Eric Weinstein Confronts Government Scientist on UFOs | MEMBERS RELEASE

>> The alleged Roswell crash was real. There was a there there really happened. >> How is it possible that something this large that involves this many people has zero incontrovertible pieces of >> Do you dispute the existence of atomic weapons because you can't access it? >> I can access it. >> Oh, you can access it? >> I have no idea what we just did. It is a crash retrieval. Nonhuman intelligence, nonhuman technology. >> How many of those crash retrieval program people have you met? >> I think it's five total. There's no

physics in it. They're just >> It doesn't make any sense. >> Say again. >> It defies the laws of physics. We haven't made progress. We have no physicists. How are they doing on this project decades in? >> This thing is not a Manhattan project. And you know what the Manhattan project >> Not one of these proposals excites me. They're boring as sin. I don't like GR. Why are you not tweaking it? >> I'm don't have intuition on how I could twe tweak it. >> Are there propulsion modalities that

you're high conviction in that transcend chemical combustion? >> Yeah, it goes way beyond even advanced. >> Are you aware of reports that we are >> made to know that we do not control our >> Yes. When you see smoke at this level, the question is what is the nature of the fire? There are different fires or there's a smoke machine >> or there's a smoke machine, right? >> Yeah. Well, that's a question. It's like, you know, does the tip of the iceberg look like is it actually an

>> If you have Lovelock's theorem and you lose the constancy of dark energy, you're starting to actually put general relativity in some peril. >> That's very interesting. I hadn't thought about that. You're not supposed to let a super rich guy with no ostensible means of achieving his fortune buy an enormous ranch a stones throw from Los Alamos with the intention of talking to high energy and weapons physicists at the end of the cold war as they lose their funding. Somebody figured out that physics is just too

dangerous to do in a university setting. Look, I believe we can leave. And if you believe you can leave, you have to imagine that you're being visited. >> Nothing too unusual about that. >> Their existence cannot longer be denied.

is an absolute honor. I can't believe this is finally happening. Um, I think often in this space in when we're talking about UFOs, UFO legacy, reverse engineering programs, you have uh like a wave function that never sort of collapses and you have, you know, different sides saying things that are mutually exclusive and truth, it never collapses into true or false. And uh I'm really excited to do this because uh Eric Weinstein, you probably need no

introduction when it comes to kind of a general audience. You are uh a math PhD from Harvard, uh premier cultural commentator of our generation, uh who has dared to uh present a theory of everything in physics. Uh and then Eric Davis, you definitely need no introduction in in UFO space. Uh but to maybe a more general audience, you know, some of whom who might have seen you in this recent Age of Disclosure movie, uh you are kind of synonymous with UFO science. You have an amazing background

um at aerospace corporation, uh Earth Tech, uh you've worked with NASA Lewis, uh you've worked on on various initiatives in uh exotic propulsion, directed energy, and so very excited to have you both today. I want to make this kind of two parts. one part is kind of establishing ground truth on uh Eric Davis's uh claims because he's invest he's formally investigated this UFO legacy reverse engineering program. So I want to figure out what those claims are

for the audience. And then part two and this is why we have you here Dr. Weinstein is I want to figure out and this is kind of actually a followup on this thing we did with Hal Putoff last If there is a theoretical physics component to this UFO legacy reverse engineering program, is there physics hiding in private aerospace corporations? Physics you can think of as the rules of reality itself. That would be problematic to say the least if

that were the case. And so I'm very excited to to speak to you both. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Thanks for having me. >> Awesome. So um Eric Davis, I I want to start with you. um when did you become aware of this UFO legacy reverse engineering program and and and how did you become aware of it and and how are you so high confidence in it? Um I was working at NIDS uh it'd be 30 years this July and I was the director of aerospace

people, but I was able to get in to the people who handled all of that at a programmatic level and got confirmation that all of that was real, that all of it happened. >> And and what's your conviction level in say Roswell for example? Like that being a real crash involving non-human >> It's 100%. >> It's 100%. >> Because do you have any physical The gal from TRW confirmed it. She confirmed the other crashes that occurred which were not all wreckage, but some were captured entire vehicles. And then there's my

work with Dave Brush when I was at the Aerospace Corporation. He was at the Aerospace Corporation building in Colorado Springs because he worked for their government customer which occupied one or two floors there. >> What was David Grush doing in that capacity? uh he was I think a security contractor or advisor to a a program manager. Dave was the NRO liaison officer to the UAP task force. So he uh took direction from J Stratton. >> Wasn't he a national geospatial agency?

that contributed uh sometime some of their time and labor and resources and the other government agencies DoD agencies intelligence agencies to feed information to the task force. >> A lot of people ask about kind of circular reporting when it comes to UFO you know testimonies. David Grush is what a lot of people I think are hinged hinging their belief on because he's just seems like a very kind of honest above board guy who stumbled into a lot of this stuff. Um, how many of his witnesses, his 40 witnesses are more of

kind of the hless engineer type that just worked on the vehicles versus people who have, you know, kind of secondhand or, you know, thirdand >> No, they're all firsthand. It's just that uh it's something that Eric and I had lots of hours and hours of conversations about two years ago. Not a single of them were were a physicist. physicists. They had some discipline in engineering in their in their ex in their profession. They were either electrical engineers, material scientists, uh aerospace engineers,

aeromechanical, aerothermal, thermal control, fluid mechanics. >> Save save that. >> Who wasn't a real physicist there? Nobody at the PhD level who is either an applied physicist or an or a theoretical >> Say save that thought please because that is going to basically be the entire kind of premise for the second part of this. Do you have any questions as I'm sort of, you know, >> well, you know, look, one of the things that I dislike very strongly about the UAP world is that you spend an inordinate amount of

time if you're just trying to be an honest analytic person with the is there any actual tangible incontrovertible proof? And it always seems like there's somehow this tight-knit group of people who in general themselves don't have direct proof, but sort of have proof one thing away. And people build entire theories about, you know, the names of crafts and who was where and and I just have no idea as a civilian uh and a

technical civilian um how to think about this because I don't want to spend our time in the is it real or not mode because that basically wastes time and it's also how con conspirators get people not to work on conspiracy theories that could work is that you demonize and stigmatize the behavior. So, I usually would prefer in this this situation to just decamp and assume the nature of all of these things. But just to be honest, and it just needs to be said once, >> I've been looking at this now, I don't

know, 5 years since Jesse first crammed it down my throat, and I would say >> uh I was clearly wrong about it. It's an enormous area. There's so many people who claim to have had contact with this program in one form or another. I I can't believe that anyone could train an acting troop at Brando levels of sincerity uh to lie to me like that. On the other hand, I've never seen anything like it where I can't get a single shred of incontrovertible proof and so many people seem to have it, but they all

seem to be under some kind of an NDA where they can't give something real. So the just the first frustrating question is how is it possible that something this large that involves this many people has zero scientifically incontrovertible pieces of evidence so that we can actually there's no way to predicate a discussion in a way that I know that's that's responsible. It just completely eludes the scientific community. >> Yeah. It's because the incontrovertible evidence is kept in the classified realm for for security reasons. Well, but and

again, I don't want to I don't want to >> Do you do you dispute the existence of atomic weapons because you can access >> I can access it. >> Oh, you can access it? >> Yes. If I look at if I look at the plutonium core? >> No, I never kept the demon core in my >> Oh, how about the uh how about the >> But I appreciate the lithium 6 fuel and the primary new. >> Oh, we used to do that in high school. >> Oh, no. No. What I'm saying is is that the Teller Ulan design is released as a highly redacted report, right? And so I

have an idea from plenty of sources that this program exists. And what's more, in the case of of of atomic weapons, physicists are not perfectly locked down. It's a high trust community. And in general, people are willing to talk uh you know even if they shouldn't about the role of physics and atomic weapons. I have never heard a colleague not once at a high level in physics give any credence to this world. In other words,

>> well that's because they didn't have access. They didn't have need to know. they didn't have a contract where they had to have >> access which again it's not it's not a challenge in that sense assume that there is a dividing line but it means in the Manhattan project right we we called in Fineman and Boore and Fairmy and Vonman and put them under Robert Oppenheimer and and Teller and all these cats and okay >> Bethy and >> and Beta right

>> so but in so doing. I would say, okay, I would imagine that if this is an existential threat that there's stuff from someplace we can't understand that moves and and breaks the laws of physics and all this, we would call that in. Now, one of the great things that came out of our our discussions before is you said this thing which I repeated on Rogan because I didn't think it was classified. You said when it comes to being technical just at this point, but that they don't invite in physics. You said uh you you said that uh Eric you,

me and Halputoff are the three most technical people on this and I said I'm not on this. >> Yeah, that's that's the problem. You should be in it. >> Okay, but but that makes you Oenheimer and Vonoyman and Fineman and Beta and Fairmy is Hal or something like that. In other words, or or the reverse, but are you and how our Manhattan project No, we're not directly involved. We've been exposed to it officially for the

purpose of the OAP's goals. What is the question that I wish to ask? Do you can you figure out >> Well, I think I think what Eric's trying to ask and then I do want to actually continue along the former lines of just asking about kind of core evidence with with Dr. Davis. But I think the question that Eric is trying to ask is you just mentioned that none of Grush's, you know, 40 witnesses that he, you know, handed over to the uh intelligence community inspector general uh are theoretical physicists, right? >> And so you have, you know, your physics

