:17
I wasn't aware as much as I should be, but
39:21
I was aware that people in my position, you know,
39:23
who are basically just doing like academic work on the
39:26
UFO beliefs, the rising UFO belief might have people come
39:29
and give me disinformation.
39:31
Speaker 2: A hundred percent. Yeah. I have the same situation.
39:33
Speaker 1: Of course you do. Yeah. So we have to be
39:36
that you're talking about discernment. Like we have to be
39:38
super discerning about who's, you know, our BS meter has
39:42
to like be really well working or working well.
39:45
Speaker 3: Okay.
39:46
Speaker 1: So, but The person who took me out to the desert, right,
39:52
with Gary during that time to an alleged crash site, which,
39:56
you know, Jacques then goes out there. He basically also
40:01
wants Gary to figure out this debris. And so I'm
40:08
thinking we obviously don't know what we have here if
40:12
he's– if it's legit.
40:14
Speaker 3: Right.
40:15
Speaker 1: It could– OK. So here are my comments about what
40:18
you just told me about Lazar. Either they're setting up
40:21
this situation where they're going to have someone like me
40:23
and Gary who are like– they're trying to back engineer this, right?
40:27
And we're saying that publicly without any kind of like
40:32
knowledge that it could be disinfo. And then they have
40:34
Lazar who we're going to plant– and they do this
40:36
like with benefits and stuff. They plant stuff for– Yeah, yeah.
40:40
You know, benefits– The guy who– he had stuff planted
40:47
in his computer. Do you not know about him?
40:49
Speaker 2: No. What is his story?
40:50
Speaker 1: Oh, it's called Project Beta. This is a book a
40:53
friend of mine wrote about– I can't remember. Yeah.
40:57
Speaker 2: Oh, Paul Benevitz. Yeah. I've heard his name before.
41:00
Speaker 1: You should read this because this is a disinfo scam
41:03
on this poor guy.
41:05
Speaker 2: So Benevitz believed that he had intercepted communications from alien
41:09
spacecraft and discovered a secret underground facility called Dulce Base. Dulce?
41:15
Dulce Base? Dulce. Dulce? Is that how you say it?
41:19
Speaker 1: I'd say Dulce.
41:20
Speaker 2: Dulce. A base managed by aliens in cooperation with the U.S. government.
41:24
His claims appeared in the popular press in the early 1980s.
41:27
According to some sources... Benevitz was the target of a
41:31
government disinformation campaign that ultimately led to his psychiatric hospitalization.
41:36
Author Greg Valdez proposes that Benevitz was targeted for his
41:40
investigation of cattle mutilations. Valdez argues the mutilations were a
41:45
government testing program looking at the after effects of radiation
41:49
from 1967's Project Gas Buggy, in which an underground atomic
41:54
device was detonated just 21 miles southwest of Dulcey. They
41:59
were testing the cattle to avoid panicking the public. Okay,
42:03
so this— The problem with that story is the cattle
42:07
mutilations still go on— Well, wait a minute.
42:10
Speaker 1: This is, like, completely not accurate.
42:12
Speaker 3: This is just a brief Wikipedia about it. There's probably
42:14
way more to the story.
42:15
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. So, you know, Doty? What's not accurate about it? Yeah, Doty.
42:18
You know Doty, right? The— The guy who went– they
42:22
placed misinformation on his computer so that he.
42:25
Speaker 2: Believed that he was– They placed it on his computer?
42:28
Speaker 1: Yeah, they placed it on his computer.
42:29
Speaker 2: How so?
42:30
Speaker 1: They went into his house when he wasn't there and
42:33
put it on there.
42:34
Speaker 2: And what did they put on his computer?
42:35
Speaker 1: They put on all this information about– like that he
42:40
was in touch with these aliens. So they basically cultivated
42:44
his belief that he was in touch with aliens. They
42:46
did that purposefully. And Dodie– dodie's first name oh gosh
42:51
i can't dodie no um he's really famous within ufology
42:56
because he's a misinfo guy.
42:58
Speaker 2: So but he's a misinfo guy yeah so he's.
43:01
Speaker 1: Fully yeah intentionally placing misinformation out into the public about
43:06
ufos which is a thing is he still alive yeah
43:10
he's still.
43:10
Speaker 2: Alive and that's what he does for sure.
43:13
Speaker 1: He used to yeah richard richard oh yeah he for
43:15
sure does that um.
43:17
Speaker 2: How do you know he does that? What do you mean? Everybody.
43:20
What do you mean?
43:21
Speaker 1: I'm surprised you don't know that he does this.
43:22
Speaker 2: Well, I'm speaking sometimes when I talk, I'm speaking for
43:25
the entire public that probably doesn't know what we're talking about.
43:28
And I think it's probably good that we fill them in.
43:31
Speaker 1: Yeah. Sorry. Sorry.
43:32
Speaker 3: Okay.
43:32
Speaker 1: So Richard Doty is, has come out and said, this
43:36
is what he does. And I know people who know him,
43:38
like the entire group in, you know, the invisible college
43:42
people with how, and they all know who he is.
43:44
Speaker 3: Okay.
43:44
Speaker 1: And, uh, Kit offered to introduce him to me, by
43:47
the way, Kit Green. And by the way, all of
43:50
these people are people who work on– used to work
43:55
on the program AATIP and so forth to study UFOs.
43:59
But my point though here in talking about this was
44:02
what if Lazar was a person like me and Gary
44:07
who was being– given information, we're credible, right? He's not
44:12
so credible, but like, you know, he's, he's this person
44:14
that's been given information and placed out there so that,
44:19
and he's just on the edge of credibility just so,
44:22
you know, he's credible, but then he's not credible so
44:25
that he could be taken down if necessary. That's how
44:27
they get this information out there. Now, who am I
44:30
talking about? They. So what I'm trying to say is
44:33
that what I've observed is is that the government isn't
44:37
unified in this whole UFO thing. They're fighting against each other.
44:42
I try to stay out of their crosshairs, frankly. What
44:45
they're doing, though, is that every time somebody comes out
44:48
and says, here are the new UFO files, I'm studying
44:51
them and so forth, then they get taken out by counterintelligence.
44:55
So it's like intelligence and counterintelligence. So that is really confusing.
45:00
The end result is total confusion and you really have
45:03
to have an ability like to understand like your discernment
45:08
has to be well-developed.
45:11
Speaker 2: Right. So I believe that. I believe that there is
45:16
disinformation and deception. I think that's a great strategy if
45:20
you want to make something look ridiculous. You take truth
45:24
and And then you attach a bunch of fantastic, ridiculous
45:27
claims to that truth. And so that– it dismisses all
45:31
of it, right? Because it's all in the same category
45:35
and it's all easily debunked. Like, oh, this is the
45:37
same guy that also said that. So this is nonsense, right?
45:41
Speaker 1: That's exactly right. Tyler used to say we hide truth
45:45
in a circle of confusion.
45:47
Speaker 2: Yeah. Which makes sense if they're trying to– Yeah, that's.
45:52
Speaker 1: What they do, right? I mean– I don't know anymore.
45:55
Like today, like Jacques at one point many years ago
46:00
decided that the field of ufology was so confusing that
46:05
he wanted to go back before the Industrial Revolution and
46:10
do UFOs from a long time ago. And he wrote
46:13
Wonders in the Sky. All about that stopped at like
46:16
I think it was like 1860 or something like that.
46:18
Speaker 2: Right.
46:19
Speaker 1: And so he did that. And I feel like I've
46:21
done that, too. Like I started that way, actually. And
46:25
I wasn't looking for UFOs. So I saw, you know,
46:28
so in a sense, I understand that move because.
46:31
Speaker 2: When you say you weren't looking for UFOs, what were
46:32
you looking for?
46:33
Speaker 1: Oh, well, my first the first part of my academic
46:37
career was about looking at souls from purgatory and Catholic
46:41
things like, you know, what Catholics thought about. things that
46:45
they experienced like angel contact events. And that's when I
46:49
started to take a log of these aerial phenomena. I
46:51
did not know what they were. And so historically, you
46:55
can see it all over the place in the records
46:57
that aren't digitized. So there are a lot of records
47:00
like people that say, oh, we have, you know, AI
47:03
has everything. Of human– all of human knowledge? No. Have
47:07
they never been to an archive? An archive is a
47:10
really old library. There's a bunch of stuff there that's
47:12
not digitized and that's still human knowledge.
47:16
Speaker 2: And so what were you looking for?
47:19
Speaker 1: Oh, OK. So back then– this is in my book
47:21
on purgatory– I was looking, I was trying to find
47:25
out why purgatory was a thing for Catholics for many,
47:27
many years. And then after the 1960s, people rarely talked
47:33
about it as much. So, by the way, I'll get
47:36
a lot of hate from people about this because Catholics
47:39
who do do devotions to souls in purgatory for souls
47:43
in purgatory will say, no, we still do this, Diana.
47:46
I know that. But the emphasis, like Catholic churches used
47:49
to have a special place in the church for these devotions.
47:52
We don't have that here. And so I wanted to
47:55
know what happened. And so what I did was I
47:58
spent 10 years going through records and archives all over
48:02
the place. And I found an answer to that. But
48:06
I also found a bunch of aerial phenomena that people
48:10
didn't know– they were like looking up at the sky
48:13
too back then. And when they saw something in the sky,
48:16
they couldn't like place. Well, what is this? They'd interpret
48:19
it as like a soul from purgatory. We need to
48:21
pray that soul back into purgatory because– Sometimes these things
48:25
would harass people. They'd come down like orbs and harass
48:28
people and they just assumed it was like a bad
48:31
spirit or something like that. So I took all of
48:33
this down because I thought it was really strange and
48:36
I didn't want to put it in my book. But
48:39
I wanted to do something with it at some point.
48:41
So when I– I didn't believe in UFOs. I had
48:44
never thought about UFOs. But I showed the log to
48:47
a friend after my purgatory book was published and he said, oh,
48:51
this looks like Steven Spielberg films. And I thought he
48:54
was crazy. So that's how I started studying UFOs. Yeah,
48:58
that's how I got into it. So I was already
49:00
doing that. Jacques was one of the first people I
49:03
actually wrote a hard letter to, sent it through the
49:05
mail to him. And that's how I met him.
49:09
Speaker 2: So Jacques' books, what is interesting is these old stories.
49:14
Because the old stories that go back to 1700s and 1800s,
49:16
they mirror history. these UFO encounters.
49:22
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. That's right. That's what my work did.
49:25
Speaker 2: It's a very similar pattern, which is also strange because
49:29
if you think about human beings, the exponential increase in
49:33
technological ability that we have just from the 1800s to today.
49:41
Far superior technology. But wouldn't you assume that UFOs would
49:46
also have this exponential increase in their technological ability?
49:51
Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely.
49:52
Speaker 2: But yet the stories seem very similar, which is weird, right?
49:56
Because if it's the same kind of craft and the
49:59
same kind of experiences and the same kind of– like
50:02
wouldn't they get better at it? Like isn't there– don't
50:05
they have the same ability to improve?
50:08
Speaker 1: They might be better at it. They might be better
50:11
at it. We just are not good at ascertaining if
50:14
they have gotten better at it. But so what if–
50:18
and this is kind of what I've been exploring recently.
50:20
What if the– our growth in technology is pretty amazing.
50:26
What if the– The only way they can actually interface
50:29
with us in any super meaningful way that's not creepy, right?
50:33
What if it's through AI? What if that– so if
50:36
religion was a way for us to communicate with non-human
50:42
intelligences that kind of evolved in different places, right? It's
50:46
like a technology itself, right? Religion becomes these ways. If
50:50
you look around and you see– I noticed that you
50:52
had some cool Buddhist statues out there.
50:54
Speaker 3: All right.
50:55
Speaker 1: So if you look around at religion– What is it
50:58
that people in religion do? A lot of them pray
51:01
in certain ways. They're like, why are they doing that?
51:03
What is prayer anyway? So you can see that there's
51:09
something that they're trying to do. They're trying to interact, contact.
51:12
There's like a contact with these. And so what if
51:16
AI all of a sudden is a different form of contact?
51:20
And I'll give you a reason why I think this
51:22
way or that I'm speculating about it. When I started
51:26
to ask the people who should know, like Lou Elizondo
51:29
and before that, Tyler, and Hal Puthoff and people like that,
51:37
tell me what best– if you were to describe what
51:40
it is we're dealing with, what best is the description?
51:44
And they would always point me in the direction of
51:47
science fiction. And they would say, read this, read that.
51:49
And I was like, science fiction?
51:50
Speaker 3: Okay.
51:51
Speaker 1: And I'd read it and– it would inevitably point to
51:54
like a technology that helps interface humans with it so
51:58
that it's not us interfacing because perhaps you remember you
52:01
talked about those faculties that, you know, human beings have
52:04
these faculties for understanding reality, but we can't understand reality
52:08
in its full reality-ness, right? We can't do that because
52:12
we're constrained by the ways in which we perceive things.
52:15
Those are the the perceptual faculties. Um, what if AI
52:20
becomes a perceptual faculty for us and we're able then to,
52:24
you know, interact with it. So perhaps it has evolved
52:29
and it's helped us evolve too. So that's what I'm
52:32
trying to say. That was a long answer to, to
52:34
your comment.
52:35
Speaker 2: So perhaps AI is a bridge for helping us interact
52:40
with these things.
52:41
Speaker 3: Okay.
52:43
Speaker 2: Um, So as far as what the government knows and
52:48
then deception.
52:49
Speaker 1: Yeah.
52:51
Speaker 2: Why do you think that they don't disclose all the information?
53:03
Speaker 1: My personal opinion?
53:04
Speaker 3: Yeah. Okay.
53:06
Speaker 1: So this is nothing that I can point to. Of
53:09
course I can't. There's no source for it. My personal
53:13
opinion is because this is above government. It's not theirs
53:19
to disclose. The government can't disclose something that's not theirs
53:22
to disclose.
53:23
Speaker 2: What do you mean by that?
53:42
Speaker 1: Is that it's– well, we know that there are parts
53:46
of it that are so highly classified, right? We know that.
53:50
And so, yeah, it's like they call presidents short timers
53:57
and so forth. They're not read in, quote-unquote, to the program.
54:02
So I would– what if it's like it's been around
54:05
for a long time and the people who know about
54:06
it have been around for a long time too? What
54:08
if that's the case? So after– After I published American
54:14
Cosmic in 2019, I met other people. So I met
54:18
people who indicated to me that they just basically wanted
54:23
me to not write anything else about this stuff. They
54:27
just were like, why don't you just focus on what
54:29
you– your Catholic stuff and just like don't do this.
54:34
Speaker 2: This episode is brought to you by Visible. It's officially summer, folks,
54:37
and boy, what a summer we are having. It feels
54:40
like one of those good old-fashioned summers where you just
54:42
want to enjoy every moment and keep up with the action.
54:46
Your best companion this summer? Visible Wireless. Visible gives you
54:51
unlimited 5G data and unlimited hotspot powered by Verizon for
54:56
just $ 25 a month. So you can make this the
55:00
summer of fun and savings. Visible is more than just
55:03
a wireless plan. It's unlimited wireless designed to always keep
55:07
you connected. with no contract to tie you down. Switch
55:11
today at visible.com, plan start at $ 25 a month, or
55:16
get our premium Visible Plus Pro plan and save $ 10
55:20
on your first month when you use promo code ROGAN.
55:24
Terms apply. See visible.com for plan features and network management details.
55:30
Who did that?
55:31
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, some people that I had met. So they...
55:35
they're people that are associated with the government in the,
55:38
in the fact that they're part of intelligence communities. And,
55:43
you know, so I was interested in what they had
55:46
to say. And to me, what they didn't tell me anything, Joe,
55:51
so I'm not going to tell any secrets or anything
55:53
that I don't have them, but, um, they, they indicated
55:57
to me that, yeah, this is, this is like, nobody's
56:01
going to know about this. So people like, uh, Yeah,
56:07
so that's what happened after American Cosmic. Part of that
56:11
went into encounters.
56:13
Speaker 2: But not all of it. So how did they express
56:18
this to you, that they don't think that you should
56:20
be talking about this?
56:21
Speaker 1: Well, they didn't express it that way. They just said
56:24
that my time would be better spent looking into other
56:28
aspects of religion.
56:31
Speaker 2: Did you say why?
56:33
Speaker 3: Of course.
56:34
Speaker 1: I wanted to know.