PhD, how's an electrical engineer, and >> well, he's also well, his uh PhD was in laser physics because when you go to Stanford in the 1960s, you can't get a PhD in physics or a master's. So, so it's you two and then Eric who is a a you know math PhD at the highest level who can keep up with you know any physicist in the country and has his own physics theory of everything I know. >> And so it's so it's all all three of you guys but all three of you are outsiders. He's a real outsider. You two have officially investigated this stuff and

you're saying there are no theoretical physicists on the core program. >> I have never seen one. I've never gotten evidence from the people from the leadership at at the aeros two aerospace companies I personally interviewed with. So I don't mean interviewed with but who I investigated and interviewed leadership and a few of the worker bees >> Are there propulsion modalities that your high conviction in that transcend chemical combustion? Yeah, it goes way beyond even advanced

nuclear and uh nuclear in aerospace industry is fision fusion and matter antimatter annihilation way beyond that. Um I don't think we have a grasp of it. I haven't heard anybody that I've interviewed uh say that they have a grasp of it. And even as recently uh um the one technical person who ended up becoming a senior VP decades later uh at the biggest of the aeros legacy aerospace companies uh he was a material

scientist working on the crash retrieval program after after getting his doctor after earning his doctorate and he got hired straight away to work on it for about uh roughly two decades. >> Who is this? >> Who is that? >> I'm not worried. So um uh so basically he's a material scientist. We've had a lot of classified and unclassified discussions and I brought these questions up. I asked his questions. Yeah. And the and the answer is no. You we we didn't have theoretical physicist

that we could put on this. We're strictly limited >> in the number of people on the bigot list. The bigot list is the list of people who have need to know and access to a particular classified program. And if you're not on that list, you don't get admitted. you don't get invited. >> This is an unagnowledged waved and bigoted self uh special access. It's a waved unagnowledged special access program, right? And so, uh I said, "So, where are your physicists? What are your theoretical and applied physicists telling you?" He said, "Well, we don't have any. We never did. We only were

allowed to keep it down to roughly a handful of people in the company to work on this and that's it. And it's limited to engineering and there's no physics in it. They're just >> It doesn't make any sense. >> Say again. I'm just I'm just trying to logically think about this. Okay. And you know, it's it's like saying we're having trouble performing uh Beethoven's fifth and we have the finest accountants, optometrists, boxers, uh and cardio trainers. And you're like, well, what about violinists and violists and

anybody playing the French horn? And it's like, oh, well, we don't we don't do that. >> So, of course, you're not going to play Beethoven's fifth. I mean, because you can't engineer your way out of a science >> Yeah. But let me tell you, I think you got a great point about talking about Manhattan, the Manhattan Project. >> This this thing is not a Manhattan project. And you know what the Manhattan Project was? We both do. We read the books. Um, it was multi how many people? Thousands of people. Multi-disiplinary. >> The white badges was the very small

core, but the the whole thing was >> Yeah. You had industrial engineers, um, computational engineers, electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, explosives experts, nuclear ex nuclear physicist and nuclear engineers. You had everybody of of all the STEM disciplines there. You had to have mathematicians >> and uh they were involved with that program to build up the the fuel design, characterization, and manufacture. But this program does it. These programs don't have that. They deliberately keep

it divided up among different companies to maintain plausible deniability in case there's a leak and they keep it very small for the reason >> but it has to be centralized somewhere. The compartmentalized nature of Los Alamos and uh the Manhattan Project more um was still overseen by a small group who had universal access. >> That's right. And also note that the Manhattan Project people had their families living with them too in a closed city. >> That's right. >> That's right. So they don't have an equivalent for this in the crash

retrieval program. Um so there's dis disjointed groups of people, small numbers of people. They're not allowed to know about the other people and what they're doing. >> Those are the people who are in the stovepiped architecture, >> right? And the central um >> the central portfolio owner is a three-letter intelligence agency. So that's who's is centrally in charge. It was Lesie Grove in the United States. Was it the AR was Leslie the uh general of the uh Army Corps of Engineers or was

he in a different >> I don't remember where he was. >> Okay, but he was in charge on behalf of the army. He ran it. He was the military boss and Oppenheimer was the civilian boss of the Manhattan project. >> Do do you take uh David Grush at face value that Dick Cheney was the last head honcho of this sort of program? >> And there's not really a mob boss. The closest person we got that uh I was aware of was unfortunately now deceased Vice President Dick Cheney. Uh Darth Vader himself. Not shocking that he was

involved in this. And essentially when he left in 2009, that was the last time that these activities really had central >> I never heard that before. So that never came up in our in our classified and unclassified conversations. I'm not aware that Dick Cheney had any role >> to speak to this threeletter. the the the head the head you cited a three-letter in our discussion at soul in San Francisco you directly said CIA DS&T at one time Glen Gaffne etc. So was the UFO program portfolio owner so to

Dr. Weinstein's question about technical rigor physicists. Did you ever have the opportunity to to ask anybody near the head of this apparatus? Why there wasn't a stronger motivation to have physicists on staff? I mean, from an early era, why was there not that prioritization? >> Well, I would love to talk to the head of the crash retrieval program during that era, but he refused to talk to us. I see. >> And that was that was Glen Gaffne. >> Yeah. Glen Glen Gaffne. And who is Jim Ryder? He's this Loheed Martin space

systems guy. >> He was the um uh senior vice president of Loheed Martin space and missiles company which is also the um space systems company and his dual hat job was director of the company's advanced technology center. >> Did he also work on UFO crash retrieval >> Well, I don't want to say that um or confirm or deny that because of the consequence to his family. one of his one of his daughters works there. >> Okay, got it.

>> It could cause her issues. So, >> So, I can't get into that particular >> Okay. Yeah. No, no, no problem. Um, it when when you're on Age of Disclosure and you are saying sort of confidently that Roswell had, you know, a certain number of beings, one of the beings probably survived is that I don't know. You know, I Okay, >> that's that's a point of information I have never gotten in any of my official government interviews uh or even unofficial off thereord interviews. Um

is that any of these aliens ever lived? Uh this is coming from a different avenue and um I don't recall Dave Brush telling me that that was the case, but I I won't dismiss it offhand. It's just that it it's not a piece of data that ever came my way after 30 years. >> As part of your official investigations in OAP, >> you were making sure that your sources were completely uncorrelated, right? They weren't speaking to each other. >> Oh, yeah. They wouldn't be able to because they were in compartmentalized programs and we had uh compartmentalized

clearances ourselves. So, we could only talk to them at a certain level. And even we could not get special access program clearanced because the VP of Loheed Martin uh there was a VP of TRW before it got bought out by Northrup Grumman. Um these guys uh they may know about each other but they're not read in on each other's programs because that's what compartmentalization meant. It meant that uh they may know about each

other through the through the portfolio owner, but they're not allowed to communicate because of that compartmentalization. And um uh so where was I going? I think I lost my train of thought. I'm sorry. >> Well, tell tell me about George HW Bush. Bush 41. >> That's separate. That's separate. >> Yeah, to totally separate. But um yeah, just wanted to ask you about your interactions with him because it seemed like from your accounting he wasn't fully aware of the UFO crash retrieval program, but he became aware of it through some interesting >> Well, he became uh Gerald Ford's CIA

>> So Gerald Ford became president, he nominated Bush and Bush got confirmed and he became the CIA director. So he goes into this for his first briefing as director of the CIA and uh one of his briefings is a um is a Pentagon liaison officer representing the department of defense. Now that liaison officer has a foot in the CIA and a foot in the Pentagon. So he comes in and he's then CIA director Bush uh on various Pentagon joint CIA Pentagon operations

programs and so forth. Then he assumed that Bush had already been read in by his internal people on the crash retrieval program. So he just blurts out, "And by the way," and this is kind of sort of how Bush related it to me. And by the way, um uh when you have an issue with, and in those days they called it UFOs. So, if you have an issue with a UFO incident that uh directly impacts the CIA and requires you to make a decision as the CIA director, uh but

you can't do it because it it's requiring a level of resources and coordination across the defense department intelligence agencies that requires the president's approval. Then you need to contact the president's national security adviser. He's the coordinator for all things UFOs in the White House. And so Bush said, "What?" And he said, "Oh, uh, well, I was supposed to brief you on all these various X, Y, and Z topics." The X

topic, the first thing that came out of this briefer's mouth was the Hollowman landing in April 1964 at Hollowman uh, Air Force Base in New Mexico. >> Describe what this is for the audience. >> Well, that was uh, and so, so hang on. So, uh, so he started briefing Bush on that. And Bush said, "What are you talking about? I've never heard of this before." And he said, "But I thought you've already been briefed by your, uh, deputy director for science, uh, for I think it was the deputy director for intelligence, and I think you got I

thought you got briefed on that subject and on all the other UFO subjects." And he said, "No, I haven't." And so since he already spilled the beans initially, he just went ahead and completed giving the rest of the information to to director Bush and this was about the circumstance of the Hollowman Landing >> How how is it that the director the longtime director of the CIA isn't briefed from his own science and technology director? >> I don't know. It's it's a culture thing. I'm I'm not in that culture, so I don't