56:34
Speaker 2: And what did they say to that?
56:36
Speaker 1: Well, they didn't really say they didn't really answer that question.
56:42
But I guess you could say that my experience with
56:45
them was my answer. My experience with them was that
56:53
this was something that people weren't going to know about
56:56
and that these secrets wouldn't be told.
56:58
Speaker 2: So like they're essentially saying to you, you're wasting your time.
57:02
Speaker 1: Pretty much. Yeah.
57:04
Speaker 2: We're not going to. tell anybody, you're not going to
57:06
get any more information. What's out there is out there
57:09
and that's it. Yeah.
57:10
Speaker 3: Yeah. Hmm.
57:12
Speaker 2: What's your opinion? Like when, you know, one of the
57:16
things I'm, I would assume you saw the age of
57:18
disclosure documentary.
57:20
Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely.
57:21
Speaker 2: One of the things that I thought was really, uh,
57:25
interesting and made sense in the age of disclosure was
57:29
this thought that if there are these hidden programs, uh,
57:34
They have essentially misappropriated funds and lied to Congress in
57:40
order to fund these things. And all these things are
57:42
huge crimes. And if they don't have amnesty, they're never
57:47
going to disclose. This is like Lou Elizondo talked about
57:52
or all these different people talked about. They said like
57:53
the only way you're ever going to get this information
57:56
is by– giving some sort of mass amnesty to all
58:02
these people that were involved in these programs so that
58:04
they'd never have to worry about being prosecuted. My problem
58:07
with that is when I hear something like that and
58:10
you're talking about misappropriation of funds, you're talking about lying
58:13
to Congress, you're talking about enormous amounts of money that
58:16
are involved in these programs. Where did that money go?
58:18
And did that money all go to those programs or
58:20
all those really ethical people involved? Or did a bunch
58:24
of people get rich bullshitting about this stuff? And is
58:28
that why they're calling for amnesty? So that they don't
58:30
have to worry about being prosecuted for stealing money. And
58:34
that's a lot of this obfuscating, all this confusion, a
58:39
lot of this misinformation is because there's a lot of
58:42
people that are in deep shit if this gets disclosed.
58:48
Speaker 1: So basically they're in deep shit if the thing that
58:52
gets disclosed is that they've been stealing money.
58:55
Speaker 3: Yeah.
58:56
Speaker 2: Well, listen, if you have complete total autonomy. You get
59:01
an enormous amount of money and you're working on these programs.
59:05
You know no one knows where this money is going.
59:08
And we have a problem with that already. right? Like
59:11
we have a problem with the Pentagon never passes budgets.
59:14
Where did the money go? You know, that's like part
59:18
of the issue. What is this, Jamie? Long hidden UFO
59:24
information at the center of Trump push campaign. to free
59:28
former officials. Former employees can now share information with Arrow
59:34
or the PERS task force without fear of violating agreements.
59:38
So this is new.
59:39
Speaker 3: Yes, it's last week.
59:41
Speaker 2: Oh, interesting.
59:42
Speaker 3: No one's officially come forward as far.
59:44
Speaker 2: As I know. But look how it says that there.
59:47
Scroll back up. It says without violating agreements. That's not
59:52
the same thing I'm talking about.
59:53
Speaker 3: It's not exactly, but they have NDAs and it's– Right.
59:56
Speaker 2: That's another issue. But what that doesn't– it doesn't exonerate
1:00:00
them from lying to Congress or misappropriating funds. That's part
1:00:05
of the problem is that if they have these programs
1:00:10
that are hidden and there's no congressional oversight, there's no–
1:00:15
they don't have to be audited. If she– In all
1:00:19
these– in any government program that has no oversight, you're
1:00:24
going to have waste and you're probably going to have fraud.
1:00:28
And you're probably going to have a bunch of people
1:00:30
that are essentially beyond reproach. They have so much power
1:00:34
and no oversight at all. Like put a little bit
1:00:38
over here. Put a little bit over there. A little
1:00:40
bit of this. A little bit of that. Next thing
1:00:42
you know, these people are wealthy for some reason that
1:00:44
you can't explain. Like look what's going on with Congress,
1:00:47
with insider trading. Or people that are making $ 170, 000 a
1:00:50
year worth hundreds of millions of dollars. And no one
1:00:54
can explain why.
1:00:55
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
1:00:57
Speaker 2: You have to imagine that these people would also be
1:01:00
tempted to do that if they were involved in these programs.
1:01:04
So even if these programs are real, let's say the research,
1:01:09
the back engineering research costs a billion dollars. Make it
1:01:13
say it costs $ 3 billion. Where's that money going? Where's
1:01:17
it all going? Where did it go? It's part of
1:01:19
the problem with having no oversight, no auditing, no oversight,
1:01:24
and a bunch of people that have complete ability to
1:01:28
hide anything they're doing, including what they do with the money.
1:01:35
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
1:01:36
Speaker 2: And so if they've been doing that for decades, who
1:01:40
knows how much fraud is involved? Yeah, I agree. You
1:01:44
have to assume. These are human beings. And human beings,
1:01:48
if they have that level of power and that level
1:01:52
of secrecy and no oversight at all, and also they're
1:01:58
working with defense contractors. They're working on offshore accounts. A
1:02:04
lot of weird shit goes on.
1:02:05
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, it could be that. Do
1:02:08
you think it is? Yes.
1:02:10
Speaker 2: Really? Yes. You think it's just that? I think that's
1:02:12
a factor.
1:02:12
Speaker 3: Okay. All right.
1:02:13
Speaker 2: I think that's a major factor in this whole thing.
1:02:16
Speaker 1: All right.
1:02:18
Speaker 2: I think that's the– I think that is probably the
1:02:22
reason why you have these calls for amnesty because if
1:02:26
you're talking about amnesty, like amnesty for what? Do you
1:02:29
guys do something? What do you do? Misappropriation of funds,
1:02:33
lying to Congress. OK. So you don't want to be
1:02:36
in trouble for misappropriating money and you don't want to
1:02:38
be in trouble for lying to Congress. What if that–
1:02:39
does that include all the fraud that potentially could have
1:02:42
taken place? And I'm not accusing anyone of fraud. I
1:02:45
don't know anything. This is pure tinfoil hat. Let's just
1:02:50
talk shit. That's all this is.
1:02:51
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. So you think it's just basically a big–
1:02:54
almost like a Ponzi scheme or something.
1:02:56
Speaker 2: I think that has to be an aspect of it
1:02:58
because that's an aspect of it in almost all aspects
1:03:00
of government.
1:03:01
Speaker 1: I hear what you're saying.
1:03:02
Speaker 2: I guess– Just think of the problem that was exposed
1:03:06
with Doge, with the NGOs.
1:03:09
Speaker 1: Right, right, yeah.
1:03:09
Speaker 2: When you find out– that there's literally billions of dollars
1:03:13
gets distributed and there's no record of it. There's no receipts.
1:03:16
Speaker 3: Bottom of that article here.
1:03:18
Speaker 2: During the same event, former Air Force intelligence officer Grush
1:03:22
renewed his allegations that the secret UAP programs had operated
1:03:25
outside normal congressional oversight, calling it a real fraud, waste
1:03:30
and abuse issue.
1:03:30
Speaker 3: There it is.
1:03:31
Speaker 2: And claiming his investigation uncovered slush funds to the tune
1:03:35
of billions of dollars per annum for these activities. The
1:03:38
Pentagon has disputed Grush's Central claims and Arrow has said
1:03:43
its investigations found no evidence, no verified evidence of extraterrestrial
1:03:47
technology or credible evidence that the government has secretly recovered
1:03:51
or reverse engineered craft of non-human origin. But yet there
1:03:57
he has talked about programs that he has been read
1:04:01
in on that are back engineering programs.
1:04:04
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
1:04:05
Speaker 3: I know.
1:04:06
Speaker 1: So like is it just a big slush fund?
1:04:08
Speaker 3: Yeah.
1:04:09
Speaker 1: To call it a slush fund I think is really
1:04:11
an interesting term because that indicates that they're not doing anything, right?
1:04:16
Speaker 2: It doesn't necessarily. It could indicate that they are doing something,
1:04:20
but they're also profiting wildly off of this something that
1:04:24
they're doing because they don't have any oversight, which is
1:04:27
when you get creepy people that have incredible power like that.
1:04:31
That's just normal. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. What's more absolute
1:04:37
power than you have massive amounts of money, a blank check,
1:04:42
and you're also in the fucking super secret top secret group.
1:04:48
You're in the club of the people that know, the
1:04:50
wink and the nod, and you're going into these fucking
1:04:52
vaults in the middle of the mountain, and you're looking
1:04:55
at an alien spacecraft, and you've got bodies that are
1:04:57
in formaldehyde or whatever the fuck they're doing with them.
1:05:00
you know you would think those guys could do whatever
1:05:03
the fuck they want.
1:05:05
Speaker 1: Yeah that's right they're humans yeah yeah.
1:05:07
Speaker 2: And they're men yeah yeah they're men that are probably
1:05:10
very ambitious and wealthy yeah yeah and they want to
1:05:13
be more wealthy and they got all this money coming
1:05:15
in and they're working on these programs and then they
1:05:19
can occasionally show you some stuff look this is what
1:05:22
we've discovered this is what we figured out this is
1:05:25
what we can apply to military technology.
1:05:27
Speaker 1: Okay so maybe OK, so maybe that's it.
1:05:32
Speaker 2: Pure speculation. Yeah, yeah. No accusations. I'm just saying if
1:05:36
you had to look at it from the least charitable perspective,
1:05:38
you have to say that's probably an aspect of what
1:05:41
we're dealing with. And that seemed to me when I
1:05:44
watched Age of Disclosure from a cynical perspective, I'm like,
1:05:47
what is this? What is this request for amnesty? Amnesty
1:05:53
is a weird thing to say, you know, like if
1:05:55
you're people get suspicious when you have amnesty. Why do
1:05:59
you want amnesty?
1:06:01
Speaker 3: Yeah.
1:06:02
Speaker 2: You're worried about– like are they really going to prosecute
1:06:04
people that have misappropriated funds and lied to Congress because
1:06:08
they have alien spacecrafts? Is that really what Congress is
1:06:12
going to do now? They're going to go after these
1:06:13
people and say, look, I know you finally did tell
1:06:16
us that we have been visited and that we have
1:06:18
these downed alien crafts, but we're going to put you
1:06:20
in jail because you didn't tell us before and because
1:06:23
you lied to Congress and you used these funds to
1:06:26
back-engineer these crafts.
1:06:27
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah.
1:06:28
Speaker 2: Does that really make sense that they would put these
1:06:30
people in jail for these– Top secret government programs?
1:06:33
Speaker 1: No, no.
1:06:35
Speaker 3: Yeah.
1:06:36
Speaker 2: I agree. I just think if you just factor in people,
1:06:41
factor in people and blank checks, I always say someone's–
1:06:46
it's not like these are the most benign, altruistic people.
1:06:51
They're super charitable and they only want to do the
1:06:54
right thing for humanity and they're very comfortable with their
1:06:57
meager government salary.
1:06:58
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
1:06:59
Speaker 3: Yeah.
1:07:00
Speaker 2: Probably not, right?
1:07:02
Speaker 1: Right.
1:07:02
Speaker 2: Probably when you think about human nature and people when
1:07:05
they have access to money, especially that kind of money,
1:07:08
that's crazy money. All right.
1:07:10
Speaker 1: So if I can offer my speculation, totally speculative.
1:07:15
Speaker 2: Totally. Okay. I like this kind of talk. Okay. Okay.
1:07:18
Speaker 1: So remember that I start out not caring about UFOs
1:07:23
at all, not believing nothing like that.
1:07:25
Speaker 3: Right.
1:07:25
Speaker 1: Just kind of. doing my boring Catholic scholarship stuff. Not boring. Well, yeah,
1:07:29
I didn't think so. But, you know, geeky stuff.
1:07:31
Speaker 2: Right, right.
1:07:32
Speaker 3: Okay?
1:07:32
Speaker 1: Not interested in that scene. All of a sudden become–
1:07:38
realize that there's this historical continuity, right, in the records.
1:07:42
Speaker 2: And there's physical evidence.
1:07:43
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah.
1:07:44
Speaker 1: There's physical evidence.
1:07:45
Speaker 2: Which is important for people to know that maybe if
1:07:47
they've never heard this subject before and this is the
1:07:50
first podcast they've listened to. When we're talking about Gary
1:07:52
Nolan and some of the things they've found at these
1:07:54
crash sites– We're talking about alloys that you can't make here. Yeah.
1:07:59
There's something about them where they're layered at an atomic level.
1:08:04
There's some weird shit to them.
1:08:05
Speaker 1: That's right. And so I try to keep myself autonomous
1:08:12
from the ufology narrative, either proposed by the government. By
1:08:17
the way, a lot of people are Like it's government sponsored.
1:08:20
There's a lot of government sponsored stuff out there that
1:08:23
you're getting. None of my stuff is government sponsored. Like
1:08:26
I did this totally autonomously on my own, still do completely.
1:08:31
You know, I don't have a publicist. You know, I'm
1:08:33
not like out there doing it like that. That said,
1:08:38
I've met a lot of people and I've seen a
1:08:39
lot of things now since 2012 about the topic. And
1:08:44
so if I were to speculate about it and let
1:08:46
me just describe some of the things that that. come
1:08:49
into my brain every once in a while when i'm
1:08:51
thinking about it i'm like okay um you know how
1:08:54
eric weinstein talks about like he would know the smart
1:08:58
people he would know the physicists who would be on
1:09:01
this case, right? He would know these guys because he
1:09:04
knows physics. He's super intelligent, you know. But I don't
1:09:09
think he does know them. And part of the reason
1:09:11
I say that is because this is in 2014 or so.
1:09:15
So a long time ago when I'm, you know, When
1:09:19
you're doing something for so long and you're in this
1:09:22
community of people and you can't make stuff up, like
1:09:26
stuff happens, you're like, that really happened. And one of
1:09:29
the things that happened was that I got to see
1:09:32
that there were some laboratories associated with the government that
1:09:36
people couldn't get into. It was like you couldn't go
1:09:39
to those. And the people that worked there were the
1:09:43
best of the best, like the laser people, the people
1:09:46
who knew lasers and who– they were better than anybody
1:09:50
at Yale. They were better than anybody at Harvard or
1:09:53
Stanford or anything like that. They were the best people.
1:09:56
And through knowing me, Gary got to go there. So
1:09:59
I have a witness, you know. And so because they
1:10:02
were cultivating him, they were trying to figure out if
1:10:05
he could actually help with figuring out what this was.
1:10:08
So those things are things that I noted and I,
1:10:12
you know, kept in my file in my brain, right? Okay, well,
1:10:16
that's weird. Think about people like Harold Malgram, right? So,
1:10:22
you know, he had been a– he's a person who– is, uh,
1:10:27
was an official to advisor to a couple of different
1:10:30
presidents in the capacity of military. So super high level
1:10:35
clearance and everything like that. He had been recruited. He
1:10:37
was a physicist at Cornell. He'd been recruited when he
1:10:41
was 27. So this happens. So people do get taken
1:10:45
into these, I don't know what you'd call them, programs
1:10:48
or whatnot. And they do work and they have these
1:10:51
clearances and they're hidden just like, um, They're hidden. Sometimes
1:10:56
they're given fake job titles and so forth so people
1:11:00
wouldn't think. I see people online now saying, oh, that
1:11:03
person doesn't have that clearance because they had this job.
1:11:06
How do you know? Like seriously, how do you know that?
1:11:10
Because the government is really good at hiding these kinds
1:11:13
of things. So over the years, that was a long
1:11:15
time ago when this happened to me, 2014, I started
1:11:17
to form an idea. And it wasn't just that. It
1:11:21
was other types of things that I learned that– there's
1:11:25
something going on for sure. And it is what they're saying,
1:11:29
but maybe it's not, I don't know what they're reverse engineering.
1:11:33
If it's anomalous, you know, from another planet or what
1:11:38
it is. I do know that they're, they're doing something
1:11:42
and they've been doing it and they're probably going to
1:11:45
continue to do it. And that I don't think they're
1:11:49
going to share.
1:11:49
Speaker 3: Yeah.
1:11:51
Speaker 2: And why would they, especially if it, affects national defense and.