know what the culture what the protocols and standards are. It might have been that that briefing was going to be given to Bush, but might have been a later >> That's for all we know. >> And then just for the audience, what is the Hollowman landing of 1964? >> Okay. Well, April 1964, we have a helicopter crew on its way to White Sands Missile Test Range and they're going to be they've got a film crew on the on the helicopter and the film crew is supposed to record on film missile test flights. They've got new types of missiles and they're testing them and they want to get it all on film for

analysis by the technicians and the scientists and engineers that are running it. Yeah. And actually they have scientists working with those other than engineers back in those days. So um uh so anyway, uh they're on their way and then they get a call from the tower. Hey, um you're going to you're going to delay that that operation. return back to the base, but hover into the traffic pattern and aim your camera on three bogeies that are entering our airspace. We want you to record what happens. So, uh, so to make a long story short, three

craft, UAP craft, UFO craft came in. One of them landed not on the runway, but on the tarmac close to a u a hanger. The other two took off and uh a gang way cames down, extended down and down comes a humanoid looking very tall uh NHI being. Uh he looked like a northern European descent or uh you know yeah uh so uh he had a apparatus on his face so

you couldn't see all of his face. They were assuming that was to help him breathe our air. Then he has some sort of a rod in his hand which was being assumed to be a translator uh because he may not have spoken our language. So So he's coming down and he's meeting with uniformed air force officers from that base and uh civilian clothed representatives of the CIA. So he goes and meets with them and they go into that hanger and that hanger turns out to be the equivalent back in those days of a special access program hanger.

It's all secured. They've got guards around it. That's the end of the story. So this film was made of it and this story has circulated at various times. Uh uh the defense audiovisisual agency under the command of two uh retired generals. Uh I think Jerry Miller was the name of one of them. I don't remember the name of the other. Jacqu Vali talks about them in his book Revelations I think it is. and uh he and Alan Heinik were invited to go to the DAVA and see that film, get access to

the film and see it. Uh separately, uh Linda How was beginning to make her documentaries on HBO for on UAPs in the early to mid 80s. She was promised that film by notorious artist Rick >> Did Jo and Jaylen Heinik see the video? >> No, they didn't. What? H That's right. I didn't need to finish that story. So they were on So they got there and apparently they were not allowed to see that video because the one of those two generals said that they got intercepted or um uh somebody got in the middle of

that and and convinced them not to allow Ble and Heinik to see that film. Uh, I think I think the story is is that the film got removed or something >> cuz there is this weird fact pattern with UFO lore where you have a lot of stuff kind of existing in the open- source realm and then that's often kind of synonymous with, you know, stuff that seems to be confirmed at the highest levels of intelligence by people like yourself or Jim Semiban or, you know, some of these other guys who are,

>> you know, their credentials are kind of unimpeachable. But you hear these weird stories like with the Holman Landing where there was this movie UFOs past, present, and future made by Bob Emman and Adam Sandler. Yeah. >> And Alan Sandler. Exactly. And uh and then Rod Serling was the you know the >> The host and and Jayen Meredith and Ferrer and all these people are involved and they are promised the video as well. And they go through this whole song and dance where they're promised the video and then >> and it gets pulled. it gets pulled, but

then they get a little bit of the video and then I'm pretty sure that little slice of the video is debunked and it's that's like actually >> that slice of the video you're talking about was actually substituted because they uh Emmenager and Sandler already had that segment planned for the storyboard of the production. Yeah. >> And so the production had already gotten through to that point and all of a sudden now they don't have the film and it's not a video, it's a film. So they don't have the film. They can't put it into the format. So Rick Dodie promised

uh Linda How that she would get access to the Hollowman landing film. Told her to go to that office. I think I think it was at Kirtland Air Force Base or maybe it was at the DAVA. And she shows up and they don't know what she's talking >> For the audience, Rick Dodie is a notorious Air Force Office of >> AFOSI special agent. He got descertified as a special agent in 1986. But but he comes from a line of these sorts of people that >> they're counter intelligence guys and their job is to lie and obuscate in order to get the enemy like like Russian

spy cells and other enemy spy or assets and physicists going to throw them off >> of legitimate you know intelligence that's going on out there that's getting into the public domain. Why should I guess you know you have you know this age of disclosure movie which is you know very well done but you have all these guys at very elite levels where you know I think it would look pretty bad if it showed that they were lying in like 10 to 20 or 30 years or whatever but you do have this fact pattern over decades of you know this sort of luring

in of various you know UFO researchers and presentation of passage material which is you know um material that might have some truth in it, but it's also sprinkled with falsities so that you know the the researchers can be discredited. So why now is there this line in the sand where we should trust that there is this real UFO legacy crash retrieval program going on? >> You know, I'm kind of thinking maybe it all began with uh Keller Hernappen Latsky's first book uh Skinw Walkers at

the Pentagon. I think that started it >> and then uh Laksky did his first book and then now second book last year and I think he's got a third one coming out or may was the second book before last year maybe but anyway he's got a third book coming out and then uh Jay Stratton's book is coming out this first quarter of this year >> and then Lou Alzando's book came out and so I think this is a crescendo of things that have come together in uh the right time the right place the right people and that's why this is happening >> and if you're Stratton and and you

you're hosting because he was the guy who ran the UAPF, the UAP task force, right? And so, >> but he also was working uh with Jim Latsky on the OSAP. He was at DIA at the time. So, they >> I don't know if you knew that. >> I didn't know that. >> He and Lassky are the ones that built the OSAP program together. So, it wasn't just Jim Lowsky alone. with Jim and Jay and their support staff, their you know the DIA and and contractor staff that supported them. So Jay was involved with

dollars maybe $2 billion worth of >> But you were simultaneously saying there is an underlying program that is a legacy reverse engineering program that >> yeah that's this this after the fact >> and that that has to >> we were trying to get into the crash retrieval program. our our goal was to get after it and co-opt it into the OAP so we could do what the goals of the OPSAP wanted us to do. And I don't think that was necessarily to bring it out in the public domain. That was to keep it con uh uh classified anyway. But our job

was to get access to it because we were not convinced that there was any progress made. And as a matter of fact, the senior VP at at one of the aerospace corporations who I had years worth of interviews with uh before and after he retired um confirmed that there was no success in the reverse engineering program after eight decades and it just didn't go anywhere. They had minor success like they understood the materials that craft were made from. They figured out how they were constructed but we couldn't reproduce

any of it. We had no techn um we had no fabrication or manufacturing technology at the time of the crash retrieval programs when they were fully funded and fully act operating to figure that out. We could just use our SEM and and transmission SEM microscopes and other advanced uh uh um condensed matter state diagnostic tools and evaluate it, look at it, look at it down into the into the you know almost nano scale and we could see how the materials were assembled but

we could not figure out how to reproduce that process and uh we hadn't I don't even know if we're close yet still today. I if we have made no progress, why aren't we more open with the scientific community? >> Well, that's the security aspect of it. I I'm I'm not involved with that policy aspect and I don't have contact with the people that make the policy on that. So, I can't answer that. But you are >> not that I don't want to, I just don't get it. And you're you're saying confidently that there are billion dollar budgets involved in the actual

core UFO. >> I don't know. I don't know that it's that much. It was on that order as from my interviews with TRW and Loheed Martin people. Um uh that that was the or order of magnitude of the budget expenditures that were given not on an annual basis but it was more like maybe over a u a 5 to 10 year period but then the budget would go up and down just like NASA's budget would go up and down. So the budgets would go up and they'd have they'd be flushed with money, get in get

a few more people in, get some better equipment in the lab, and then the budget gets cut and they got to go to bare minimum operations. People get laid off and whatever. >> As well, you had asked, "How can you be so sure about the NHI nature of the Roswell crash?" >> Yeah. worthwhile mention. You had indicated after the 1997 Pentagon briefing that Greer and and Will Miller and Mitchell were at that MI Wilson went and independently validated that Roswell was an NHI event. So there's a

non-ircular reporting chain that's worth interrogating. That's not nothing to do with how etc etc. Right. >> Correct. And also there's something else you need to know is that um it was Will Miller that Wilson said called and he explicitly told Miller he didn't want Greer Mitchell and the others on the disclosure project to know what the conversation was about but he confirmed everything the reality Roswell to Miller. Miller did not keep the admiral's confidence. He went ahead and told the others. >> Okay that was back in the summer of 97.

So that would be it. Um fast forward to 2005. UFO magazine is got Vicky Ecker. She's the owner and co-editor, co-owner, co-editor. She's at a UFO congress and Gre's the featured speaker. She pulls him over in the ballroom and interviews him and he's going on and on about stuff about his disclosure project activities and then he brings up what Wilson told Miller in confidence and he blabbed generally the essence of what you not the entire content but the key essence of what Wilson told me

place in the EG&G parking lot and it is this you know admiral who is head of uh J2 joint. >> He was retired at the time. >> He was retired at the time back into active duty for a short period of time because he had to close out a project at Area 51 that he was responsible for under his office at the DIA uh that he initiated and um it was a complicated project. He he couldn't tell me because I didn't have that kind of level of access or anything like that. So he he all I know is he said I'm back because I've got to go back up into that he he

wouldn't say Area 51. I knew what he was talking about. He was saying he used the word back in those days the undeclared or unagnowledged facility near the Nevada test site and he had to go back there because they needed to close out a major project he initiated when he was active duty uh DIA director and um and so he was willing to meet with me at the behest of two guys at the National Nuclear Security Agency that I personally knew. John Alexander and I knew them. Uh we were all members of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers. We were forming a Las Vegas

chapter in 2002. So these guys were in Las Vegas because one of them is the director of intelligence at the NNSA site in Vegas uh in Nevada and the other one was the director of counter intelligence uh at the NNSA site as >> And so at least formerly Wilson was supposed to have all military tech under his purview, under his scope. And he's expressing a lot of frustration to you right that he's just met with this private corporation. This is back in 97. >> This is in 97. >> The summer of 97.