1:11:55
Speaker 1: So yeah and so part of what's happening now you
1:11:58
know with uh rich people getting into this and trying
1:12:01
to get the people in the program to come out
1:12:04
because that's what that looks like when david grush talks
1:12:06
about that i'm thinking they're just trying to get these
1:12:08
people in the program to come out and you know
1:12:11
so they can they can get to technology right and
1:12:14
that's not i don't think that's going to happen i
1:12:16
don't think that's.
1:12:17
Speaker 2: Going to happen so i'm What do you think happens?
1:12:20
Do you think that they find very talented physicists that
1:12:23
are in universities and they have these outreach programs where
1:12:27
they look for these people that are very talented and
1:12:32
they recruit them very early on?
1:12:34
Speaker 1: I think so. I think that they get recruited really young.
1:12:37
27 is probably old to get recruited.
1:12:40
Speaker 2: Which probably makes sense. Get them as early as possible
1:12:44
before they get involved in Any sort of commercial venture
1:12:49
or any other company?
1:12:51
Speaker 1: So in my second book that I've written about it
1:12:55
called Encounters, there's a chapter called The Children of the
1:12:57
Invisibles where I talk about this potential speculative group and
1:13:04
its total speculation.
1:13:08
Speaker 2: Have you heard Eric Weinstein's take on– there's a particular
1:13:13
upstate university– Upstate New York University that has a completely
1:13:18
overqualified physics department that's also attached to a hedge fund
1:13:22
that does Bernie Madoff-type numbers that don't make any sense
1:13:25
at all?
1:13:26
Speaker 1: No, I haven't seen that one.
1:13:28
Speaker 2: Yeah. He talks about it in this one particular university.
1:13:32
He is– keen on this might be something because it's
1:13:38
like it doesn't make any sense that these insanely talented
1:13:41
physicists are all in this one place and no real
1:13:44
research comes out of it. No real nothing gets done.
1:13:48
But yet they're also attached to this hedge fund that
1:13:50
does these insane numbers that don't make any sense at all,
1:13:53
which is a great way to just funnel money through
1:13:56
and keep these programs running that are completely top secret.
1:13:59
And these people aren't publishing. They don't have anything. These
1:14:02
insanely talented physicists are not really getting anything done.
1:14:06
Speaker 1: Yeah, they get fired at my university if they weren't publishing.
1:14:09
Speaker 2: Right, right. There's something weird about it, he says.
1:14:12
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:14:13
Speaker 2: And he keeps pointing to this. Do you remember that?
1:14:16
Speaker 3: Stony Brook and Renaissance Technologies.
1:14:18
Speaker 2: Yes, that's it. He's like, if there's something there, if
1:14:22
there's a there there, that's where it's at. Yeah, which
1:14:27
makes sense. Like if you had some big time program,
1:14:32
like I know a guy who was a professor. So
1:14:39
he was teaching at a university. I probably shouldn't say
1:14:42
what he's teaching. He was also a CIA operative. So
1:14:46
he would literally be involved in fucking gunfights. And then
1:14:53
a week later, He would be, you know, they would extract,
1:14:56
they'd take people. They'd do all this crazy CIA super
1:15:02
secret operative shit. A week later, he's teaching university courses.
1:15:07
Speaker 3: Yeah.
1:15:08
Speaker 2: Yeah. Like Indiana Jones on steroids. Like this guy was
1:15:11
like really doing that, which is like, whoa. Okay. So
1:15:16
if you have this university where you have these people
1:15:19
that are teaching these classes, like, oh, this is funny.
1:15:22
And they're probably looking for super-talented physicists that are coming
1:15:26
up to recruit into these programs. But what they're doing
1:15:31
as far as their, you know, air quotes, research that's
1:15:33
public is nonsense. And what they're really doing is working
1:15:38
on something, probably some sort of very novel propulsion system.
1:15:43
And that's what Weinstein thinks. And he thinks that a
1:15:48
lot of this stuff that people are seeing in the
1:15:50
sky is probably ours.
1:15:53
Speaker 1: So that's right. So say it's ours and say he's right. OK,
1:15:58
so but I guess my point is. Are you you know,
1:16:03
then shouldn't that be OK? Shouldn't we be OK with that?
1:16:07
Because isn't aren't they aren't we Americans? Aren't they like
1:16:11
helping us?
1:16:12
Speaker 2: Well, if that's the case, yes, certainly.
1:16:15
Speaker 1: Why would we try to get them to come out and,
1:16:17
you know, and like force them out?
1:16:19
Speaker 2: Well, we certainly don't want that information to get to
1:16:22
China or Russia. If there is some sort of a
1:16:25
race to develop a novel propulsion system. Who was it, Jamie,
1:16:29
that was in here that was saying that one of
1:16:31
the uses for this technology would be instantaneous delivery systems
1:16:37
of nuclear weapons? So when we're talking about these propulsion
1:16:42
systems that essentially they're folding space, folding space and time
1:16:48
where they can– instead of going from point A to
1:16:51
point B, which is like a thousand light years, instead
1:16:55
of doing it in however much time it would take
1:16:58
to travel that through, even if you're going the speed
1:17:01
of light, you go instantaneously because you're essentially folding space
1:17:05
and time and just appearing in this new place. Well,
1:17:09
you could do that with a bomb. And so instead
1:17:12
of like a missile having to fly to Beijing or Moscow,
1:17:17
it instantaneously arrives and detonates. And that this was one
1:17:21
of the proposed uses of this technology, which is fucking terrifying.
1:17:26
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:17:27
Speaker 2: That these knuckleheads are taking this incredibly potent technology that
1:17:31
these extraterrestrials have used to get here from another planet.
1:17:37
And we were like, wouldn't that be a dope way
1:17:38
to deliver a bomb?
1:17:40
Speaker 3: Yeah.
1:17:40
Speaker 2: And then they're working on that.
1:17:41
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:17:42
Speaker 2: But it's also, isn't it their responsibility to do that?
1:17:47
Because if China figures out how to do that or
1:17:50
Russia figures out how to do that or Iran figures
1:17:52
out how to do that, you've got a real problem.
1:17:55
Speaker 1: So this was what, remember you asked me those people
1:17:58
that I met, like after American Cosmic gets published.
1:18:00
Speaker 2: All right.
1:18:01
Speaker 1: So this is pretty much the line they gave me
1:18:03
was that Diana, It's best to talk about this stuff
1:18:08
about morality and Christian stuff and so forth because, look,
1:18:14
what we're doing is we're keeping us safe in the
1:18:16
United States. And do you really want a non-ally to
1:18:21
have– an enemy to have this technology? I'm like, well, no,
1:18:24
of course not. I mean so, yeah, what can you
1:18:27
say to an argument like that other than, well, yeah,
1:18:29
that would be terrible?
1:18:30
Speaker 2: Well, if I believe them and if they're being– If
1:18:33
it's true and they're just looking out for the interest
1:18:36
of America, 100 percent. I'm with them. I get it.
1:18:38
I understand. I mean I don't know. I know.
1:18:41
Speaker 1: That's the problem is that we just don't know.
1:18:42
Speaker 2: I'm never going to point fingers and go, fuck those guys.
1:18:44
They need to tell us everything. The problem is you're
1:18:46
telling everybody in the world everything then. You're telling China.
1:18:50
Speaker 1: Everything.
1:18:50
Speaker 2: You're telling Russia everything. Yeah, that's right. I get it.
1:18:53
And I get that that's why if say the Roswell
1:18:57
crash of 1947, if that is legit and if they
1:18:59
really did fly it out to Wright Air Force Base
1:19:02
in two separate planes just in case one of them crashed,
1:19:06
if that's really the case- And the lore is that
1:19:10
Truman met them there and that they disclosed that they
1:19:13
have this craft and they have this material. You have
1:19:15
so many different people that were at that crash site
1:19:18
that have very similar stories.
1:19:20
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:19:20
Speaker 2: And then you also have this very shortly after that
1:19:27
you have technologies emerge.
1:19:29
Speaker 3: Yeah.
1:19:29
Speaker 2: You have fiber optics, transistors, a lot of weird shit
1:19:33
that's attached to them. In terms of like the providence
1:19:35
of like how those technologies were evolved and developed. There's
1:19:38
some sketchy shit involved in that. And the allegation is
1:19:42
that this is something that's been reverse engineered. And then, OK, well,
1:19:48
you don't want that getting to someone else. Yeah.
1:19:51
Speaker 3: Right.
1:19:52
Speaker 2: If we are involved in conflicts with other nations and
1:19:56
we most certainly are, why would you got to keep
1:19:59
that stuff secret? So I get that argument as well.
1:20:01
And if so, if extraterrestrial technology is real and that
1:20:05
we do have crafts and saying extraterrestrial is just a
1:20:09
placeholder word for whatever it is, interdimensional, whatever it is,
1:20:12
some super advanced non-human intelligence created technology. If it does exist, yeah,
1:20:20
I would say from a national security perspective, you've got
1:20:23
to keep that under wraps, especially if we don't truly
1:20:26
understand it. If we don't truly understand it, we're not
1:20:29
really capable of making it. Yeah. I mean the way
1:20:36
Lazar describes the craft itself, it was like it was
1:20:38
3D printed. Well, there was no 3D printing in 1989, right? Well,
1:20:42
there is now.
1:20:43
Speaker 1: That we know of.
1:20:44
Speaker 2: That we know of. But there is now. But that's
1:20:46
the thing is this that we know of. There's only
1:20:48
so far you can go with that line of thinking.
1:20:56
When you go back far enough, it doesn't work. So
1:21:00
like you go back to 1947. 1947, you're dealing with
1:21:04
propeller planes, propeller planes and then also novel propulsion systems
1:21:10
that can instantaneously travel from one place to another. They
1:21:15
can go like what happened with the Tic Tac where
1:21:19
they have it on radar going from 50,000 feet down
1:21:25
to sea level in less than a second.
1:21:27
Speaker 3: Right.
1:21:28
Speaker 2: So that's technology that we had in 2004. That doesn't
1:21:34
seem likely, right? And it might be the case. But
1:21:38
then you go far enough back to like the– what
1:21:45
was the guy's name? Kenneth Arnold.
1:21:47
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:21:48
Speaker 2: Those sightings, which was what?
1:21:50
Speaker 1: 47.
1:21:50
Speaker 3: 47?
1:21:51
Speaker 2: Yeah. OK. Well, that's– there's no way.
1:21:53
Speaker 1: Like a couple months like after Roswell, before Roswell. I
1:21:57
can't remember.
1:21:58
Speaker 2: So that's– there's no way. We didn't have that technology then.
1:22:01
There's no way they would have such superior advanced technology
1:22:05
that our fighter jets look like toys. They just whiz
1:22:09
past them.
1:22:10
Speaker 1: Well, I hear that, but I don't know if you've
1:22:13
seen the images of Kenneth Arnold's plane, but it looks
1:22:16
like that German fighter plane. So it looks exactly like that.
1:22:20
Maybe we reverse engineered that and had it. I don't know.
1:22:23
I'm just saying that there's.
1:22:24
Speaker 2: Such a similarity. Yeah, but Kenneth Arnold's plane was only
1:22:26
capable of going like how fast? It wasn't that fast.
1:22:29
And this thing– these crafts were going way faster. Yeah,
1:22:33
this is what he said he saw. Like he's got
1:22:35
a fucking propeller plane.
1:22:36
Speaker 3: I did just look up the first turbojet engine plane
1:22:39
was 1941. Yeah, yeah.
1:22:42
Speaker 2: Whoa.
1:22:42
Speaker 1: 1941?
1:22:42
Speaker 3: I didn't know that.
1:22:44
Speaker 2: Were they using that for fighter jets back then?
1:22:46
Speaker 3: 1947 was– there was them flying around World War II.
1:22:50
Speaker 2: In 47, they had fighter jets that had propeller turbojet. Yeah,
1:22:57
but a turbojet is a propeller. I've flown in turbojet
1:23:03
propeller planes before, and they're pretty dope.
1:23:06
Speaker 3: Those are the pictures coming up.
1:23:08
Speaker 2: Oh, okay. So that does look like a jet engine.
1:23:10
Speaker 3: It's definitely something different.
1:23:12
Speaker 2: Right. What did the planes look like back then? So
1:23:15
pull up a fighter jet from 1947. See, those are
1:23:18
fucking propellers.
1:23:21
Speaker 1: It was a specific plane that looked exactly like what
1:23:25
he saw. It was a German plane.
1:23:27
Speaker 2: Well, that one that Jamie just pulled up is pretty
1:23:29
crazy because it's circular.
1:23:31
Speaker 1: No, I know. But the other ones looked, I mean,
1:23:33
literally exactly. They were called wing planes because they looked
1:23:39
like wings basically.
1:23:40
Speaker 2: I understand. But even that, those right there, those are
1:23:43
still propeller planes. That is what Kenneth Arnold says he saw.
1:23:48
That's totally different. Like whatever the fuck that is, it's crazy.
1:23:52
And he saw that thing skipping across the sky.
1:23:55
Speaker 1: OK, wait a minute, Jamie, if you keep.
1:23:58
Speaker 2: Going, the idea that our best shit is H.O.
1:24:01
Speaker 1: Something.
1:24:01
Speaker 2: OK, the idea that our best shit is propeller planes.
1:24:05
But yet we also have these things with no visible
1:24:08
means of propulsion that are all flying a thousand miles
1:24:12
an hour or whatever it was, several thousand miles an hour.
1:24:15
Speaker 3: Couldn't have been quiet either.
1:24:16
Speaker 2: Right. Yeah. It's just weird. It's if you go back
1:24:20
far enough, it doesn't make sense. That there's superior technology
1:24:25
that's not being utilized ubiquitously across the entire military.
1:24:31
Speaker 1: Well, I think that most likely if they have something
1:24:34
that they want– OK. So this is, again, speculation, right?
1:24:37
Speaker 3: Right.
1:24:37
Speaker 1: I don't know. I entertained the– This is 80 years ago. No,
1:24:40
I know that. I entertained the possibility that they had
1:24:43
some pretty amazing stuff.
1:24:45
Speaker 2: I don't. Okay. I don't. I just don't think that's possible.
1:24:48
Speaker 1: And that we still have it. And that's what.
1:24:50
Speaker 2: Maybe today. I would say in 2026, 80 years later
1:24:53
with all the technological advancement, maybe there's some crazy shit
1:24:56
that they have today. And I bet there is. Like
1:24:58
this thing.
1:24:59
Speaker 3: This is a German bomber.
1:25:00
Speaker 1: There that is. Yeah.
1:25:02
Speaker 2: Whoa.
1:25:02
Speaker 3: That's what I'm saying.
1:25:03
Speaker 2: All right. You got to believe me.
1:25:04
Speaker 3: Is that real? Okay.
1:25:05
Speaker 2: But that's just a drawing.
1:25:06
Speaker 1: Jamie, you're a witness. No, no.
1:25:08
Speaker 2: Is that a photograph?
1:25:10
Speaker 1: No, they have a photograph of those. I am not
1:25:12
kidding you.
1:25:14
Speaker 3: I was trying to just start with that.
1:25:15
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
1:25:16
Speaker 2: So look at that upper left-hand corner. It says secret
1:25:18
Nazi UFO.
1:25:19
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:25:20
Speaker 2: But are these photographs?
1:25:21
Speaker 1: Yes, they're photographs.
1:25:22
Speaker 2: That's a photograph.
1:25:23
Speaker 3: And it could be AI, but it's not.
1:25:24
Speaker 2: No, it's not.
1:25:25
Speaker 3: I'm just to be.
1:25:26
Speaker 2: Okay, well, does it say up there? It says a
1:25:29
Horton Ho 229, a German prototype. Yeah, that's right. Plane
1:25:34
from 1945. Only three were built.
1:25:37
Speaker 1: See, I'm telling you, Joe, this looks exactly like Arnold's UFO.
1:25:42
Speaker 2: It does. It really does.
1:25:43
Speaker 1: Okay, thank you.
1:25:44
Speaker 2: A jet-powered flying wing craft. So that's what I'm saying.
1:25:47
That literally looks exactly like it.
1:25:48
Speaker 1: So if I'm right about that, then you should listen
1:25:51
to my speculations.
1:25:52
Speaker 2: Right, but how fast did this go? All right.
1:25:55
Speaker 3: Let's see.
1:25:57
Speaker 2: That's pretty dope.
1:25:57
Speaker 3: Someone could have been pushing it to the limit.