>> And he's saying he's saying these there's this team of people in the hundreds of people. And they have this tech this uh material that doesn't seem to be of human origin and progress is sort of slow and cumbersome, but that he for whatever reason wasn't supervising or overseeing it even though he should have been. >> It's it's that he they claimed he didn't have need to know. And that's possible. uh their budget came from his in other words their their funding I'm sorry their funding came from his director's

budget the budget he gets as a director this was DIA money that he wasn't aware of he wasn't aware because this this is a WOOAP he hadn't been read in on it and so when you deal with budget line items for these things they're just inocuous budget codes that a controller general of the defense department or the military services or of US government understands how to read a budget code and then a a a standard plain English description is deliberately meant to be

vague so you can't identify it. That way if the budget document gets gets captured by espionage assets from foreign nations, foreign adversaries, they won't understand what the hell it is. So all they're going to see is something they don't they may or may not even know how to interpret and some innocuous words. And this could be as as innocuous as aerospace technology review or uh well let's look at the OAP advanced aerospace weapon systems application program. It could be something similar to that or of that

nature. You'll see something of that nature. It it it doesn't say UFO alien off-world. You know, it doesn't give you any clue or indication as to what it is. It's meant for that for that reason is to keep our enemies off the track to be able to figure out what we're spending our money on and where. Wilson didn't know that because he didn't have any need to know just like a president in the United States really doesn't have need to know about the crash retrieval program because mostly >> they have to know to ask about it and when they ask that's an order from him that somebody lower down needs to give

him a briefing but if he already doesn't know he doesn't know to ask. >> What happened when Jimmy Carter got briefed? Uh I don't know what the aftermath is, but I know that Alonzo McDonald confirmed to several of us that um in our group during that era, the OSAP era that uh he talked to the staff that attended that briefing. He talked to Carter and it happened. He even sent us the June uh I don't remember the date in June, but I've got the document, but it's June 199 1977.

by the way, I got from from the Carter Library the attendee list for that date. And it shows the name of the regular meeting for the economics something council because that's what Allonzo Mcdonald's job is at the White House. So, um, >> is that public information? >> The names of the people that attended were there. The only thing is two names and organizations were redacted. Out of all the list on two pages, only two got >> Can you send me that? Let's say again, >> can you send me that with the redactions? Obviously, that would be >> Um, so basically, uh, Alonzo confirmed

that it happened. He was then the principal staff director of the White House staff. I think that was the title back then. >> Before that, he was Jimmy Carter's special representative for trade, I think, to the United Nations. So, he had something like an ambassador, an ambassador level title. Do you know anything that transpired in the meeting itself as far as >> Well, he talked to Carter and and the and the guys that are list named on that list and he asked him what went what transpired. Carter told him and the guys

in who attended told him. >> And they said, "We learned that the United States government has been in contact with aliens, UFO beings." Um >> Danny Shehan says Carter's head was Oh, see he continues. >> What he does is when he's in a moment of stress or something that's really critical. Um Alonzo told us that Jimmy or Cart President Carter has a habit of putting his head down on his table like this and praying. This is how he prays on his desk or at a table at a briefing

table. So that's what he was doing. He was just praying and he was praying about the consequence of this information that he just now learned uh what it's what it's consequence to American society is and maybe to the United States government and our defense of our country against an unknown potential hostile we don't know force that we don't have a technology to >> Did he learn about have we had treaties or agreements with any of these beings? >> That I've never heard about. No, that never came up.

first generation documents that were created by James Jesus Angleton's chop shop, his his mole hunting document production factory. So that's the connection there is that these documents came from the uh defense intelligence agency. It was the uh director of human intelligence collection >> and Admiral uh EA Burkhalder Edward Burkhalder was the director and Air Force Colonel Roy Joners was his chief

Roswell in 47. You have magenta before that in Italy, but then this this craft crashes there and that gets transferred to US possession. >> And then how many other crashes between the 30s and today? >> Um I can't give you the official number because I know that number on a classified basis. I could say it's less than 40. >> Okay. Less than 40. I think Hal Putoff said on the Joe Rogan experience somewhere like we have between 10 and 15

crash crafts in our possession. >> Said 15. I think he said more than 10, but that's still >> more than 10. Okay. Got it. >> More than 10. I'll just say less than >> Would you describe the majority as wreckage or intact? >> Uh mix. Mix. Okay. Okay. >> And not all of them involve recovery of N and NHI bodies. >> And you are through your I'm so sorry. through your investigations, like did you ever encounter technical intelligence that you considered high credibility that seemed like it would

have had to have come from direct communication with NHI or did it all seem like it could have been through passive investigation? >> I couldn't get to that. There's two things I couldn't get into because I didn't have access. I didn't have the right clearances and I wasn't allowed to let's let's put it this way. There are people I was working with who knew who to contact, but they wouldn't give me the contact because they were not allowed to give out the name and office or program uh that the individual

worked at. And so they were not allowed to share that with me. So I couldn't get into the NHI issue. I couldn't get into the alien or NHI contact issue. The fact that Ryder uh essentially said, "We have no idea how this works." Does that imply to you they never had direct they never had the ability to ask questions of someone with full knowledge of the technology? Did did you ever make that connection? >> No, I think Dave G was able to make that connection. I couldn't. >> um Dr. Davis, uh what gives you

confidence that we haven't made progress with any of this material? Uh, I can't speak of my confidence level after my senior VP source died. Uh, because before then, I'm highly confident because he was still connected in. Uh, he was he was still on active duty work up until he got retired in the early 2010s. Then he's retired after that. So, he's sharing with me the information that he had all the way up

until he retired. And so I'm highly confident 100% level that what he told me is right. And a matter of fact, he arranged for me to meet one of his co-workers on the crash retrieval program back in the 70s and ' 80s. >> Did you meet them? >> Oh, yeah. It was a woman. I met her. I we he my source, his wife, uh took me to her home, picked her up, we went into San Jose to have dinner at a German >> How many of those people crash retrieval program people have you met total? to

Okay. So, I think it's five total. Okay. >> Five total at that one at that particular company. >> How many have you met total in your >> It was just those two from that company and one from TRW. >> Okay. Wow. >> Did you meet many of the 40 uh of Dave Brush's firsthand witnesses? >> Say again. >> Did you meet many of the 40 of >> I didn't even know who they are really. He never shared that with me. >> I see that. >> I have a rough guess, but believe me, don't confuse that 40. >> Yeah. with the 40 core people on the

task force on the UAP task force. They're they're not >> totally different. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. They're totally different. There's no overlap. >> No, that that that makes I would hope that there's no >> Yeah. I don't think Dave was allowed to tell me the names of those people or their organizations and where they're located because that was woo level. >> Yeah. You've been on record saying that the Majestic 12, this elite military scientific, you know, intelligence personnel advisory committee under Truman and Eisenhower was a real thing. Is that true or >> I don't know about that level of the

detail. I just know that the documents that have come out were counter intelligence documents. So, they contain elements of truth because the counter intelligence document used for that purpose have to be semifictional and semifactual. So, they're going to have elements of truth to try to reel in a mole who wants to steal uh classified information and then they're going to throw in stuff to throw them off by putting in >> information. So, do you know whether the Majestic 12 aspect is real or BS or >> Well, they're are real documents and

they contain elements of the real crash retrieval, but most of the rest of the surrounding text in those documents was fabricated to entice the moles to steal it, take it back to the KGB, and they all get excited and they create further espionage targets from that information who they think who they think they're going to go after in the United States to get more information about these things. and and that's a waste of their time and resources when the things that we're reeling them in on like like a fishbait uh is actually full of

There's just a thread, you know, maybe uh two or three sentences about here, two or three sentences later on in in a doc in any given document there that um that has factual crash retrieval information. I can tell you that what I did track down was that any mention of really exotic propulsion, there was one document that was just absurd. It's like you're accelerating Mercury around a Taurus at high speed and it creates anti-gravity dude and and so that was because Mercury's toxic. I

don't know of any physics uh app fit any physics predictions from general relativity that would predict an anti-gravity force field you know counteracting the earth's gravity to levitate up off the sur earth surface of the earth using uh hot liquid mercury rotating around at high speed in a to taurus uh type device. Final question before I want to get into the the second section of this discussion uh where I want you to drive mostly, but um uh how

did Admiral Thomas Wilson react uh when you when you met him in 1997 and and why I guess why did people direct him to you and then uh what transpired in the in the meeting? >> I can't get into that because you can't confirm or deny that we met for the security reasons. Okay. >> There are legal issues still involved that are active. So, um, uh, because I can't reveal that in public. That wasn't meant for public, >> uh, consumption and that was released from Mitchell's estate. >> And, um, that was supposed to be

destroyed one year after Mitchell got a copy of it as a courtesy from from who generated it. And uh unfortunate that his kids were sloppy and um and I guess Ed was sloppy in that he didn't give any instructions on what to do with that document if if he should die, but he was supposed to destroy that as far as I understand. Um I would be remiss if I didn't. I this can be cut if it's not okay to air, but uh during our discussion in San Francisco, you did uh confirm that you wrote the Wilson Davis

it was close. Yeah. Have you ever seen a a craft in a hanger? >> Have you ever I wish I wanted. >> Have you ever seen any oneofone material? So idiosyncratic, never seen before material. >> Yeah. And the arts parts don't qualify. >> We don't know what the providence of that is. and Hal and I were involved in the um TTS uh meeting at the Pentagon conference room in August of 2024

ambiguity, but the isizotope ratios of the materials it contains are earth. They're manufactured. >> Halputoff is on record saying that that material microsizes waveguides for terraertz frequency. >> That was mistaken. >> That was mistaken. He was mistaken. There's a paper that was published uh that suggested that. But this particular material was not in that config proper configuration. It had no configuration to be a superconductor or a ter or a metamaterial terraertz wave guide. >> Was he also um

exotic experimental result or an experimental result that's anomalous rather that um you believe is is real and replic replicable and and and not >> No, I wish I did. I haven't >> nothing that's ever you know breaks the sort of standard model or you know any >> No, certainly not. >> Okay. I just think that the standard model has done an outstanding job through the avenue of condensed matter theory to come up with some pretty exotic condensed matter states which have been uh p you know theoretical curiosities decades ago and now we've

advanced our laboratory technology in condensed matter physics so well that they're discovered they're being discovered right now. So they're really wonderful wonderful exotic states insulator topological insulators metamaterials uh uh all kinds of other stuff like majorana particles that are supposed to be uh I think they're massless aren't they Eric but if you have a >> the majorana particles >> if you have a a myana mass mechanism different from a d mech uh mass mechanism that's only possible if a

particle is its own antiparticle. Yeah, that's right. Correct. That's right. But they these are not free particles. These are quasi particles because they are uh rep they are they're quasi particles because they're created by the collective action of the electrons in the semiconductor or condensed matter >> I want to seed the floor uh to my former colleague Eric Weinstein. Uh I appreciate you indulging all my crazy UFO questions. Just wanted to kind of establish a ground truth around Eric Davis's past experience. uh of one of my

favorite comments on our last discussion with Hal Putoff was now I know what a dog feels like when it watches TV and so if uh you know this is not for the faint of mind just so you're aware from you know for the audience uh this will be a really fun discussion but I you know I want to get into what we touched on which is why are there no theoretical physicists on the program and what do you think is going on h how do you think maybe what we've talked about with the observables of UFOs might dovetail with

some of your theories. >> Okay. Well, I I don't even know how to begin this. I mean, the look, the first thing is is that in general, I can produce too many explanations through a creative sometimes undisiplined mind for a certain set of facts. And this is one of the only times and perhaps the only time I've ever seen a situation where I cannot come up with a single theory of what's going on that explains all of the bizarre behavior in UFO UAP land. Too

many people who seem relatively reasonable with nearly idic memories talking about particular names, dates. It is impossible to me that we have a theater company that has figured out how to create this space opera. And on the other hand, the lack of anything Um I don't believe in a something this this old, this long, this many events that we have absolutely nothing uh to go on. So let me just say from the

beginning that this is the odd situation. One of the reasons nobody from my world wants to get involved with it is that um it just makes you look foolish from the point of view of a scientist. Well, because everything involved unlister working on a contract. >> Well, the sky and then they get a >> The sky is a big place >> I disagree. >> You said that you've >> one of the top government scientists. I can't think of his name. You would know who it is. Uh

gosh, he was a physicist and I just Hal put off knew him. And um he had all he had a lot of clearances into the Manhattan project, the post Manhattan project, uh a lot of other high technology projects throughout areas of the DoD. Um uh and and so he was a academician and he had clearances. A colleague of mine up at Baylor also has uh DoD classification classifications and he's working on classified stuff that you're not

familiar with. You've never heard of, you won't get access to it. If you have a contract >> that requires a clearance, you will get access to something you don't know about in the >> public. Okay, I understand that there's a lot of stuff that's classified. We have an entire system of national labs. There's no question about that. I'm talking I'm talking about like at the level of ground truth, right? Our our two primary theories are the standard model and general relativity. Both of them are relevant here as limitations

on what we can understand of the world we see. And if somebody has access to theories beyond those two uh and they predicate manufacturing on it and then we get the gifts of that manufacturing just assuming that that story is correct. Um we should be seeing some very weird stuff that is not explicable as if Newton was looking at Lorent's contraction. you would say, "What the heck is that?" And um so I'm just going to begin with

things that make me hugely uncomfortable. And again, it's not as a a dig or it's like I just can't figure this out. So we toss off these humanoid like aliens that are tetropods, literally tetropod body plans. We have arachnids, we have insects, we have sephopods, we have all sorts of intelligent life that doesn't follow a body plan. >> The odd of a humanoid

evolving through convergent evolution somewhere else of a humanoid is vanishingly small, >> but it's not zero. >> Yeah, but it's preposterous. But AAM's razor wouldn't be that these beings would be from elsewhere. They would be that they would be derivative of humans. >> Or or look, you you can tell me some other story like these things aren't even really the beings that that the real beings have constructed these things to interact with us, not to not

to make us uncomfortable. Okay, I understand that. >> Do you believe that? >> That's possible. >> All right. But any biologist hearing the story is just going to have the same reaction like tetropods. This sounds like it came out of a you know Buck Rogers thing where you had to it was too high too too hard to hire an actor to behave as if they had a completely different body plan. So all all alien aliens from the golden age of cinema or silent movies whatever would going to be

tetropods if they were playing an alien. So that first of all really bugs me is that I don't want to hear about that with no mention of it is stunning that there are two eyes a mouth a head and it walks the same way we do. I mean even if you look at like a I don't know a camel's legs you know the where we have a knee it has an ankle or you know something like that. So, so that's that's the first part and

that's just the biological. The next part is um I I was very interested looking through some of your physics papers. You seem to live in a world that I really honestly didn't know existed. So, I learned something from that. It's sort of like national security physics. >> National security physics. >> Yeah. That's not like a real thing. But if I look at a lot of your papers, they're focused on

physics that accepts the standard model in general relativity is ground truth predicated on some sort of engineering No, I'm just looking at uh for my per my book uh I was looking at the physics of what's possible with anti-gravity, gravitational wave propulsion or rockets within what? Within what framework? >> Say again. >> Within GR. Yeah. >> So GR with or without positivity constraints or how are you >> how are you um

let's slow it down. First of all, I don't understand if these things are here from out of town. If they're not co-resident with us here on Earth, they're not here using the standard model in general relativity, I don't think. I mean, it's not impossible, but but I'm not doing UFO physics. I'm doing propulsion physics for interstellar flight. This I'm not looking at this from a UFO perspective. I'm doing this as part of another. >> So, maybe you can make this. So, you're fill holes, things like that.

Yeah, I'm not doing this because of UFOs. I'm just saying, hey, >> if this is valid to any degree and we could expect maybe or pray maybe that in the future we can engineer these things. This could be how UFOs move because we're trying to develop this physics for exploitation as a technology for future interstellar and interstellar missions. So this is hugely important for me just to understand the context. If I understand and please correct me if I'm wrong because I don't want to push

anything that isn't true. I think what you're saying is assume a proof of concept that something can voyage at an interstellar level with intention. >> Okay. Assuming that one piece of attempt to figure out how that could be done as best you can with the tools we Yes. Okay. So then you and I completely polarize I think and again I could be wrong on one

one issue. I would not be wasting my time and again that's judgmental. I would feel that I was wasting my time if I was trying to do this with GR with general relativity. >> I might have an alcoiri warp drive but I'd think how much energy do I need to warp space in this particular way right? or well I could fall into a spinning black hole and you know maybe I could try to figure out how this would be traversible and non-catastrophic and I could imagine using all of the

exotica of GR. Well, I'll just I'll bet everything on time dilation and it'll be really expensive to go there and home, but I can still get >> Using uh Laurent uh conversion factors. None of that has any appeal to me. Clearly, it's had great a great appeal to you, which is fine. We're we can pull we can polarize on that. Surely you don't think it's m isn't it much more plausible that

if craft were true and we accept that as our premise that it's basically proof that GR isn't the last world that general relativity is a constricting framework and that there's something beyond it that has general relativity as an effective theory and >> I agree with that >> and they're using that. >> I agree with that. >> Okay. So that makes this mysterious, which is why are you using GR? >> Because that's the only tool I have that I know of from my graduate education and my research interest. And so I don't I I

don't have the liberty to I'm not a pure theoretical physicist. I'm more of like one foot theory, one foot applied. >> Okay. So let's let's take that. If I had access to anything that seemingly was breaking GR, general I'd be dreaming about things related to general relativity because we know that we don't like general relativity at a deep level. It's got a terrible variable in it which is called the metric