1:25:59
Speaker 2: I can't believe they had something like that. How are
1:26:02
the Germans so fucking advanced?
1:26:03
Speaker 3: I know.
1:26:04
Speaker 2: And so evil at the same time. Like, what the hell? Okay. Designed...
1:26:12
Where is it?
1:26:14
Speaker 3: 560 miles an hour. 600 miles an hour.
1:26:17
Speaker 2: And how fast was Kenneth Arnold's craft able to go?
1:26:22
621 miles an hour.
1:26:23
Speaker 3: Wow.
1:26:24
Speaker 1: So, you know, he saw these in formation. So we
1:26:27
were most likely doing something with those.
1:26:29
Speaker 3: We? We.
1:26:31
Speaker 2: What? The United States. The United States. So you think
1:26:33
that we had acquired that technology?
1:26:35
Speaker 1: We did. We acquired it. We were utilizing it.
1:26:38
Speaker 3: Right.
1:26:38
Speaker 2: So Operation Paperclip, we brought over a bunch of these
1:26:41
Nazi scientists. And so you think that what he saw
1:26:44
was these Nazi crafts that they had– Yes.
1:26:49
Speaker 1: I think so. But that doesn't take out a lot
1:26:51
of weirdness about it because he also had a lot
1:26:54
of very strange anomalous experiences, men in black experiences, paranormal experiences.
1:27:00
Speaker 2: Kenneth Arnold did? Yeah.
1:27:02
Speaker 1: Really?
1:27:02
Speaker 3: Yeah.
1:27:03
Speaker 1: And to him, he interpreted this as being religious.
1:27:06
Speaker 2: Is there a video of that? German thing flying.
1:27:09
Speaker 3: I'm also just looking at the first comment says it
1:27:11
should be noted this is a full-scale mock-up made for
1:27:13
radar testing by Northrop Grumman for a Nat Geo documentary,
1:27:17
not the actual HO-229. That picture I put up.
1:27:20
Speaker 2: Oh, interesting. Is there any actual documented photographs of the HO-229?
1:27:27
Speaker 3: That's what I'm going to go with. If there was
1:27:29
only three of.
1:27:30
Speaker 2: Them and they weren't ours. So we know that jets
1:27:33
existed in 1941 and so the Nazis had really advanced
1:27:39
technology in terms of automobiles, in terms of engineering, rocketry.
1:27:43
They were way more advanced than us, which is why
1:27:46
we took all those Nazi scientists from Operation Paperclip and
1:27:51
ignored their war crimes so that they could work for NASA.
1:27:54
Speaker 1: They had an important weapon, too, that we never talk
1:27:58
about that we also took, a form of propaganda. They
1:28:04
had propaganda, specific form, not the kind that you can
1:28:06
Google and see Nazi propaganda and stuff like that. Like
1:28:09
a really effective form of propaganda.
1:28:13
Speaker 2: In what way? What did they have?
1:28:15
Speaker 1: So that's another thing.
1:28:17
Speaker 2: So this is an actual photograph of it?
1:28:20
Speaker 3: Whoa.
1:28:21
Speaker 2: So if you saw that thing flying through the sky
1:28:24
in 1947, you would probably think that's from another planet.
1:28:28
That totally looks like a spacecraft. I remember– After September
1:28:34
11th in 2001, I was filming Fear Factor and we
1:28:36
were in. Southern California near, what is the base that's
1:28:44
out there? Is it Edwards? We're near one of the
1:28:48
Air Force bases and I saw a stealth bomber fly overhead.
1:28:51
And it looks like it's from another planet. It looks
1:28:54
so crazy. We stopped filming. We were like, dude, what
1:28:58
the fuck? It looks like Darth Vader's flying it.
1:29:02
Speaker 3: Yeah.
1:29:02
Speaker 2: You know, it's so weird.
1:29:04
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:29:05
Speaker 2: It doesn't seem like it's ours. Now, I know it
1:29:07
is and I know they exist. But if I didn't.
1:29:10
Speaker 3: Right.
1:29:10
Speaker 2: And I saw that.
1:29:11
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:29:12
Speaker 2: So you got to assume also that if I saw
1:29:15
it in 2001.
1:29:15
Speaker 3: Yeah.
1:29:17
Speaker 2: Maybe they had it in 1999. Maybe they had it
1:29:21
in 1989. Maybe they had it in 79. Maybe they
1:29:24
had something like that.
1:29:25
Speaker 3: So the article says that we found that prototype in Germany,
1:29:28
brought it back, and then this is what Northup potentially
1:29:31
made after reverse engineering.
1:29:33
Speaker 2: So this is a wing powered by propellers, though.
1:29:36
Speaker 3: We didn't know how to make those jets.
1:29:38
Speaker 2: Right. And so they probably put the jets on it later.
1:29:41
But fuck, that looks alien. So when you think of
1:29:44
the Kenneth Arnold sighting and you think of the description
1:29:47
that he had, it's very similar to that.
1:29:49
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:29:50
Speaker 2: So that might have been it.
1:29:51
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
1:29:51
Speaker 2: But that doesn't jive with the Tic Tac. The Tic
1:29:55
Tac's bananas.
1:29:56
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is.
1:29:58
Speaker 2: The speed that that thing moved, every human being inside
1:30:02
of it, if there was a person flying in that,
1:30:03
they would have got turned into Jell-O.
1:30:05
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:30:05
Speaker 2: Just from the G-forces.
1:30:06
Speaker 1: That's right.
1:30:07
Speaker 2: That's right. Also, there's no material that we have that
1:30:10
could survive that kind of speed.
1:30:12
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:30:15
Speaker 3: I know. I think this came out in those alien
1:30:17
document or one of the dumps.
1:30:20
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:30:20
Speaker 2: So this is what a lot of people have said,
1:30:22
that it's Lockheed Martin created that thing. And that is
1:30:25
exactly what it looked like, including those weird things at
1:30:29
the bottom. Those weird things at the bottom, whatever those
1:30:35
little tube-looking things at the bottom of it, that is
1:30:38
part of what they described when they said they saw
1:30:40
the tic-tac. And there have been people in the air
1:30:44
quotes disclosure movement that have said openly that thing was
1:30:49
a Lockheed Martin device.
1:30:50
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right.
1:30:53
Speaker 2: Okay. So that's the case. What, what is that? And
1:30:59
how's that thing moving and how's it moving that way
1:31:02
in 2004? Yeah. And if Lockheed Martin has this kind
1:31:06
of technology 22 years ago, yeah, that, That baffles me
1:31:13
and that defies– your imagination just runs wild.
1:31:18
Speaker 1: So that's my point is that if this is happening
1:31:22
and this has been happening, it's like it's well– this
1:31:26
is something that's kept well guarded. And even– I don't
1:31:31
think– even with the disclosure today, I don't think that
1:31:36
push is going to– It's going to be effective.
1:31:38
Speaker 2: It's going to work. I see what you're saying. So
1:31:40
that thing from the disclosure dump from– I'm looking at
1:31:43
more info right now. What is that?
1:31:46
Speaker 3: The perplexity has to say about it. It's not a hoax.
1:31:49
It's certainly a– wait. Almost certainly a hoax.
1:31:54
Speaker 2: Oh, how dare you, perplexity. But what is perplexity getting
1:31:58
this information from? So it says, what the story claims,
1:32:02
a document circulating on social media since August of 2025
1:32:04
purports– To be a leaked Lockheed Martin CIA flight manual
1:32:09
for a craft called the CL957 Gen 2, nicknamed Tic Tac.
1:32:14
Per the claims, Instagram Skunk Works post.
1:32:17
Speaker 3: Someone made it on Reddit, it says.
1:32:20
Speaker 2: Okay. Of course. Jason Wild on X. Reddit forensic breakdown.
1:32:25
Tucana YouTube analysis. No providence. Nothing in the Freedom of
1:32:29
Information Act archives. The CIA crest database. Black Vault or
1:32:34
National Archive references. CL 957 or Orbit Lance, Real Black Programs, Oxcart,
1:32:41
Have Blue, Tactic Blue, all eventually left paper trails. Wrong
1:32:45
designation scheme. Lockheed CL blank, blank, blank. California temporary design
1:32:52
numbers are documented. CL 282, CL 1200, Lancer, etc. and
1:32:58
CL 957 doesn't appear in any credible listing. Document artifacts,
1:33:03
analyst flag, typography. Formatting and classification marking inconsistencies versus real
1:33:10
technical orders plus anachronistic F-22 references and an odd CIA
1:33:17
series aircraft phrasing.
1:33:20
Speaker 3: It's only been found on social media and nowhere else.
1:33:22
Speaker 2: But then it's real. Don't you know that X is
1:33:25
the news now? Don't you pay attention? God, Jamie.
1:33:29
Speaker 3: Sorry.
1:33:31
Speaker 2: I want to believe. I want to believe that Lockheed
1:33:33
Martin has that.
1:33:34
Speaker 1: Well, we always have Travis Walton.
1:33:36
Speaker 2: Yeah, but like Travis is one guy with one story.
1:33:39
Very interesting.
1:33:40
Speaker 1: There's a lot of them though.
1:33:42
Speaker 2: Yeah, 100%. There's a lot of weird stories and there's
1:33:45
a lot of weird stories of what Travis– the thing
1:33:49
is– the real problem is once it becomes iconic, right?
1:33:55
Like once there's a story that gets out there like
1:34:01
Betty and Barney Hill for instance. Yeah, yeah. You hear
1:34:03
that story, and then that story becomes a part of folklore.
1:34:06
That story becomes a part of people's imagination. And when
1:34:10
you start thinking about grays, you immediately start thinking about
1:34:13
Whitley Stryber. You start thinking about communion. You start thinking
1:34:16
about close encounters. So you already have these images in
1:34:18
your mind of what these things are supposed to look like.
1:34:20
Speaker 1: That's right, yeah.
1:34:21
Speaker 2: And that's a part of the problem, right?
1:34:23
Speaker 1: Kind of, yeah.
1:34:24
Speaker 3: Yeah.
1:34:25
Speaker 1: That is a part of the problem. I was going
1:34:29
to go down another path.
1:34:30
Speaker 2: Okay.
1:34:31
Speaker 1: OK, so about reverse engineering stuff, like how does this work?
1:34:35
Speaker 3: Right.
1:34:35
Speaker 2: All right.
1:34:36
Speaker 1: So one of the things that I came to like
1:34:38
understand was that a couple of people told me about
1:34:43
this and it was nothing that they intended to tell me,
1:34:45
by the way. But I asked. So, you know, Tyler
1:34:48
was was doing this reverse engineering type of thing. He's
1:34:50
trying to find people to help him with with this.
1:34:53
And he would have what he thought were or alleged
1:34:57
UFO debris that he had found at various places like
1:35:00
in New Mexico and so forth. And then what he
1:35:02
had to do was he had to get together a
1:35:04
group of engineers that could actually reverse engineer it. And
1:35:09
he would tell them– he wouldn't say this is a
1:35:13
UFO or this is something found in the desert.
1:35:15
Speaker 3: No, no.
1:35:16
Speaker 1: He would say this is China's or this is Russia's.
1:35:19
And we need– in order to keep our dominance or whatnot,
1:35:22
we need to get this reverse engineered pronto. And that
1:35:25
this lie would then motivate these guys, okay? And that
1:35:29
they would reverse engineer this and he would come up
1:35:31
with something, okay? So later on, I would listen to Hal.
1:35:35
And Hal would give these talks. Hal Puthoff, by the way,
1:35:39
who's one of the people that is interested in UFOs
1:35:43
and knows a lot about them. And so he gave
1:35:46
this talk at the inaugural Seoul conference and I was there.
1:35:50
And so I was listening to him and to me
1:35:52
it sounded like what he was saying was exactly what
1:35:54
Tyler was saying, that he was saying we have this,
1:35:57
you know, but we don't actually know how to do this,
1:36:01
how to back engineer this. So we're going to give
1:36:02
it to this talented group of people and we're going
1:36:05
to tell them that this was already made, but a non-ally,
1:36:09
like an enemy had it. So basically by telling them this,
1:36:14
they would then understand. like in a sense do kind
1:36:17
of like a a trick on their minds and they
1:36:19
would actually reverse engineer it they would reverse engineer something
1:36:23
that he said already existed so in a sense it
1:36:26
was like um not only working with time in a
1:36:29
weird way or like kind of like you know projecting
1:36:31
what was going to be in the future telling them
1:36:33
it already had been done so that made me think
1:36:36
this is like the propaganda that i'm talking about and
1:36:39
that you just started to talk about like If we
1:36:41
could then on a mass scale tell people that we
1:36:44
have something or this is the case, maybe there would
1:36:49
be a critical like mental construct and people would actually
1:36:54
do something, rise to the occasion or something like that.
1:36:57
That could have been propaganda for the space race, right?
1:37:02
That could have been like the moon landing stuff like–
1:37:05
I'm not saying that didn't happen, by the way. I'm
1:37:07
saying that, you know, part of it was a way
1:37:10
to get Americans to win the space race. We had
1:37:13
to already believe that we won it.
1:37:15
Speaker 2: Right.
1:37:16
Speaker 1: In order to create this stuff, we already have to
1:37:18
believe that someone else created it. It's like the five
1:37:21
minute mile. You see what I'm saying?
1:37:23
Speaker 2: Four minutes, right?
1:37:25
Speaker 1: Yeah. Maybe it's a five-minute to me. The women's five-minute mile, right? No,
1:37:31
the four-minute mile. That's right. So we already had to
1:37:34
believe that it had been done in order to do it.
1:37:37
Speaker 2: Right, because once someone broke it, then a bunch of
1:37:40
people broke it.
1:37:41
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. That's right. Oh, and then I was asked
1:37:45
by people who are in the government. to speak to interagency, like, people, scientists.
1:37:55
And so they would have me talk to these scientists,
1:37:57
like 50 of them, right, from various parts of the government,
1:38:01
and basically tell them the story of, like, American Cosmic.
1:38:04
And I was like, okay, I'll do that. Why? You know,
1:38:07
they didn't say anything about why. But I started to
1:38:10
think maybe this is like a Hal Puthoff thing or
1:38:12
maybe this is like a Tyler thing, that I'm doing
1:38:15
this for them so that their brains can think this
1:38:17
has already been done. We'd better do this.
1:38:21
Speaker 2: So when you say the sophisticated propaganda that the Nazis have,
1:38:24
that we took this technology from them, like, what do
1:38:27
you mean by that? Like, what was their tech? What,
1:38:30
what was unique about their propaganda?
1:38:33
Speaker 1: All right. So I don't know exactly, but I do
1:38:35
have some ideas. And two of the ideas I have
1:38:39
are what I just told you, that if you can
1:38:42
seed the population with images and belief that will impact
1:38:47
their belief … You can change it. Okay. There's that one.
1:38:50
But there's also the one that– you know Bill Cooper's book?
1:38:55
Speaker 2: Behold a Pale Horse?
1:38:56
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
1:38:57
Speaker 3: Okay.
1:38:57
Speaker 1: So in Behold a Pale Horse, he talks about the
1:39:00
quiet weapons where he's talking about basically technology and how
1:39:04
technology is going to engineer consent. And he's talking about
1:39:09
this in– I don't know exactly when he wrote that.
1:39:12
Speaker 2: Engineer consent.
1:39:13
Speaker 1: Yeah, engineer consent of the population about certain things and
1:39:17
you do that through– utilizing social media. Well, he's not
1:39:22
calling it that. He's calling it quiet weapons. But, you know,
1:39:25
back then, putting stuff on TV and, you know, creating
1:39:30
a narrative that people buy into and believe. And he
1:39:33
said that this is going to... You see this, by
1:39:36
the way, with Arthur C. Clarke in his book, in
1:39:39
his short story, Childhood's End, or no, it's a book, where,
1:39:43
you know, he's talking about aliens, where these aliens are engineering...
1:39:48
through technology, through social media and things like that. So
1:39:53
this could be what the Nazi propaganda, the weapon is.
1:39:59
It could be used as a weapon, but it could
1:40:00
also be used for good.
1:40:03
Speaker 2: And it could be used to facilitate technological innovation by
1:40:07
telling them that it's already been done.
1:40:09
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. You know, when I was– I ran in college,
1:40:15
so I was a college runner. for track and cross country.
1:40:19
And I had a great team of coaches who would
1:40:23
teach us sports psychology. And part of what we would
1:40:26
do would be, we would already see us winning. We
1:40:29
would already see. And they would also tell us so-and-so
1:40:32
ran this, you know, you can do this. So in
1:40:35
a sense, they were utilizing that on our team and
1:40:38
it was good. It was, you know, helpful.
1:40:41
Speaker 2: Hmm. Right. Well, it's, it's very important. your mindset, especially
1:40:47
when it comes to athletics, because there's so much that's
1:40:49
involved in competition that's psychological.
1:40:52
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:40:53
Speaker 2: Do you think that that also is the case when
1:40:56
it comes to technological innovation?
1:40:58
Speaker 1: Definitely.
1:40:59
Speaker 2: You have to believe that it can be done or
1:41:00
that it has been done and that it helps you
1:41:04
figure out the pathway.
1:41:05
Speaker 1: I mean, this is what I'm telling you. So with
1:41:07
the people that I just talked about, we're talking about Tyler, right?
1:41:11
We're talking about then how, even though I don't think
1:41:14
he'd say that that's what he was doing or talking about,
1:41:16
that's what I interpreted his talk to be. And he's talking,
1:41:19
you know, he has some really interesting ideas about physics
1:41:24
and matter and reality and so forth. And then later on, yeah,
1:41:29
that's what I think, you know, I think that that works,
1:41:32
that actually works.
1:41:33
Speaker 2: It makes sense that it would, that the blocks that
1:41:36
people have in their mind about what is and what
1:41:39
is not possible, But if you say not only is
1:41:41
it possible, it's already been done.
1:41:42
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, yeah. So I don't know. Like when we
1:41:45
start to talk about like the various things that we've
1:41:47
been talking about, like, you know, if this is real
1:41:49
and that happened and so forth, maybe that's what the
1:41:54
they're trying to get us not to talk about the
1:41:56
really interesting things like maybe that, you know, that form
1:41:59
of what could be a form of mind control.
1:42:03
Speaker 2: I understand that but when it comes to technology that
1:42:05
could have military applications and that we've had all these
1:42:09
military conflicts, you would imagine that you would see some
1:42:12
of this stuff being utilized and there's no real evidence
1:42:15
that there has been. Like there's no evidence from Iraq
1:42:19
or Afghanistan from any of those conflicts that we had
1:42:23
something that moves fast in the speed of light and
1:42:26
that we have weapons that were indescribable until Nicaragua. So–
1:42:32
Or Venezuela, rather. The Venezuelan conflict where we abducted the
1:42:39
president and we came in and incapacitated everybody with some
1:42:42
sort of a sound weapon. That all stuff sounds like
1:42:46
super science fiction-y. And when you realize that is real,
1:42:51
they absolutely did that. So they have had something for
1:42:55
a long time that can do things that are beyond
1:42:59
our understanding of Of what we thought was possible.
1:43:02
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
1:43:03
Speaker 2: Hal Puthoff had that crazy story about when he was
1:43:06
working for the Bush administration where they brought him in
1:43:08
with a bunch of other scientists.
1:43:09
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know about that.
1:43:11
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they said, we are going to disclose that
1:43:13
there are alien crafts and that we have biological remains
1:43:17
of creatures from some other place. What is the negative
1:43:21
and what are the positive impacts of this? And I
1:43:23
want you to put a numerical value on each one
1:43:26
of them and tell us what the result is. And
1:43:30
all the people that they brought in all had similar
1:43:33
conclusions when they said, how is it going to impact government?
1:43:36
How is it going to impact religion? How is it
1:43:38
going to impact society or economy? There's way more negative
1:43:42
than there is positive. And so they decided not to disclose.
1:43:45
And when he tells that story, it's just like, God,
1:43:48
that tracks. That tracks like that they would do that,
1:43:51
that they would say maybe we should tell everybody, but
1:43:54
this is going to be the impact. My belief is
1:43:58
that it's a temporary impact and that society is going
1:44:01
to continue to function because it's pragmatic. We're going to
1:44:03
have to. You're going to have to have an economy.
1:44:05
You're going to have to have government. You're going to
1:44:06
have to have all these things while also knowing we're
1:44:09
not alone. And maybe that would help dissolve some of
1:44:13
the conflicts that we have because if we think that
1:44:15
we're the only gang in town and then there's another
1:44:18
gang over there and we're duking it out with them
1:44:20
… If we find out– well, actually there's a gang
1:44:22
from another planet. That's the Reagan speech to the United Nations.
1:44:27
That all the UFO dorks went, oh, he's telling us something.
1:44:31
That if we were faced with a threat from another world,
1:44:34
how quickly we would put aside our differences.
1:44:36
Speaker 3: Yep. That's right. Yeah.
1:44:37
Speaker 2: Yeah.
1:44:38
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah. I'm with you. I think that people
1:44:42
won't be– they won't go into shock and things like that.
1:44:45
Speaker 2: But it would temporarily disrupt everything. And therein lies the problem.
1:44:50
The problem is the collapse of the economy, global trust
1:44:54
in government. Like if the government really isn't the people
1:44:58
that are in control, if there really is something far
1:45:00
above and beyond the human government that has some sort
1:45:04
of an influence on world events, that's a real– it's
1:45:09
tough to vote in a congressman that says they're going
1:45:12
to enact change when we're being observed by extraterrestrial life
1:45:16
that can read your mind.
1:45:17
Speaker 1: I don't know if that's true. I don't know if
1:45:19
I agree with you on that. I think that it's–
1:45:22
I think people will be all right. I mean we're
1:45:23
having the government say today, right? I mean J.D. Vance
1:45:27
on your podcast just said they're demons, right?
1:45:30
Speaker 2: That's pretty bad. J.D. Vance doesn't know. Aren't we all fucked?
1:45:35
If he just thinks that they're demons, like what– No,
1:45:38
I think it's fine. He doesn't seem– He says he's
1:45:41
too busy to, like, really dig into the UFO stuff,
1:45:44
which I kind of get and understand but also don't
1:45:48
because if that was– obviously I'm never going to be
1:45:50
vice president. But if I was, I'd be like, the
1:45:52
first thing I would look into. As soon as I
1:45:55
got into my desk, I'd be like, where do they
1:45:57
have everything? I'm going there. I'm going there. I'm going
1:46:00
to say you have to show me. And I'll keep
1:46:02
my mouth shut, but I need to know. Like, you
1:46:04
need to show me. We need to know. Like, what
1:46:06
are we– I need to know what position we're at.
1:46:10
In order to move forward, I need to know where
1:46:12
are we operating from? Are we operating from a position
1:46:15
where human beings are the advanced dominant intellect on earth
1:46:20
or not? Because if it's or not, that changes everything.
1:46:25
Speaker 1: But you're rare. You're the rare person who– like most
1:46:29
people in the United States believe in God. Like there
1:46:31
are more than 80 percent of people who believe in God.
1:46:33
They think God runs it, right? God is a non-human intelligence.
1:46:38
Speaker 2: But that doesn't– they're not mutually exclusive. Like God could
1:46:42
exist and also intelligent life from elsewhere could also exist.
1:46:46
Speaker 1: That's right. And that's why most people won't be shocked
1:46:49
or upset. I don't think that there's going to be
1:46:51
a level of anxiety that people predict. Honestly, I don't.
1:46:55
Speaker 2: Well, hasn't the Vatican even addressed this and saying that
1:46:58
if alien life exists, that God could have created life
1:47:01
other places? Of course.
1:47:02
Speaker 3: Yeah.
1:47:03
Speaker 2: Which really does make sense.
1:47:04
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah.
1:47:05
Speaker 1: So they're not going to be upset. And there are
1:47:06
a lot of Catholics in the United States. So, I mean,
1:47:09
People in the United States or even all over the world,
1:47:11
there are countries like in Brazil where they're OK with,
1:47:14
you know, if they're if they're aliens up there, it's
1:47:17
not going to change. They're probably watching us and nobody's
1:47:19
going to be upset about that. They're still going to
1:47:22
vote for their presidents and their congresspeople and so forth. Yeah,
1:47:25
but you're like the only one here that I not
1:47:28
the only one, but you're representing a small minority of people,
1:47:31
in my opinion.
1:47:32
Speaker 2: How so?
1:47:33
Speaker 1: Because you think that it's going to change everything. You
1:47:36
think that it might actually change your worldview. But it's
1:47:40
not going to change the 80% out there. It's not
1:47:43
going to change their worldview.
1:47:45
Speaker 2: I think that's a guess. Mine's a guess as well.
1:47:49
It's a guess of how it's going to affect the world.
1:47:52
I would assume it affects it in a pretty spectacular way.
1:47:57
If we have undeniable proof that there is some superior intelligence...
1:48:03
That's interacting with us and perhaps even controlling events and
1:48:07
preventing certain things from happening. Like when they go over
1:48:11
nuclear bases and stop weapons functions.
1:48:14
Speaker 1: This is a religious worldview. That's the religious worldview you're
1:48:18
identifying right there.
1:48:19
Speaker 2: How is that a religious worldview? religious worldview that there's
1:48:21
an intelligent life form from another planet that comes down
1:48:23
and stops nuclear?
1:48:24
Speaker 1: Okay, not another planet. But like there's an intelligent interdimensional– Right.
1:48:27
Speaker 2: We don't know if it's from another planet. That's a guess.
1:48:29
Speaker 3: Yeah.
1:48:30
Speaker 1: So– Most religions are assuming that there are other– there
1:48:34
are gods and goddesses or there is God and there
1:48:37
are angels and demons and things like that. There are
1:48:40
non-human intelligences. So they already think this. This is already
1:48:44
a worldview.
1:48:45
Speaker 2: Well, that's what gets weird when you get into the
1:48:47
really old scripts like the Book of Enoch.
1:48:50
Speaker 1: That's right.
1:48:51
Speaker 2: That– you know, Anna Paulina Luna, she's the one who
1:48:55
turned me on to that.
1:48:55
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
1:48:56
Speaker 2: Yeah. I've listened to the audiobook of the Book of
1:48:58
Enoch twice now. And every time I listen to them,
1:49:01
I'm like, what the fuck were they talking about?
1:49:04
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
1:49:05
Speaker 2: What are the watchers who came down and bred with
1:49:10
the daughters of man and created the Nephilim? What is
1:49:15
all this stuff? Yeah.
1:49:17
Speaker 1: That informs a lot of Christian doctrine, basically.
1:49:21
Speaker 2: Well, not really. Not today. Because it's not included in
1:49:26
the canon. But what if it was?
1:49:29
Speaker 3: Right.
1:49:29
Speaker 1: It's included in the canon, but just not in reference
1:49:32
to the book of Enoch.
1:49:33
Speaker 2: Well, the book of Enoch is not in the canon,
1:49:35
but Enoch is referenced in the Bible.
1:49:37
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Yeah.
1:49:38
Speaker 2: Which is kind of nuts that you don't get the
1:49:40
book of Enoch.
1:49:41
Speaker 1: But you have the worldview of Enoch. A lot of
1:49:43
Christians still believe in that. And it's, I would say that,
1:49:46
I don't know, like more than 50%. So even though–
1:49:50
so yes.
1:49:51
Speaker 2: More than 50 percent believe?
1:49:52
Speaker 1: They believe in the worldview of Enoch, that we're– that
1:49:56
there are watchers and fallen angels and things like that,
1:50:00
that this is the supernatural worldview and it's alive and well.
1:50:05
She believes in it, right? She believes that there are– She? Yeah,
1:50:08
Anna Polina.
1:50:09
Speaker 3: Oh, OK. Yeah.
1:50:10
Speaker 1: So I've heard her say that she thinks they're interdimensional
1:50:13
beings also. So in a sense, the preternatural.
1:50:17
Speaker 2: Right.
1:50:17
Speaker 1: Right.
1:50:19
Speaker 2: Imagine a world, imagine how different religion would be if
1:50:24
the book of Enoch was regularly taught in Sunday at church.
1:50:29
That they would tell you that story along with Moses
1:50:32
and along with all the other stories that they would
1:50:34
tell you about the book of Enoch. And everybody in
1:50:36
the church would be sitting there.
1:50:37
Speaker 3: Like, what?
1:50:39
Speaker 2: What are you talking about? Who are the watchers? Like,
1:50:42
what are they? They came down and lay with the
1:50:47
daughters of man? What?
1:50:49
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:50:51
Speaker 2: Like this was a part of an ancient story. And
1:50:54
the real question is whenever I read these biblical stories,
1:50:58
I'm always trying to– I know that they're writing things down.
1:51:03
First of all, they're writing it in ancient Hebrew and
1:51:05
then it's transcribed and translated into Latin and to Greek
1:51:09
and all these other languages. And a lot is lost
1:51:11
in that translation. A lot gets interpreted very weird. Because
1:51:16
just the way languages are formed, just the way they
1:51:20
structure sentences, like a lot of the context of it
1:51:24
is weird. Also in ancient Hebrew, letters double as numbers.
1:51:30
Speaker 1: A lot of coded stuff.
1:51:31
Speaker 2: Right. So there's numerical value to the words, which is
1:51:34
really weird.
1:51:35
Speaker 1: There are churches, though, that do teach that. There are
1:51:38
some religious traditions. I agree with you that this tradition
1:51:42
is not well taught to Christians or– Jewish people are,
1:51:47
you know, today. But that doesn't mean that the Christians
1:51:51
aren't going to go out and learn for themselves. They do.
1:51:53
They do learn for themselves. And they actually have communities
1:51:56
that know about this. So lots do.
1:51:58
Speaker 2: Well, certainly the Ethiopians.
1:52:00
Speaker 1: Yeah, of course.
1:52:01
Speaker 3: Right.
1:52:01
Speaker 2: Which is weird that the Ethiopian Bible has that in it.
1:52:06
They have the Book of Enoch as a part of
1:52:07
the Ethiopian Bible.
1:52:09
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, it's one of the first Bibles. It's one
1:52:12
of the first. So Ethiopian Christianity is like one of
1:52:15
the oldest forms of continuous Christianity.
1:52:17
Speaker 2: But there's no real translation of it that's available in English, right?
1:52:23
Isn't that the case with the Ethiopian Bible?
1:52:25
Speaker 1: Well, let's see. Yeah, I guess you're right. I don't
1:52:27
actually know about that. I mean you can look it up.
1:52:30
I mean people can look up this stuff and there
1:52:32
are people who write about it. Like my field, people
1:52:35
write about it.
1:52:36
Speaker 2: Right, your field. But I mean the average Christian is
1:52:39
not really aware of what's in the Book of Enoch.
1:52:42
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're right. You're right. So that's where like a
1:52:46
basic studies religion class like where– if you take my class,
1:52:50
I'll make you aware of it. I'll make you aware
1:52:51
of the different forms of Christianity, right? The ones before
1:52:55
the Roman Catholicism and the earliest forms of Christianity. I'll
1:52:58
also make you aware of the supernatural worldview.
1:53:01
Speaker 2: I feel like it's all– there was something that happened.
1:53:05
There's real events, and I just don't know if the
1:53:12
stories are accurate. I don't know if the written version
1:53:15
of these stories accurately relays the real events that took
1:53:19
place and what they're trying to say, especially in regards
1:53:24
to the Watchers and the Nephilim and all that stuff
1:53:28
and the Giants. There's just so many weird parts of
1:53:32
those stories that we're just supposed to just, Except like
1:53:37
what is that? That sounds to me like genetic engineering
1:53:40
is what it sounds like. It sounds like a primitive
1:53:43
translation of or explanation of what genetic engineering of human
1:53:48
beings was. That's what it sounds like.
1:53:51
Speaker 1: You know, that belief was still around after Jesus was
1:53:55
crucified and within the early church because Paul writes about
1:53:58
it in his letters.
1:54:00
Speaker 2: What does he write about?
1:54:01
Speaker 1: OK, so, you know, the the. No. Yeah. So if
1:54:09
you go to a mass today, like a Catholic mass,
1:54:11
some women will be wearing veils. And if you go
1:54:14
to a traditionalist mass, they will be wearing veils. And
1:54:18
the reason that Paul gave was because of the angels
1:54:21
that were attracted to them. in church so you have
1:54:25
to be careful women when you go to church the
1:54:27
angels might be there who might be attracted to you
1:54:29
he doesn't say that specifically but that's part of the
1:54:32
reason why so the early christian church was that they
1:54:36
were immersed in that worldview that worldview is is still.