>> where it's easy to fall into things that are not metrics from the space of metrics. things it just doesn't behave well in terms of quantization. We know that we have got these two kinks in spaceime called the initial singularity which we associate with the big bang and the Schwarz jiel or black hole singularity that we associate with collapsed stars. I mean, I love it from the point of view of of Einstein having pulled it off, but

it's a 110 years past its sell by date. why are you not tweaking it? >> I'm don't have intuition on how I could twe tweak it. >> And I would rather somebody smarter than me do that. I would like to have somebody who tweaks it and I could look at it and say, "Hey, it either does or does not predict a potential propulsion mode that could get

us to where we want to go across interstellar distances without the consequence of G over C to the 4th. interested in gravity. >> And there none of them on this program. >> Say that again. Other people are interested in >> Let me start from a different place. There is this 1971

Australian document that I became aware of where the Australian intelligence officer Harry do you remember? Harry Turner, who is head of their nuclear >> starts writing down, here's what we surmise about our friends, the Yanks, and their efforts in this area. >> And he names, I know, six universities, uh, and the Institute for Advanced Study, MIT, Purdue, Indiana, um, I forget what what the complete list

is. And he names like Arnowit, Deser. >> Oh, yeah. uh Dyson, Oppenheimer, and it sounds like the Manhattan Project for Gravity. this is broadly consistent with this story that I've been uh I think I first did it on on Rogan in episode 1945, which they gave me the Trinity date. I love that. Um which is that we have this bizarre thing called the golden age of general

relativity. Yeah. which makes absolutely no sense. And it's a story about two people uh Agnu Bainson and Roger Babson who appear to be in the language of the intelligent. Again, I'm not a guy who thinks he's seen a bunch of Jason Bourne movies so he can talk the lingo, but they appear to be what I've been told are cutouts. And they're both fitted with stories, it seems, about why they need to contribute in the ant to and they find two physicists to work

called the Research Institute of Advanced Study or RA and it has Sheldon Glassau within it. It has Rudolph Coleman within it. It has Solomon left the topologist comes out of to work inside of the Martin. And we always talk about Lockheed, but we don't talk about Glenn Glennel Martin that became Martin Marietta that became Loheed Martin. So, it's the Martin that really matters and to me. >> and you and I have talked about that years past. I've read the documents or

the websites you've sent to me and I'm already familiar with elements of that. >> Okay. I've got old newspaper clip. >> All right. So, we we've got 18 talent. We've got Sheldon Glacia, Rudolph Coleman, Solomon Lechettz, uh Deser Arnowit Dyson. This this begins to feel like, you know, the boys are back in >> Yeah. This is physics firepower. >> Yeah. Right. And then the trail just seems to go cold in the beginning of the 1970s.

So, and I could never reconcile that. I noticed that back in graduate school during the 80s, and I went to an APS meeting, that's the American Physical Society. So, I went to APS meeting with my dissertation supervisor, and I ran into they had like a booth for the APS, you know, all the books they sell, uh, the the the Physics Today magazine. Well, that was published by somebody else actually, but uh they have all that for members for membership services and

benefits. And uh so they've got this advertising booth in the commercial exhibit part of the uh conference and they had the APS historian and I brought that up with the historian like what 1984 and Bob Forward at uh was still at the Hughes Research Labs in Malibu. is the one that motivated me to ask that question because he had been looking at anti-gravity when he was at Hughes and this is before he got his PhD in general

relativity under Joseph Weber at um University of Maryland in the late 50s and the APS historian had no answer for me as to where this disconnect between the yeah where where what happened anti-gravity research what happened to this golden age of GR. Uh he said he said something the effect of similar what you said. It disappeared in the 70s but he never saw what happened. All of a sudden roughly the early 80s now we have

super string theory coming up. No there's a there's an innergonum. So we have this golden age of general Um things culminate in the standard model 7374 in particle theory. There is a period where there are two great ideas in physics, super symmetry and grand unification, >> Which dominate during the 70s. >> Then there's a pre- string-l like craze for something called n equals 8

>> And n equals 8 supergravity >> was the candidate theory. It's too unique to be wrong theory of everything. And then right up until 1984 where we get the Green Schwarz anomaly cancellation and Ed Whitten, Lewis Whitten's son, directs the entire field uh to put its energies on one bet. And this is where the the phrase the only game in town, which >> yeah, I remember that >> to O Git T. the only game in town and

Togeit takes over physics where if you say anything that isn't string during this period right after 1984 it's a bloodbath and basically Fineman is upset about it is upset about it weinberg basically pleads no contest and says I I'm voting with my feet I'm going to go do this cosmology in Texas years later we get this very weird weird meeting about AI, not not related to

physics, between Mark Andre and Ben and they're sat down and told, "Do not invest in AI startups. AI startups are not going to be allowed to be a thing. We're going to have two or three a AI companies and we're going to cocoon them and part as part of the federal government." Huh. >> And Andre uh and Horvitz are sitting there and Horovitz says, "Well, I think they say,"Well, how are you going to restrict this? You can't do it at the technology level because it's just math and you can't classify math."

>> So, so Ben basically said, "Look, it doesn't make sense because to regulate AI at the technology level, you're regulating math." And of course, we're not going to do that. Like, that doesn't make any sense. And you'll recall that what they said was, "No, actually, >> we can classify math. >> We can classify math." And literally, this was this is verb. This is verbatim. This is this is we we did we we classified whole entire areas of physics uh with in the nuclear era and and made made them state secrets like of the of the like theoretical >> physics. Yeah. >> Science of physics. >> Okay. Now quantum gravity

if you look and you do a Google engram search there is basically no hits on quantum gravity until around 1972. and it comes out of nowhere and we're backfitted with a story where I can get almost any physicist of today to repeat the phrase that uh quantum gravity is the holy grail of theoretical physics. It's a fictitious history. >> I remember that's when Fing Davies um Ford and that group started

publishing their papers on semiclassical quantum gravity. Well, but my my point is the physicists do not know their own history. Just the way most academicians believe that peerreview goes back to the founding of the Royal Society and it's very clear that it comes from about 1965 to 1975. >> Um so what we've done is we've erased institutional memory of the physicist's origin story from the physics community. And the this issue of

quantum gravity looks like a blocking mechanism that it basically binds to the receptor of a physicist's mind and it causes them not to make progress. And so we're 42 years into an unquestionable feels like a mass psychosis. >> Yeah. We've had all these different approaches that never work to quantize >> Right. So you have you have what appears to be a mass delusion. Not that it wouldn't be a good theory. I I believe that gra gravity has to be harmonized

with the quantum. I'm not disputing the >> Yeah, there's no question. >> But the idea that Einstein must be beaten uh taken to the ground and forced to submit to the quantum has not been >> And I agree. >> But after 42 years of failure, you would imagine we would hold at least one, two, or 10 conferences saying what do we have wrong? Why are we not trying to make progress? You don't see that? >> Well, that's the mirror to your thing that there are no physicists on the program. But in other words, this is an

effect that is so dumb. It it is so pathologically stupid, so unfathomably wasteful. Why would you not question your own lack of progress? You know, in in fact, Leonard Suskin, one of the fathers of modern string theory, was on a show of a sister podcast, Kurt Ji Mongle's Theories of Everything. >> And I or maybe it was with Lawrence Kra and he says, "We have to go back to the beginning. We have to question

absolutely we got this wrong. If if we don't go back to the foundations, I'm just thinking like finally it's breaking." He says the foundations and he says of string theory. I said oh string theory has failed. So what we need to do is not question the string assumption but we have to go back to the foundations of string theory and fix string theory. I mean it's an infinite sequence. So one of the questions that I have is is physics just are we are we not getting the obvious? Somebody figured out that physics is just too dangerous

to do in a university setting. It seems that way to me. It seems that way to me >> because you see now we're a joke. >> That's right. >> But in 19 I don't know 7977 you had these two Stryand effect problems. You had a guy named John Aristotle Phillips who was a junior at Princeton who chose Freeman Dyson for his adviser for his junior thesis and he

said look I'm the Princeton mascot. I'm not really very good at physics. Can we use the fact that I'm not really good at physics to do something novel? And Dyson said, like what? He said, well, I want to design an atomic weapon and I want you to tell me whether my design would work using my limited understanding of physics. And Dyson said, as long as I give you no information, I simply tell you whether it would work or not. You do it all 100% on your own. You're on. So he submitted his junior thesis. Dyson took one look at it and said, "Yeah,

this will work." They removed page 20. and I believe it is not found in the Princeton Library with all of the other junior thesis. >> Oh, really? >> You you'd never heard this story? >> I've not heard that story before. That's >> Okay. Well, >> that's very interesting. Very, very >> John Aristotle Phillips is the guy who is at the center of that. There's another guy named Howard Morland who worked that name >> who worked for the Progressive magazine

and he had the assignment see if you can figure out with no knowledge of physics the teller ulam design for the hydrogen and he did it and he did it because all of the information had been sharded and discarded and declassified. He basically put the pieces of the broken coffee cup back together by being meticulous. So, it was a an archaeology and reassembly. It was a reverse engineering program

from the from the shredder of theoretical physics. >> Yeah, I agree with that. That sounds like it. >> Okay. Well, that that violates restricted data, which is this bizarre doctrine that comes from the 5 >> four and 46 atomic energy acts. And the government wanted to use prior injunction against him because he had no right to free speech in this area. And I think what they found was we can't stop him because we declassified

all the information he used. So that gave the government a huge problem which is it was creating a a stray sand effect and calling attention to the fact that there are no nuclear secrets. I mean there probably many but the core ideas are not are not the gating function. >> Yeah that's right. Shortly after that we get string theory and we become kind of incapable. >> Right. It's like the glass bead game or something that amuses people at a very high level. Like we're turning the best

physicists into chess players because nobody ever blew something up with a rook. Right. I guess my question to you is are these two sides of the same coin that we don't make progress beyond the standard model and general relativity and we don't have any physicists on the UFO UAP claimed crash retrieval program. I've always thought that the answer is yes to that question. >> Do you have any interaction with the >> No, never.