1:54:40
Speaker 2: Around so the women wore veils so that the watchers
1:54:44
wouldn't find them attractive.
1:54:45
Speaker 1: Yeah whoa yeah and some women still wear veils that's
1:54:50
crazy So yeah, a lot of that tradition is still here.
1:54:55
Speaker 2: So just a residual interpretation of whatever the original story,
1:54:58
the original event was. That's right. Do you think humans
1:55:03
were genetically engineered?
1:55:05
Speaker 1: I'm, you know, I'm Catholic, right?
1:55:08
Speaker 3: I'm Christian.
1:55:09
Speaker 2: Okay. So what do you think happened?
1:55:12
Speaker 1: I mean, of course, my views have changed. So before
1:55:15
I got into the UFO thing, I was a You know,
1:55:19
I went to Catholic church. I went to daily mass sometimes.
1:55:22
I was Christian. I've been Christian since I was 11.
1:55:24
I was raised by secular parents. They were not.
1:55:27
Speaker 2: How did you get involved in Christianity?
1:55:29
Speaker 1: I was converted through on Easter, by the way, on
1:55:32
Good Friday by watching. And I didn't try to watch.
1:55:35
It was on TV. My parents had put it on
1:55:37
and I was 11 and I was doing Easter eggs.
1:55:40
And they were playing Franco Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth. And
1:55:45
I started to watch it. Now, I didn't know that
1:55:48
he was crucified at the end because I was just,
1:55:51
you know, a kid. I wasn't raised religious at all.
1:55:55
And my dad came from a Catholic family. My mother
1:55:57
came from a Jewish family.
1:55:58
Speaker 3: She's Jewish.
1:55:59
Speaker 1: And so they didn't practice religion. Total rationalists. So I
1:56:04
was watching it and it was when the scene where
1:56:08
where the woman, the adulterous woman is just about to
1:56:11
be stoned to death by these guys, right? This big group.
1:56:15
And they're just about to throw the stones. And Jesus
1:56:17
goes down and starts drawing something. And I was like,
1:56:19
what is he going to do? And he basically says,
1:56:23
those of you without sin, throw the first stone. And
1:56:27
I was like, oh, that was brilliant, right? And so
1:56:31
then I was hooked. I was hooked. And at the end,
1:56:34
he was crucified. I was devastated. I was devastated. And
1:56:36
so I told my mother, I said, Mom, you have
1:56:38
to buy me a Bible. Like you have to. So
1:56:40
the next day we went out. She doesn't know what
1:56:42
to look for. So we go to this store and
1:56:46
the person helped us out and they gave us a
1:56:49
King James version of the Bible, red letter. I said,
1:56:51
I want everything that Jesus said. I want to know
1:56:54
all that he said. And I was hooked on it.
1:56:56
So I read this thing. I read the whole thing.
1:56:59
And at that point, I recognized I had to grow
1:57:01
up and I had to read the original sources because
1:57:04
that was hard to read. It didn't make sense. And
1:57:07
I was like, this doesn't make sense to me. What
1:57:09
he said was beautiful. And I was hooked. I became
1:57:12
a Christian.
1:57:12
Speaker 2: What didn't make sense to you?
1:57:14
Speaker 1: The whole Bible, the whole Bible, when you start to
1:57:16
read it from beginning to end, you know, there are
1:57:18
all those things that you just don't understand. There are
1:57:20
two creation stories in Genesis. And you're like, well, why
1:57:24
are there two? And, you know, there are all those
1:57:26
names and lineages. And you're like, what? You get to
1:57:28
the book of Leviticus and it has all these rules
1:57:30
and regulations. And you're like, You just don't understand it.
1:57:33
And I knew that at that point I needed to
1:57:36
learn the original languages and how they were put together.
1:57:38
That's why I decided to become a professor of religion.
1:57:42
And so I became a Christian and I was a
1:57:47
born again Christian. And then when it came time to
1:57:50
go to high school, I asked my father, he had
1:57:52
connections to Catholics, if I could go to Catholic high school. Luckily,
1:57:57
I went to a Sisters of Mercy high school where
1:58:00
they were beautiful people and I learned everything. Catholicism in action,
1:58:03
like actually helping people and stuff. And I became Catholic.
1:58:08
And so I've been Catholic my whole life. life after that.
1:58:11
Speaker 2: Did your parents ever join you?
1:58:14
Speaker 1: My dad did. Yeah, he's passed away. He died pretty young. But, yeah,
1:58:18
he did. He was brought back to religion because of me.
1:58:22
Speaker 3: Wow.
1:58:23
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. It was really pretty intense. But my, you
1:58:28
know— That's just how it was. But anyway, so I
1:58:32
became very interested, obviously. I thought this is super important.
1:58:36
We have to know about how this happened, just like
1:58:40
you said. How do I know this really happened? And
1:58:44
that's when I became aware of the Ethiopian church, the
1:58:48
earliest texts for Christians. And I don't think Christian churches
1:58:55
do a good job of relaying this information to Christians, frankly.
1:58:59
I think that they don't do the best job and
1:59:02
that they could do it better. And so I now–
1:59:05
I teach New Testament at my university and I do
1:59:08
my best to kind of convey what these people were
1:59:12
experiencing and the kinds of– people still experience those things today.
1:59:17
So yeah, so that's how I became Christian.
1:59:21
Speaker 2: Interesting. So when I said, do you think that human
1:59:27
beings were genetically engineered– Your response was, I'm Catholic.
1:59:34
Speaker 1: Yeah, unless you're talking about God doing that genetic engineering.
1:59:37
Speaker 2: So you think that the Bible is an absolute literal
1:59:41
translation of real events? No, no, no. So what do
1:59:43
you think it is?
1:59:44
Speaker 1: It's a– OK. So Catholics don't believe in biblical literalism,
1:59:48
which is that you can't because there are so many
1:59:51
parts of the Bible that contradict. So you'd be– that
1:59:54
would be a contradiction. But they believe that it is
1:59:57
the inspired word of God written by people, written by men.
2:00:01
And so there's fallibility in terms of the– not in
2:00:05
morals and the conveying of the spirit of Christianity.
2:00:08
Speaker 2: Right.
2:00:09
Speaker 1: But– so yeah. Yeah. That's what they believe. So in
2:00:13
terms of the genetic engineering, do I, I believe that Enoch,
2:00:18
the book of Enoch, it conveys the spirit of truth.
2:00:21
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
2:00:22
Speaker 1: Do I believe that there are, that's why I believe
2:00:25
that if the, according, listen, when I started to study UFOs,
2:00:30
I was not expecting at all what I found. And
2:00:33
what I found reinforced my own religion, my own Catholic
2:00:38
upbringing or self-chosen upbringing.
2:00:42
Speaker 2: How did it reinforce it? Okay.
2:00:45
Speaker 1: So that's where I was actually. So I was pretty
2:00:48
secular even as a Christian, especially after I went to
2:00:51
graduate school. So I went to graduate school, studied all
2:00:54
of this stuff, and then became a professor. And I
2:00:58
believed in the spirit of the book. I believed in
2:01:01
the spirit of Christianity. I believed it's true. Therefore, I
2:01:04
taught it to my kids. I went to church. I'd
2:01:07
sometimes go to mass. You know, they have daily mass
2:01:09
in Catholicism. I homeschooled my kids in a Catholic homeschool
2:01:13
group for the most part until they needed some outsources
2:01:16
in math. But it wasn't until I studied UFOs that
2:01:24
I recognized that the Book of Enoch is alive and
2:01:27
well today. That's what I recognized in ufology. And I
2:01:32
encountered stuff that I thought looked pretty dodgy. And I
2:01:36
was like, this looks like the preternatural UFO. And I–
2:01:40
so that's what I'm saying. It supercharged my Christianity to
2:01:45
the point where I went back and I reread all
2:01:47
of that stuff again. And I recognized that whatever they're
2:01:52
dealing with now when people are having these experiences and
2:01:54
so forth, not all of them but a good many
2:01:58
of them are– you can look to me similar in kind.
2:02:05
I don't say they're identical but they look similar and
2:02:07
therefore– If that's the case, then I need to be
2:02:12
a different type of believer. I need to be a
2:02:14
much more believing believer. What do you mean?
2:02:18
Speaker 3: Believing believer?
2:02:19
Speaker 1: Yeah. And I can't be secular about my Christianity. I
2:02:22
actually have to practice it, live it, be prepared for
2:02:25
what comes next, kind of that lifestyle. That's the kind
2:02:29
of lifestyle.
2:02:29
Speaker 2: Is it? Is it in any way frustrating that you
2:02:33
have studied so much of these encounters and these experiences,
2:02:37
but you don't have a personal encounter or a personal
2:02:40
experience with these things?
2:02:43
Speaker 1: Well, that's an assumption that you have.
2:02:45
Speaker 2: That you don't have one?
2:02:47
Speaker 1: Yeah.
2:02:47
Speaker 2: Do you have one?
2:02:48
Speaker 1: Well, maybe. I don't feel comfortable talking about it, but yeah,
2:02:52
I have some experiences. Why don't you.
2:02:54
Speaker 2: Feel comfortable talking about it? this is part of what
2:02:57
you do for a living. You talk about other people's encounters.
2:03:02
Why would you not feel comfortable talking about your encounters?
2:03:06
Speaker 1: Well, because that is, I mean, I'm not sure what
2:03:11
to think of them. That's why I, listen, this is
2:03:14
not what motivated me to study ufology or those kinds
2:03:17
of things. When I think about these encounters.
2:03:19
Speaker 2: Did you have these encounters before you studied ufology?
2:03:23
Speaker 1: When I look back, I say, yes, I had those encounters, yeah.
2:03:26
Speaker 2: When did you first have an encounter?
2:03:28
Speaker 1: I didn't interpret them as UFOs, though. Well, I did
2:03:32
have a family member who had an experience with what
2:03:35
looks like a UFO, and it was documented. I actually
2:03:39
found a documentation of it from the time in a newspaper.
2:03:42
Other people had seen it, too. So I live in
2:03:44
a place that has UFOs. So I grew up near
2:03:49
Folsom Lake, and there are lots of UFOs around that area.
2:03:54
And so he had a– this is, of course, a
2:03:56
long time ago when we– he was not interested in UFOs.
2:04:00
I wasn't. And he was young, riding his bike up
2:04:03
a hill, and he saw it. And it kind of–
2:04:08
it was a classic UFO thing. Turned around, looked at him,
2:04:11
and he was like, what? And sped down the hill screaming,
2:04:16
came into the driveway. My parents went out there. Now
2:04:19
my parents are complete rationalists. And they see it too.
2:04:24
And they saw it and it just kind of like
2:04:28
hovered and it was like a giant orb, orange orb.
2:04:32
And it hovered for a while and then it just
2:04:34
went up in the sky and disappeared. And so they
2:04:37
had this. This is before I went to college. It
2:04:40
was a very long time ago. And then later when
2:04:44
I started to study this, I had family members tell me, yeah,
2:04:47
I had Remember that? And I was like, yeah, yeah.
2:04:49
Tell me about that. And so they reiterated that this
2:04:53
is what happened. They wanted to kind of get it
2:04:54
on the record. And then one of them found the
2:04:57
documentation of a newspaper at the time and sent it
2:05:00
to me. So I have that data. So there's been that.
2:05:03
But that's kind of a normal thing. Like people have
2:05:06
those experiences and, you know, they nothing.
2:05:10
Speaker 2: But you said that you had experiences that you're not
2:05:12
necessarily comfortable with.
2:05:14
Speaker 1: Well, I wouldn't– I didn't have a UFO experience. Like
2:05:16
I haven't had like UFO experiences like that.
2:05:20
Speaker 2: What have you had?
2:05:21
Speaker 1: Well, I have the very normal experience of a person
2:05:25
who is a believing Christian. And if you have– if
2:05:28
you're that kind of person, you will have experiences where
2:05:32
you feel like this is– there's more to life than
2:05:37
kind of what you're taught at school. So that's the
2:05:40
kind of experience I'm talking about. People in the book
2:05:43
of Acts.
2:05:43
Speaker 2: Can you elaborate?
2:05:44
Speaker 1: What do you mean by that?
2:05:46
Speaker 2: What experiences have you had that made you feel that way?
2:05:49
Speaker 1: Oh, I've had lifelong experiences like that.
2:05:51
Speaker 2: Like what?
2:05:52
Speaker 1: Well, just that certain things happen at the right time,
2:05:55
at the right moment. And, you know, I mean, lots
2:05:58
of people have these experiences. If you read about Mel
2:06:02
Gibson doing his movies, you know, The Passion of the Christ,
2:06:06
he talks about very powerful things that happened on the set.
2:06:10
So things like this, things that you know that they're
2:06:15
not probable, like Jim Caviezel being hit by lightning when
2:06:18
he's on the cross and things like that that happen.
2:06:22
That's– you're like, wow, OK. I mean you could say
2:06:25
that's a coincidence and you can look at it from
2:06:28
that perspective. But it's all outlined in the book of
2:06:34
Acts in the New Testament if you read that book.
2:06:36
It talks about these very– these very significant experiences to
2:06:42
the people. But the reason I don't talk about them
2:06:44
is because if you talk about them to people who
2:06:47
don't have those experiences, they will just say, well, that's
2:06:50
just a coincidence or that's that. So you're like, yeah,
2:06:53
that's one way to look at it. So you can't convey.
2:06:55
It's like a it's a question of this qualia. It's
2:06:59
a it's a question of your own perception of it.
2:07:03
Speaker 2: Right. But as an educator, don't you think perhaps if
2:07:06
you have had these experiences, you have a responsibility to
2:07:09
try to relay that information to people?
2:07:11
Speaker 1: No, no, no. Because I teach religious studies. So in
2:07:15
religious studies, you'll see this in my book too. You're
2:07:20
teaching about the actual book, the social context, the historical context.
2:07:26
You're not actually advocating for a belief system.
2:07:31
Speaker 2: But relaying your personal experiences is not advocating for a
2:07:35
belief system.
2:07:36
Speaker 1: It would be.
2:07:36
Speaker 3: Why? It would be.
2:07:40
Speaker 2: Because isn't it a belief isn't an experience open to interpretation?
2:07:45
So how would you be relaying your belief systems by
2:07:50
having an experience that you detail in an honest way
2:07:53
that's open to interpretation?
2:07:54
Speaker 1: I would do that if I was in a situation
2:07:58
where that kind of. experience was helpful to people. And
2:08:02
I have done that before. Like I've been on podcasts where,
2:08:06
you know, where they would say they're Christians and, you know,
2:08:09
we're talking about Christian life and so forth. And I
2:08:12
would explain my experiences and we would talk about that
2:08:16
and people would– they would talk about their experiences. But
2:08:19
when you're at a secular university, that's not what you do.
2:08:22
You don't do that. When I'm writing as a scholar
2:08:25
of religion, you're not– that's not what it's about. It's
2:08:28
not about whether or not these experiences are real. What
2:08:33
it is about is about how this is shaping culture now.
2:08:39
Speaker 3: Mm-hmm.
2:08:39
Speaker 2: What I meant when I asked you that question, I'm
2:08:42
talking about UFO abductions, encountering beings and entities. That's what
2:08:48
I'm talking about. I'm like, have you had one of
2:08:50
those experiences?
2:08:50
Speaker 1: I have not, no.
2:08:51
Speaker 2: Don't you wish you did?
2:08:55
Speaker 3: No.
2:08:56
Speaker 1: It doesn't look like I wish that I did. When
2:08:58
I look at what happens to people who have had
2:09:00
abductions and these experiences, it looks traumatic, Joe.
2:09:05
Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't want that. Hmm.
2:09:08
Speaker 3: Interesting.
2:09:09
Speaker 1: Like life is already traumatic enough.
2:09:11
Speaker 3: You know?
2:09:12
Speaker 2: Right. I get what you're saying. When you hear about
2:09:16
people that supposedly they have this ritualistic practice where they
2:09:24
manifest orbs and they meditate.
2:09:27
Speaker 1: Psionics.
2:09:29
Speaker 2: What do you think that is?
2:09:31
Speaker 1: Yeah. So I do believe that they're doing something.
2:09:34
Speaker 2: A friend of mine did it recently.
2:09:35
Speaker 1: What happened?
2:09:36
Speaker 2: She's very rational. She's a very rational person, very intelligent person,
2:09:42
and she wants me to do it with her. She's like,
2:09:44
you got to come and try this out. We're trying
2:09:47
to set a date. She's like, I'll explain to you
2:09:49
how I did it and how you do it. I
2:09:51
was like, all right. I believe you. I've been friends
2:09:55
with her for decades. She's super rational, very normal person,
2:10:00
very intelligent, not crazy in any way, shape, or form.
2:10:03
And she's like, it's going to sound fucking nuts. But
2:10:06
if you do this and if you do it and
2:10:09
you give it enough time, they will show up.
2:10:11
Speaker 1: Is this with like Stephen Greer? Is it like C5
2:10:14
with him?
2:10:14
Speaker 2: She doesn't do it. She's not in any way associated
2:10:17
with that guy. But she was taught how to do
2:10:21
it by someone else. And she said she went on
2:10:24
some fucking thing where they all did it together. And
2:10:28
then she's done it privately alone. And she said you
2:10:30
could do it.
2:10:32
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
2:10:34
Speaker 2: She said it's going to sound fucking insane, but it's real. Okay.
2:10:41
What do you think about that? All right.
2:10:43
Speaker 1: Well, I believe that it happens.
2:10:45
Speaker 2: What do you think is happening?
2:10:48
Speaker 1: I'm not sure what's happening, but I don't think I
2:10:51
would do it.
2:10:52
Speaker 2: Why not?
2:10:53
Speaker 1: Because I believe in cognitive sovereignty. Like I believe that
2:10:57
we should be sovereign, like not have something.
2:11:01
Speaker 2: Interacting with us.
2:11:01
Speaker 1: Yeah.
2:11:02
Speaker 2: Beyond our.
2:11:02
Speaker 1: Mentally and spiritually.
2:11:03
Speaker 3: Yeah.
2:11:04
Speaker 1: And, you know, so yeah, that's why I wouldn't do it.
2:11:08
Speaker 2: But does it take away your sovereignty to communicate with
2:11:10
something else?
2:11:12
Speaker 1: Yeah, a lot of times it does. So one of
2:11:15
the things that I noticed when I started to talk
2:11:17
to people and I don't want to like, you know,
2:11:19
tell you not to do it, but.
2:11:21
Speaker 2: I'm going to do it.
2:11:21
Speaker 3: Okay.
2:11:22
Speaker 2: You're not going to talk me out of it.
2:11:23
Speaker 1: All right.
2:11:23
Speaker 2: All right.
2:11:25
Speaker 1: I wouldn't do it.
2:11:25
Speaker 2: Okay.
2:11:28
Speaker 1: Yeah, so one of the things I noticed was a
2:11:30
lot of people in the beginning when I was doing
2:11:32
this research would– and still today– would say, Diana, you
2:11:36
can contact these beings, OK? And this is how you
2:11:38
do it. And you have to give them permission. And
2:11:41
I was like, what are you talking about?
2:11:42
Speaker 2: That sounds like vampire shit.
2:11:43
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. I'm like, I'm not going to do that.
2:11:45
Speaker 2: Let the vampire in.
2:11:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. You have to give them permission. You have
2:11:48
to invite them. Yeah, and that's– Isn't that weird?
2:11:50
Speaker 2: I wonder if that's where that comes from. All right.
2:11:53
Speaker 1: Well, that's what I'm telling you.
2:11:54
Speaker 2: The vampire lore is that you have to invite them in.
2:11:57
Speaker 1: That's right. But that's the demonic lore too.
2:12:00
Speaker 3: Really?
2:12:01
Speaker 2: You have to invite them in?
2:12:02
Speaker 1: So, I mean, if you're going to do that, you're
2:12:04
inviting them in.
2:12:05
Speaker 3: Oh, boy.
2:12:06
Speaker 2: Now I'm second guessing it.
2:12:09
Speaker 1: I'm just saying.
2:12:10
Speaker 2: Jamie, would you do it?
2:12:13
Speaker 3: I mean, I almost tried, I think. I think I
2:12:15
try it daily, but like just in my own head.
2:12:20
Speaker 2: What do you think about people that have psychedelic experiences
2:12:23
where they encounter entities?
2:12:25
Speaker 1: I think they're encountering entities. Yeah. So I think psychedelics
2:12:29
is the quick way to open up that spiritual part
2:12:33
of your brain. But it's a dangerous way.
2:12:35
Speaker 2: Well, look. OK.
2:12:37
Speaker 1: I'm not– I don't want to go down this. I've
2:12:39
been on– I've gone down this road before. But– What's
2:12:43
wrong with the road?
2:12:43
Speaker 2: Why don't you like to go down that road?
2:12:47
Speaker 1: Because I guess– there's part of your brain. Actually, we
2:12:54
talked about this last time I was on here. We
2:12:56
talked about the spiritual sense. Remember, we talked about the
2:12:58
pineal gland and stuff like that.
2:12:59
Speaker 3: Okay.
2:13:00
Speaker 1: So I've learned a lot about it since then.
2:13:02
Speaker 2: All right.
2:13:03
Speaker 1: And what I, it's a real thing. Okay. And again,
2:13:07
the Christian churches don't do a good job of conveying
2:13:11
that this is really important for Christians to know about
2:13:13
and not just Christians, but religious people all over the world.
2:13:17
This is what they're doing when they're doing those protocols
2:13:19
of religion. They're trying to cultivate the spiritual sense.
2:13:22
Speaker 2: Why?
2:13:23
Speaker 1: Because the human being is oriented toward the sacred. We're
2:13:28
a very specific type of thing. We're oriented toward the sacred.
2:13:31
The spiritual sense is what helps us connect to it.
2:13:34
We could utilize the spiritual sense through certain things, fasting,
2:13:39
living a certain way, and that sort of thing. It's
2:13:42
really important, by the way. And digital culture like is
2:13:48
messing with that, by the way, the spiritual sense.
2:13:51
Speaker 2: Okay.
2:13:52
Speaker 1: So psychedelics are one way to like hijack into it and,
2:13:57
you know, open up that world. Uh, so it's a
2:14:00
quick way, but it's, it's, I wouldn't call it the
2:14:03
ideal way. Although in some religions, like the church of
2:14:08
native Americans, that's their way of doing it. That's their
2:14:12
way of doing it.
2:14:12
Speaker 3: All right.
2:14:13
Speaker 1: And they have rituals to do it with, you know, sacred, um, Yeah,
2:14:19
so to do it casually and without attention is probably–
2:14:27
might be dangerous. I've done– I've utilized mushrooms when I
2:14:32
was young.
2:14:33
Speaker 2: I like that word.
2:14:34
Speaker 1: Utilized?
2:14:35
Speaker 2: Yeah.
2:14:37
Speaker 1: You know, when I did it though, like I was
2:14:38
really young.
2:14:39
Speaker 2: It was very official.
2:14:40
Speaker 1: I was very young and I prayed before I did it,
2:14:44
my friend and I, and we had a really– you know,
2:14:46
good experience.
2:14:47
Speaker 2: And so forth.
2:14:48
Speaker 1: But I think I was just lucky.
2:14:50
Speaker 3: Okay.
2:14:50
Speaker 1: I think I was lucky.
2:14:51
Speaker 2: Why do you think that?
2:14:52
Speaker 1: Because I've had friends who've had really terrible experiences.
2:14:56
Speaker 3: Right.
2:14:57
Speaker 1: And so I think that it's best just not to,
2:15:00
unless you're like born into that culture that does that,
2:15:03
and that's part of your religion.
2:15:04
Speaker 2: One of the things that seems to be the case
2:15:06
in a lot of the people that have had these
2:15:10
bad experiences is that they try to fight it and
2:15:13
that they, They try to battle with the experience. They
2:15:17
try to take control of it. The ego gets in
2:15:19
the way. They want to regain some sort of a
2:15:23
control over their consciousness and they fight with it and
2:15:26
they have bad trips. There's moments when you do psychedelics
2:15:31
where you realize I just got to let it go.
2:15:32
I just got to realize that I'm not in control
2:15:35
of this at all and just.
2:15:36
Speaker 3: Let it go.
2:15:38
Speaker 2: Some people can let it go and some people can't.
2:15:41
I've seen people struggle with it. I've seen people that
2:15:43
can't let it go and they fight with it and
2:15:45
they have really bad trips and it's very scary to watch.
2:15:48
But I think that's the.
2:15:50
Speaker 3: Root of it.
2:15:50
Speaker 2: I think the root of it is you're battling with
2:15:53
something that you can't beat. You just have to just
2:15:57
let go and just take it in. Here we go.
2:16:03
Just go on the ride. And some people can't go.
2:16:05
Speaker 3: On the ride.
2:16:05
Speaker 2: Like, no, and they're grabbing the walls and they're grabbing
2:16:08
vines and they're trying to stop their progression. They don't
2:16:11
want to do it. It's too scary for them. They
2:16:13
don't want to let go. They don't want to erode
2:16:15
their belief system. They don't want to expand their view
2:16:19
of the world. It's too scary. They have a problem
2:16:24
with fear. They have a problem with the unknown. They
2:16:27
have a problem with having this very isolated view of
2:16:30
reality and having that shattered in front of them. They
2:16:34
don't feel comfortable with that, and they try to resist it.
2:16:43
I think that's what's going on. I think you have
2:16:46
to understand like what it is and you have to
2:16:49
understand that you're not in control and you got to
2:16:51
let it go. You got to go for the ride.
2:16:56
But that's also me saying that. And my psyche is
2:16:59
very different than another person's psyche and theirs is different
2:17:01
than yours. And everyone's different. Everyone has different experiences, different
2:17:05
psychological vulnerabilities, different, you know.
2:17:09
Speaker 1: Right. Yeah. Yeah.
2:17:10
Speaker 3: Yeah.
2:17:13
Speaker 2: We were talking before the podcast about the Shroud of Turin. Oh, yeah. Yeah.
2:17:17
Speaker 1: And by the way, we brought that up last time
2:17:20
I was here. And that happened by accident. Remember?
2:17:23
Speaker 2: Yes.
2:17:23
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. So a lot of people have been talking
2:17:26
about that since we talked about it.
2:17:28
Speaker 2: Yeah. You were saying something, though, that the piece that
2:17:33
they used for carbon dating, that this is a piece
2:17:38
that had been repaired. But I saw there's a lot
2:17:40
of dispute about that online. Yeah, a lot of people
2:17:45
say that that is just some sort of apologetic excuse
2:17:49
for why. the numbers don't match up correctly. But then
2:17:53
I've also seen things that say that the pollen that
2:17:56
is on the fibers matches up with the exact kind
2:18:02
of plants that existed in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago and
2:18:07
that that all aligns and that– Further testing needs to
2:18:11
be done to determine the actual date of it. That aside,
2:18:15
there's still no explanation for why that image exists and
2:18:22
how it was created.
2:18:23
Speaker 1: Yeah.
2:18:24
Speaker 2: And I've never seen anyone explain in any way that
2:18:28
makes any sense how that could have been forged by
2:18:31
someone– how it could have been a forgery from someone
2:18:34
that long ago that they could figure it out. Also,
2:18:37
they could make it a– a reverse negative image. So
2:18:42
the only way you see it is through when you
2:18:44
look at it in a negative.
2:18:45
Speaker 1: I know it's pretty crazy.
2:18:47
Speaker 3: Yeah.
2:18:47
Speaker 2: That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
2:18:49
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah.
2:18:50
Speaker 2: Whatever it is, it's really weird.
2:18:53
Speaker 1: It is totally weird. And there are people who, there
2:18:57
is a guy who's a doctor of like blood, a hematologist.
2:19:02
And he's, he seems to have no, he's not religious
2:19:06
or he's not like, you know, out there advocating for religion.
2:19:10
And he just happened to study it. He studied the blood.
2:19:14
And again, he was like, and the injuries, you know,
2:19:20
because he can study the injuries and identify and they
2:19:24
match up. And I mean, I'm not an expert on
2:19:27
the shroud, but believe me, every expert that's out there
2:19:30
since I was on your podcast a few years ago,
2:19:33
they've reached out to me and they're like, tell Joe
2:19:35
to get me on. and so forth.
2:19:37
Speaker 2: And, um, do you know someone that's a real good,
2:19:40
credible expert?
2:19:41
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know someone. Well, that man, I think has
2:19:44
a good video out there. Check him out. Um, I
2:19:46
don't know his name, but he's, I mean, you should
2:19:48
be able to find if you, uh, do a search.
2:19:51
Speaker 3: Yeah, this would be him.
2:19:51
Speaker 2: Uh, new study claims bloodstains in the shroud of Turin
2:19:55
consistent with torture of Christ.
2:19:58
Speaker 1: That's not, he doesn't have an Italian name. The one
2:20:01
I know, but I mean, that could be too. I mean,
2:20:03
he could be out there doing that. Um, The guy
2:20:07
that we found, I can send you the link, but
2:20:10
he's an American guy. And he's just, you know, he
2:20:14
doesn't have a fancy video or anything like that. But
2:20:17
there's another guy who's Catholic called, his name is Father Dalton.
2:20:21
And this is his expertise. He knows about this. Now
2:20:24
he's theological. But he actually does have studies and so forth.
2:20:28
Speaker 2: And what is unique about his perspective?
2:20:32
Speaker 1: So his perspective is that first you have to understand
2:20:35
the Catholic Church is very careful about what they put
2:20:39
their– what they say is true and not true. It
2:20:42
takes them forever to say something is a miracle. And
2:20:45
often when they identify something as being miraculous, they have
2:20:49
a huge team of people involved. often who are the
2:20:54
best at what they do, and they might not be Catholic, okay?
2:20:58
They could be atheist and so forth. So this was
2:21:01
studied at Duke University, the Shroud of Turin, in the 1980s.
2:21:04
And I happened to know a priest who was a
2:21:06
graduate student there in the PhD program, and he witnessed
2:21:10
the whole study. So Father Dalton would be a person
2:21:15
who is Catholic. Obviously he is a priest. However, he
2:21:20
is not going to say, you know, he's going to
2:21:22
give you the facts about each of the studies and
2:21:25
he's going to talk specifically about, uh, What we don't know,
2:21:29
what we don't know about it, what, you know, might
2:21:31
be as a Catholic, you have to say this is
2:21:34
not we don't know about that. Like, yeah, you're right.
2:21:36
It could be this or that. Same thing with the
2:21:38
Guadalupe tilma. Right. So, you know, a lot of people
2:21:41
say it was created by God and, you know, put
2:21:44
on this, you know, about that.
2:21:45
Speaker 2: Right.
2:21:45
Speaker 1: So the the Guadalupe image of the Virgin of Guadalupe
2:21:50
in Mexico City, that was miraculous said to be miraculously put. Well,
2:21:54
there are some things that have been added later. So
2:21:58
I think the shroud is like that also. But– and
2:22:02
there's been a lot of studies by.
2:22:04
Speaker 2: What's so interesting about this Guadalupe thing?
2:22:07
Speaker 1: So this is a tilma, which is a cloak. It's
2:22:13
from– this is from the 1500s. So this is an
2:22:18
image that allegedly according to devotional Catholicism, this image was
2:22:24
imparted onto this cloak. And the cloak was was worn
2:22:30
by a guy, by the way, I think I'm not sure. But,
2:22:34
you know, Mel Gibson's icon, like he I think that
2:22:37
might be part of this. I'm not entirely sure. But
2:22:40
so here you have something that is unexplainable. Part of
2:22:48
it is explainable because after the image was put on,
2:22:52
people had painted over it like, I don't know, 100
2:22:54
years later. And subsequently, you know, just to upkeep it,
2:22:59
I think the angel was added. A couple of things
2:23:01
were added later. But it's not as anomalous as the
2:23:07
Shroud of Turin.
2:23:08
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm explaining as well. What is unexplainable about this painting?
2:23:13
Speaker 1: Okay, so this appears to be a painting. But underneath
2:23:16
there's an image. And the image is the Virgin Mary
2:23:22
herself without her cloak, without the angel. and without the
2:23:27
sun around her. And this image is allegedly had been
2:23:33
put on this guy's cloak, Juan Diego's cloak in the 1500s.
2:23:39
So he was, he had, she wanted a basilica, which
2:23:44
by the way, she's in right now. And that's what
2:23:47
she asked for. The bishop at the time said, I
2:23:51
don't believe you, Juan Diego. You have to show me proof.