>> You know who they are? >> They change. They're not always the same group. No, I've never met any of them. I know who and when I at the time I knew who was in the Jason's, uh, I didn't know any of the people on the committee. >> Do you want to describe what they're supposed to be? >> They're supposed to solve problems that the DoD gives to them. >> And it's supposed to be comprised of highle physicists, mathematicians, and the like. >> Yeah. Engineers, too. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Are there specific government problems? Uh, problem. Yeah. problems they need a

solution for. So they give a contract to adjacent to study a particular thread of problems over a summer. These are academicians. So they're off from school for the summer and they devote their time and energy to solving this problem. Produce a report, turn it in, they collect the money, they're done. interesting is that there are a tiny number of people at a very high level in theoretical in the foundations of theoretical physics.

>> And I think most people don't understand what some of these people are. Or if I if I show you a violinist who's a a there's no possibility you can convince yourself that that guy knows nothing or that anybody could do that, right? Like you see something that's so astounding it only a tiny few can do it. I believe that the same thing is true about theoretical physics and pure mathematics that once you're in the game, you

realize how what a tiny number of people are at the highest level in this game and it's just very vertical and it's there's no mercy. >> Oh, that's true. >> Okay, so here >> I've known that all the way since I was in middle school. I read enough of physics literature when I was a kid. I realized that. >> So here's my question. If I look at those people, they're so few in number. I could track all of them >> and you pretty much know, >> not exactly, but by their PhD, you have a 75%

chance that you've identified deep >> Yeah. So, you know, one of the things I've said to Jesse is if you wanted to figure out that the NSA was there be while it was still no such agency, you'd look at number theory PhDs and you'd ask what zip codes do number theory PhDs live in when they don't get an academic job that's visible and you find that they're clustered around Fort me. >> Okay. Do the same thing for this. Imagine that what you need is you need

general relativity, the differential geometry that goes underneath it. So let's call that Romanian geometry. The standard model, the differential geometry that goes underneath that, we'll call Aerismanian geometry. and what modern geometric uh field theory, you know, TQFT's conformal field theories on up, shouldn't we be able to figure out if there is a program that's actually working on this where it's located by virtue of the fact

that there's almost nobody in this game and we we can track their physical movements. In other words, we would have figured out that there was an awful lot of physics firepower at a boy's school in in New Mexico. That's very interesting. So like a little detective search. >> I mean my point is is that th this is the bottleneck and in the current vogue of saying you know the lone genius theory is wrong. Um then that that wouldn't work. But the lone genius theory is clearly right. I mean it's

just obviously right. It's a it's a scop to say it is. So my my claim is I know a great deal of those people like >> I see no indication that they know about any such program and the only exception I can find is that there's one black hole that you go into and you don't come out of called Renaissance Technologies that hires in these exact specialties.

doesn't really make sense based on what I know about markets >> and it's got a secure campus. It's right next to Brook Haven National Laboratory and it has the resources of Sunni Stonybrook and Sunni Stonybrook has a math and a physics presence that is far above its rating as a state university of New York >> campus even as a even as a flagship. >> I wasn't aware of that. That's on that's on uh in Long Island. Correct.

>> Correct. I mean, I think most people didn't realize that Cen Yang was the world's greatest living theoretical physicist until very recently. I mean, he was like 104, but that's where he was. He was at the State University of New York at Stonybrook. >> I didn't know that. Wow. Um, so my my question is, can we figure out whether or not there's a grown-up effort? Because I don't think it's really easily possible to reverse engineer these things when your science

is lagging. model that absolutely >> And yet you your papers >> Well, my papers are separate from that. That's the whole point. It has nothing to do with UFOs. has to do with Mark's propulsion physics program. I'm just contributing my knowledge. >> Those those designs aren't going to >> Well, I didn't know that then, but I'm at a point where I know that it's difficult. Well, it's going to be beyond difficult to engineer warp drives and

wormholes. This is what regardless I'm very glad we're having configuration you >> I took one look at this stuff and I just said, why is he why is he wasting his time? You know, >> it's it's it's it's interest me. It's what I love and I haven't been able to figure out any way to jump off that track and get on a track to an alternative version that could lead to something as revolutionary as trans medium propulsion that UAP demonstrate. Okay, so at a bare minimum bare minimum

it we would say GR and the standard model but I already know that even at the bare minimum that's probably not even touching the truth, >> right? I think what's happening is is I think the UAP craft are manipulating the uh the information domain because I think that there's a subquantum domain of information. Uh people talk about Shannon, I'm talking about Fiser information that Roy Frieden at the University of Arizona uh did a lot of research for 25 years on published two

books through Cambridge University Press on Fiser information was able to use that to derive all of the major theories and principles of physics including the Wheeler Dit equation from that being observed and the observer. So it's all based on the observer which is quite a quantum pro uh quantum statement. So, it's a I don't I'd have to dig it up out of my phone to be able to read to you the two key terms of Fisher information from which physics derives. New Scientist did an article on it which

was just brilliant. It was in the >> Okay, I'm I'm not following exactly >> late60s but >> late 90s sorry. So look, right now there's a vogue for if physics doesn't work, we can talk about quantum information and information theory because computers have money and so it's a way for us to try to get money from people who know computers by making >> like information is the is the basic layer of the world. So I I've watched that push for a change of variables just like let's make black holes the new harmonic oscillator that the test object

that we push everything onto. I I really don't find that highly compelling. Like we we basically have quirs, lepttons, force particles, HIGs, we have this arena called spacetime. It's all a model. The model is extremely good. But we don't live there. We don't live in spaceime. >> No, I know that. >> It's not lines, curves, points, and manifolds. It's it's a physical space. >> No, but it may be a manifold. I'm not saying that it isn't. I'm saying that

you know because of the defects in in these theories that you're looking at an effective theory and you're trying to figure out what the parent theory is. Correct. You have any guesses about that? >> That's goes back to some ruminations I've had based on quantum entanglement quantum uh uh entanglement networks. People in quantum magazine had talked about the work they were doing on quantum entanglements and tensor networks where they were able to show in a model how the big bang is actually a

unfolding or an emerging of spaceime and elementary particles and the interaction forces from entanglement networks and I just don't know how long that has has how far that has gotten as a theoretical development but I know that the initial stage of work that was done in the mid20 2010s was pretty promising. I just haven't heard me haven't found any to show or inform me on where they've gotten with it. >> Let's talk about getting a craft across

interstellar distances. >> You've got some kind of and I I want to clear that I think propulsion may even be misleading, but there's something like is there is there a method of conveyance? Let's let's call it Second of all, there's an energy >> of course. And what I'm looking at, I hate to interrupt you, but what I'm looking at is something that bypasses GR because GR is difficult to use. >> Well, let's talk let's talk about that

>> Get around that whole energy requirement that shuts down the ability to engineer and build wormholes or warp drives. We We've got to come up with something that gets out of that whole GR. >> You're grooved towards this toolkit that's pushed in front of us, right? Like entanglement is a real >> but we talk about it in my opinion sometimes too much. I think another thing like that is black holes wormholes. >> Again, real things, but at some level,

we don't know whether the black hole in the sky and the black hole in the model are the same black hole. all of these things that we can do lead nowhere, right? We've been around the traffic circle a million times and by the third time you've seen the same 7-Eleven, you're starting to think something's wrong. So in the standard equation in GR, we've got really three terms. We've got the Einstein curvature term. We've got the

dark energy cosmological constant term >> lambda lambda g >> well lambda times g mu the metric g mu and this constant times the stress energy tensor for everything else >> right the coupling constant y desi in Arizona has uh thrown some cold water on the idea that lambda is a good model for dark energy because it appears that it's not constant. >> I've heard that. Yeah, I've seen some news about that coming out. Some was it

just theoretical or was there uh hints of it from observations? >> That's what I'm saying. Dark energy spectroscopic instrument or desi >> seems to be recording, right? It's showing that it's more it's actually not >> Yeah, it's time dependent. >> So, it's dynamical as opposed to static being a constant >> which sounds like a ve a vacuum expectation value. So that people always make this mistake, you know, what is the temperature of the room? And they say You say, well, in which corner? And then

the person thinks, oh, well, I'm sure it varies between the the floor and the ceiling and where you are close to the window. And >> that idea that a thing is mostly constant but with fluctuations >> um is the promotion of a simple number like lambdom to field content, something that can vary. there's a thing called Love Locks >> Oh, I'm familiar with that. He was a mathematician at the University of Arizona. Yeah. Where I went to school, so I knew him. >> So, tell me about Love Locks theorem and