2:23:55
So he went back to the place where he had
2:23:58
seen her and she said, go up and get a
2:24:01
bunch of flowers and put them in this cloak of
2:24:04
yours and then bring them to the bishop. You know,
2:24:07
they're out of season. They don't grow in Mexico. So
2:24:11
he did. He went, he got the flowers. He went
2:24:13
back to the bishop in Mexico City and he gave
2:24:17
them to him. And when they opened it up, there
2:24:19
was an image of the Virgin Mary on the cloak.
2:24:22
And that's where that's This is what that's supposed to be.
2:24:27
Speaker 2: I still don't understand why that's unique. It's just a painting.
2:24:30
Speaker 3: No, no one painted it. It just showed up. It
2:24:32
was just there. Okay.
2:24:33
Speaker 2: Well, what's it made out of? Like what is the ink?
2:24:37
What is the dye?
2:24:38
Speaker 1: Yeah.
2:24:38
Speaker 2: So, okay.
2:24:39
Speaker 1: So, all right. So this is where it gets complicated.
2:24:43
So the original cloak is agave materials made out of like,
2:24:49
you know, agave.
2:24:50
Speaker 2: Agave plant.
2:24:50
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah.
2:24:51
Speaker 1: And the original image appears to be the agave plant
2:24:57
fibers somehow. The image was from the fibers. It's not paint.
2:25:02
There's no drawing.
2:25:03
Speaker 2: But these colors?
2:25:05
Speaker 1: Okay, so the colors of the cloak around her, that's
2:25:09
later in a later edition.
2:25:13
Speaker 2: Okay. How do we know that?
2:25:17
Speaker 1: Art historians have looked at it. Like people who do–
2:25:20
they use infrared photography and they're able to identify the
2:25:24
layers of it.
2:25:25
Speaker 2: So that the image existed originally and then people painted
2:25:28
over the image.
2:25:29
Speaker 1: Well, they painted around it. They kind of embellished it.
2:25:32
Speaker 2: So where can we see the original?
2:25:34
Speaker 3: I'm looking. I mean it's hard to get that picture
2:25:37
because of time.
2:25:38
Speaker 2: That to me is not as interesting as the Shadow
2:25:41
of Turin.
2:25:42
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
2:25:42
Speaker 2: I agree. They're both really– Also it's painted over already.
2:25:45
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah.
2:25:46
Speaker 2: It's already been sort of bastardized.
2:25:48
Speaker 1: Yeah.
2:25:50
Speaker 2: The Shroud of Turin is just weird because it's not ink.
2:25:54
It's not dye. It seems to be some sort of–
2:25:58
like it's burned in somehow or another.
2:26:01
Speaker 1: Yeah.
2:26:01
Speaker 2: Right?
2:26:02
Speaker 3: Yeah.
2:26:02
Speaker 1: So if you got someone on here to talk about it,
2:26:04
I would either get Father Dalton or I would get
2:26:07
that doctor.
2:26:08
Speaker 2: I would want someone to dismiss it as well. I
2:26:10
would want two people to talk about it.
2:26:12
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. I think that would be a great– I'd
2:26:14
love to see it.
2:26:15
Speaker 2: Because what you're saying about the– Parts of the fabric
2:26:19
that had been repaired and that's what they did the
2:26:21
radiocarbon dating on. I've heard that disputed online.
2:26:24
Speaker 1: Okay.
2:26:26
Speaker 2: Yeah, but that would be a thing that you would
2:26:29
say if you wanted to really believe that it was
2:26:31
more than 2,000 years old. You would say, oh, no, no, no.
2:26:35
They got the wrong piece.
2:26:37
Speaker 1: Yeah.
2:26:38
Speaker 2: And also, why was it repaired? Like why would someone
2:26:40
repair it?
2:26:41
Speaker 1: Well, because it's a devotional cloth for the Catholic Church.
2:26:45
So they're going to keep it.
2:26:47
Speaker 2: By adding more cloth to it?
2:26:50
Speaker 1: Yeah, because it'll disintegrate or whatnot. I mean, it's been
2:26:53
making the rounds for a long time.
2:26:55
Speaker 2: Right. Yeah. Oh, I don't know.
2:27:01
Speaker 3: It says it was found in 1350, and they don't
2:27:04
know how it got to where it was.
2:27:06
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right. And don't they say that when they
2:27:13
do the radiocarbon dating, it goes back around that area?
2:27:16
I think It goes to like the 1200s. That's where
2:27:21
they think it came from. That's where it originated.
2:27:23
Speaker 1: Yeah. So even if it did, it's still anomalous. It's
2:27:26
still weird.
2:27:27
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's definitely weird. It's weird in the sense that
2:27:30
it wasn't painted. It's not dye. It seems to have
2:27:33
been created by energy. What is the conventional method? description?
2:28:01
Let's see. How is it made? Rectangular linen cloth, 4.4
2:28:07
meters long, 1.1 meters wide, bearing the faint front and
2:28:12
back image of a bearded, crucified man. Conventional description how
2:28:16
it was made as a physical object. Material, hand-woven linen
2:28:21
made from flax fibers, weave, thread, side strip. Okay, but
2:28:26
what about the image?
2:28:26
Speaker 3: Okay.
2:28:27
Speaker 2: A faint sepia... Is that how you say that word?
2:28:30
Speaker 1: Sepia.
2:28:31
Speaker 2: Sepia. reported finding red ochre and vermilion pigments in a
2:29:00
gelatin collagen tempera binder, concluding it was painted in the
2:29:05
14th century. This remains the dominant skeptical explanation. Rubbing or
2:29:11
bas-relief transfer technique. Researchers like Joel Nickel have reproduced shroud-like
2:29:18
images by rubbing dry pigment iron oxide over a cloth
2:29:21
laid on the bas-relief sculpture. Producing the same negative image,
2:29:26
surface-only characteristic, acid, scorch, or chemical staining technique. Dating 1988
2:29:34
radiocarbon test performed independently by labs at Oxford, Arizona, and Zurich.
2:29:40
Dated the flax to 1260 to 1390 CE with a
2:29:44
95% confidence. Squarely in the medieval period consistent with its
2:29:48
documented appearance. In Leary, around 1355, under the conventional view,
2:29:54
this dating settles the question. It's a medieval artifact likely
2:29:59
produced as a devotational or pilgrimage object during the period
2:30:06
when relic veneration was a booming industry.
2:30:12
Speaker 3: Hmm.
2:30:13
Speaker 2: Okay. So what they're saying is it's made with pigment.
2:30:16
But I thought it wasn't made with pigment.
2:30:19
Speaker 1: Yeah, and also that there are blood stains on it.
2:30:23
Speaker 2: Actual blood?
2:30:24
Speaker 1: Well, that's what it's supposed to be.
2:30:28
Speaker 2: Right, but that's what it's supposed to be. But has
2:30:30
anybody ever done a study, any kind of tests on that?
2:30:36
The blood stains are real human blood applied before the
2:30:39
image was formed.
2:30:40
Speaker 3: This is what Shroud Proponents say.
2:30:41
Speaker 2: Shroud Proponents contest all the above, arguing the C4 sample
2:30:45
came from an evil repair patch. that no reproduction fully
2:30:49
matches the image's properties superficially of the 200 nanometer 3D
2:30:55
encoded distance information, no brush strokes, and that the bloodstains
2:31:00
are real human blood applied before the image formed, but
2:31:04
the mainstream conventional description remains 14th century linen cloth with
2:31:08
hand-produced image made in France as a religious artifact. Yeah, yeah.
2:31:17
The thing is people want to believe that it's the
2:31:19
shroud that Jesus was buried in, right?
2:31:22
Speaker 1: Well, people do want to believe it, but I don't–
2:31:25
I didn't necessarily want to believe it. Like I've had–
2:31:27
I used to not believe it.
2:31:29
Speaker 2: Do you believe it now?
2:31:30
Speaker 1: Definitely, yeah.
2:31:31
Speaker 2: Why definitely?
2:31:33
Speaker 1: Because of the information by the blood doctor guy, which
2:31:37
I hate to keep calling him that. I wish I
2:31:40
knew what his name was. And also my friend who
2:31:43
is at the Shroud Analysis at Duke University and also
2:31:48
like what Father Dalton talks about. You know, I mean,
2:31:52
the thing is, is that it looks pretty weird.
2:31:54
Speaker 2: It's definitely weird.
2:31:56
Speaker 3: Yeah.
2:31:56
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, yeah. So I believe it. But I'm not
2:31:59
like I can't prove that. And I'm not going to.
2:32:01
That's why I do religious studies, by the way. I'm
2:32:03
not a theologian. I can't say, yes, you must believe this.
2:32:06
I don't know. I believe it. That's what I can say.
2:32:09
Speaker 3: Dr. John Campbell?
2:32:10
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's him.
2:32:11
Speaker 3: He's got 3 million subscribers on YouTube.
2:32:12
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that's him. Yeah, that's him.
2:32:14
Speaker 2: Okay, but why do you– I still don't understand why
2:32:17
do you believe– if it turns out that these people
2:32:19
are all saying the truth, that it was made with–
2:32:23
it would die.
2:32:24
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, of course. Then I'll just change my perception
2:32:28
because I have new data. I will change my theory.
2:32:31
Like right now I believe it's the truth.
2:32:33
Speaker 2: But that data does exist, that it's made with dye. Okay.
2:32:38
Speaker 1: So dye could have been put on it. I believe
2:32:41
that there is an image on it. There is an
2:32:46
image on it. How did that image get there? So
2:32:49
this is the kind of thing. Things could have been
2:32:52
done with it. It was repaired. It went through many hands.
2:32:56
I mean I am a person who knows about Catholic relics.
2:32:59
I know what happens to them. So these are things
2:33:02
that would be normal relics. in the life of a
2:33:05
relic that they would be handled sometimes with care, sometimes
2:33:08
with not, not with care. Um, so yeah, that's my belief, Joe.
2:33:12
Like if I get, you know, analysis from somebody like
2:33:17
Gary Nolan and he does this like, you know, microscopic
2:33:21
analysis of everything and says, no, Diana, sorry, this is not,
2:33:24
you know, I'll be, Oh, that's too bad. I really
2:33:27
enjoyed having that belief for 10 years.
2:33:30
Speaker 2: But it seems like if the radiocarbon dating was from 1988,
2:33:33
like shouldn't we do some sort of an updated analysis
2:33:36
of what this thing is?
2:33:37
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right.
2:33:38
Speaker 2: To settle it? Totally.
2:33:40
Speaker 1: Where is it now? Yeah, I'm all for that.
2:33:41
Speaker 3: Who has it?
2:33:42
Speaker 2: That's a good question.
2:33:43
Speaker 3: Where is it now?
2:33:45
Speaker 2: Where does it live?
2:33:46
Speaker 1: Is it like at the Vatican somewhere? Honestly, I think
2:33:49
it's in Turin. But I could be wrong. Yeah, yeah,
2:33:51
in Italy.
2:33:52
Speaker 2: Oh, wow.
2:33:53
Speaker 3: Yeah.
2:33:54
Speaker 1: I could be wrong though, but I think it is.
2:33:56
Speaker 2: Can you look at it? Can you go there and
2:33:58
look at it?
2:33:58
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think you can.
2:33:59
Speaker 3: Yeah. It's in the cathedral of St. John the Baptist
2:34:03
in Turin, Italy. It's been housed there since 1578.
2:34:06
Speaker 2: Wow.
2:34:07
Speaker 3: Amazing.
2:34:08
Speaker 2: No one's trying to steal it.
2:34:12
Speaker 1: Don't say that.
2:34:14
Speaker 3: Why? Would they have ever made a fake to hide
2:34:19
the real one? Yeah, that could be. The plot thickens.
2:34:21
Speaker 2: The plot thickens.
2:34:22
Speaker 3: Um....
2:34:30
Speaker 2: Anything else should we talk about before we wrap this up?
2:34:32
Is there anything else we didn't cover?
2:34:35
Speaker 3: No.
2:34:36
Speaker 1: You have an alien image up here and he has horns.
2:34:39
Looks like a demon.
2:34:41
Speaker 2: Yeah. That's the Mothership logo. Comedy Mothership.
2:34:45
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Okay. Just saying.
2:34:48
Speaker 2: I know. There's no real significance to it, though. It's
2:34:51
just fun.
2:34:52
Speaker 1: Yeah, of course.
2:34:53
Speaker 3: Of course.
2:34:54
Speaker 2: Allegedly. I see you did notice that, though. It is weird.
2:35:01
I get it, especially after we're talking. I showed that
2:35:03
to JD. I'm like, do you think that's a demon?
2:35:06
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah, yeah. He may have noticed it and chose
2:35:08
not to say anything.
2:35:09
Speaker 2: I don't think he did.
2:35:11
Speaker 1: Okay.
2:35:11
Speaker 2: I think he probably would have brought it up. So nothing?
2:35:15
Nothing else? Is there anything else you wanted to talk
2:35:18
about before we wrap this up?
2:35:19
Speaker 1: I just published a book. It came out yesterday called
2:35:22
The Others.
2:35:22
Speaker 2: And what is it about?
2:35:24
Speaker 1: It's about stuff we've been talking about, but it's also
2:35:26
about religion and about the spiritual sense and things like
2:35:30
that and AI. So it has a theory of ET.
2:35:38
We're talking about ET. It has a theory of ET
2:35:40
in it and a couple other things. So, yeah.
2:35:44
Speaker 2: What is your theory of ET?
2:35:46
Speaker 1: Well, I'm rehousing some theories. So I'm like the theory
2:35:51
of advanced technology. being what people are encountering when they're
2:35:57
encountering what they consider to be aliens and E.T. We
2:36:02
talked a little bit about this last time. It was
2:36:03
something that I was thinking of it, and I just
2:36:06
rehashed it. So it's there in the book in a
2:36:09
more developed form. If I were to just do an
2:36:13
elevator description of it, though, I would say that Steven
2:36:17
Spielberg's film AI is a really good film about E.T.,
2:36:23
And what he thinks, you know, if E.T. were– I
2:36:26
know he's just done Disclosure Day. But his movie AI.
2:36:30
Speaker 2: Seems like– When was that movie?
2:36:32
Speaker 1: It was a long time ago. But it's really good
2:36:34
if you rewatch it today. At the end, I'm not
2:36:39
going to do– well, people should have seen it already, right?
2:36:42
At the end, there are aliens. And they're basically– humans
2:36:47
have long since gone. And their technology, their AI has–
2:36:52
improved itself to the point where it's a life form.
2:36:56
And so that would be, like, the theory of.
2:36:58
Speaker 2: I think that's probably.
2:36:59
Speaker 3: 2001.
2:37:00
Speaker 2: Oh, wow.
2:37:01
Speaker 3: Haley Jo Osment.
2:37:03
Speaker 2: Oh, I kind of remember this.
2:37:05
Speaker 3: Jude Law.
2:37:06
Speaker 1: It's about AI, but at the end, it ends up
2:37:09
being kind of like a theory of E.T.
2:37:15
Speaker 2: Yeah, which I kind of have a feeling that life
2:37:18
eventually stops being biological and becomes digital And maybe that's
2:37:23
what people are encountering.
2:37:25
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what the the others is it has a
2:37:27
chapter two chapters about that yeah all.
2:37:30
Speaker 2: Right well diana it's always fascinating.
2:37:34
Speaker 1: Talking to you i really enjoyed it yeah thank you.
2:37:36
Speaker 2: Very much uh did you do the audiobook or did
2:37:38
you have an actor do it no i did it
2:37:40
thank you it's always better it really is it's always
2:37:44
better when an author actually does the audiobook there it
2:37:47
is The Others, UFO, AI, and the Secret Forces Guiding
2:37:52
Human Destiny. And I really loved your other book, too,
2:37:57
American Cosmic.
2:37:58
Speaker 1: Oh, thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that.
2:38:00
Speaker 3: All right.
2:38:00
Speaker 1: Thank you so much.
2:38:00
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you for being here. Let's do it
2:38:02
again sometime.
2:38:02
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's do it.
2:38:03
Speaker 2: Next time we've got another book.
2:38:04
Speaker 1: Okay.
2:38:04
Speaker 2: I'm sure you're going to keep writing. All right.
2:38:06
Speaker 1: Next time, yeah, about Christianity.
2:38:08
Speaker 3: Okay.
2:38:08
Speaker 2: Cool.
2:38:08
Speaker 3: We'll do it.
2:38:09
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. Bye, everybody.
2:38:12
Speaker 3: Bye.