uh dark energy. >> Oh gosh, I can't even think of Lock the But I know what you're talking about. Why don't you go ahead? >> Well, so the way I remember it, again, this is I wasn't preparing to do this, >> because keep in mind it's been 40 years since I had tensor calculus uh using Lovelock's manuscript for his >> would vodka >> second book. there you Yes. Um, I think what it says is that when it comes to geometry,

there are only two tensors you can make that have this property of being divergence free that are not dependent uh on anything else. In other words, it's a two-dimensional space. And one of them is the Einstein curvature tensor which is divergence free by property of taking an automatic equation that has to that has to be satisfied called the bianke identity >> and turning it into a different equation that says that the theory is not

bothered by how you put coordinates on a >> That sounds familiar. Yeah. So that's that's the idea of the r mu minus 1/2 scalar time g mu the Einstein curvature tensor is perpendicular to the space of transformations of coordinates. Yeah, it's like uh what the intrinsic curvature. It looks like intrinsic curvature, right? >> Well, it's it's the remon curvature with the vile curvature thrown away and a trace reversal of this one piece of the

you've got a 10 components of reachi curvature and one component can be broken out and put them had a minus sign put in front. >> That object has an automatic differential equation. The other one that has the same automatic differential equation is lambda time the metric because if you try to differentiate the that's always going to be zero by virtue of the fact that a metric is constant in its own liita connection >> but by the product rule if you put a lambda in front of it then

the derivative of lambda is zero times the metric plus lambda* the derivative of the metric which is zero for that same reason >> that those are the only two simple tensors that have this property. So if you lose love locks theorem, sorry, if you have LVL locks theorem and you lose the constancy of dark energy, you're starting to actually put general relativity in some peril. >> That's very interesting. I hadn't thought about that. Okay.

>> Depends how you conceive of general relativity. To continue with this, that you can engineer these craft within general relativity or standard model in any way other than formally. So the alcoieri warp drive is a formal solution to the problem because it it leaves unressed how the weakest possible of all forces

gravity could be employed at this completely different level to to you know sandwich spaceime on top of itself. I don't think the generationships make any sense 800 years. >> Oh I agree with you. >> Okay. I don't believe that um the time dilation makes any sense. It's too expensive because everybody's dead when you get back. >> It's the Planet of the Apes scenario.

>> I don't I don't believe in in traversible black wormholes and black holes and and all this kind of stuff. >> Well, black holes aren't traversible, but there are wormholes with no singularities and event horizons that are traversible. >> Okay. Yes. But I've I've also heard weirder stuff involving try somebody trying to use the information black hole information paradox to get >> oh I think that's just uh people have stretched an analogy too far. So >> okay but my claim is there's a huge suite of not really that inventive

In other words, we're going to accept the science that we have as if we can't do better science, and then we're going to come up with completely implausible ways of using it, and we're going to say those are the leading candidates. Dr. Davis, you should push back if you think traversible wormholes that biological material can go through is a is a real feasible thing. >> You mean biological materials going through a world? >> I don't see anything that prevents it. So, you're going to create a wormhole on

demand to get where you need to go. You should be able to. That's what my research showed. There's nothing that I would think that could stop you other than that G over C to the 4th power issue. You you that really gets inverted when you >> put it over to the curvature side of the equation. All right? Then then the properties of the matter, it's going to be C to the 4th over G. So, it's going to be a gigantic number multiplying the curvature of spaceime that that matter

source creates. >> So, walk me through how do I get to Alpha Century by engineering a traversible wormhole? >> Well, you're going to create the mouth or the throat. Well, it that's a good point because even Kip Thorne couldn't describe it. But the best idea is and this is Thorn's idea mine and I don't endorse it. uh you create a a mouth right at your departure point in space. Uh and you're going to need another spaceship to carry the throat to the

destination point. And that's what Kip Thorne came with came up with. I'm thinking when you're creating the throat, that's where all the physics occurs anyway. It's not at the mouth, the exit entrance mouth. It's in the throat. So when you're creating that that should automatically do the the connection the hyperspace tunnel connection between two points two distant points earth and Sirius or our star soul and Sirius as examples or

earth and alpha centtory one of the planets over there. Um I just know that it does not give you recipe for navigating for being able to target your destination. There are no control navigational control laws built into general relativity. All you could do is build the wormhole and you know you could do the studies of a geodessic that goes through it representing either a photon or a piece of matter and you can represent that you know it's going to come out the other side. But how you aim it and navigate to another star using it

that's not in generality. You can't pull that out. You can't pull that information out unless there's more work that needs to be done that nobody has thought of doing. >> but I think you can make a wormhole on demand if assuming you have the negative energy density available to shape it. >> All not one of these proposals excites me. They they're boring as sin. I'm sorry to say it. You're talking about

people raised on sci-fi who want to be scientific. And by wanting to be scientific, they don't want to go beyond the two frontier theories that we have. And they've also said, I don't want to be uncreative. So the idea is, how do we come up with a wildly implausible story based on stuff that is solid? And stuff, I have a feeling at least they're trying to do new physics so that the

implausibility goes down, but the speculative nature of the physics goes up. I think it would be much better to balance those two. Can we talk about one of these weird things? Have you looked at this extended electronamics that no one in my world has ever heard of? >> I've seen elements of it. I've seen a p a paper here and there on that on extended electronamics. >> What do you see that as being >> I don't know what they're trying to get at with it. That's my conclusion. I don't know what they're trying to extend where it's going.

>> A little context for the audience. This is um a term that gets thrown around constantly in UFO discussions. You have even going back to the '9s Ben Rich saying there was some math in Maxwell's equations that was a little off. You know, that sort of thing. is this recurring sort of theme and then you have people now saying that it's a more faithful ad adherence to the you know more expanded Maxwell equations versus the heavy side kind of simplification of vector calculus that is extended

electronamics. Other people say heavy side is the update that makes the extended electronamics. uh no one seems to come up with some sort of lrangeian and you've pointed out some real uh with the you know gauge invariance and but I believe Hal Putoff who you have a long work history with and you know as your long colleague he has some interesting work in extended electronamics right >> never worked on it I don't know that Hal has uh the only extended electronamics I know of is the lrangeian that you're going to have for high energy

electromagnetic systems and that would be the born enfeld lrangeian I believe Okay. Well, you're going back to to Yang Mill's theory in the Aelian case. >> It's just the nonlinear version of Maxwell's equations that you're going to get out of a lrangeian that you can formulate and it will reduce to Maxwell's equations in the low energy regime. So extended, I don't know what they're extending. That's the thing. I've looked at these and I'm trying to figure out what's >> here's one thing that I've seen. The Faraday tensor made up of the

electric and magnetic fields is naturally a degree 2 object. It's not naturally about vector fields. That only works if you take a particular slice of space in spaceime where you shouldn't do that because that breaks lorren invariance. And then you say, okay, in a three-dimensional world, every two tensor is dual to a 3 - 2 tensor or a 1 tensor or a vector field. And then you plot out these lines in the E and B fields uh as if they're vector field.

It's naturally a degree 2 object. So Maxwell's equations reduce to two sets of equations. One of which is just true automatically when it's phrased geometrically. So if you take d a star some operator based on a the gauge the uh gauge potential the connect the connection >> it's really the vector and scalar the for potential >> da star that is the adjint of that derivative which is itself a derivative

applied to the faraday tensor brings it down a degree from 2 to one >> and you say that thing is equal to to the current j which is a degree one >> But DA of FA, which takes a degree 2 object one degree up to a degree 3 object, is guaranteed to be zero for the same thing that makes the Einstein uh tensor divergence free. The Bianke identity is an abstract guaranteed

differential equation that comes out of the geometric construction of curvature. So you throw one of the um these two equations away because it's guaranteed by geometry. So >> the boundary of the boundary is zero >> in in essence. So da of fa equals z represents two of the four maxwell equations and you throw it away and then you're left with the inhomogeneous ones and that's just da star of fa equals j.

One of the things I've seen in in this world looks to me like DAR equals A. The idea is that the gauge potential is a degree 1 object. And so you take DAR of of a degree 2 object and that's set equal to a degree 1 object A. And that doesn't work to somebody who thinks in physics terms because on one side of the equation is what we would call a gauge invariant object, something with symmetry, >> and on the other side there's an object

that picks up an aphine shift, meaning it isn't gauge invariant. >> Yeah. Wow. Okay. Yeah, I see what you're talking about. >> So, you can't rotate both sides of the equation in the same way at once. Therefore, it's not a legitimate equation even though they're both degree >> So, is this what extended electronamics is a 10? >> Well, I don't know because to be entirely honest, the extended look, I have had to wrap my head around the fact that we have three bizarre groups of people trying to do physics at least.

There's a crackpot group which writes in red crayon and they just don't they're nowhere close to the target. There's a professional community which has gone somewhat insane but still remembers how to do physics from first and second year graduate uh intro classes even if they're researching toy models and they've never seen a a quark or a leptton in their research in the last decade. And then there's this intermediate group which I just didn't

know existed which I will call fringe And fringe physics is in general people with sort of like a an electrical engineering background. They know They they know integrals. They're often technically quite good. And they get an idea that, you know, gravitation looks a lot like electromagnetism. I wonder if I can contribute something. But they don't have a sense of like all the things that can go wrong.

>> I think I knew about that. So they tinker but sometimes a tinkerer can stumble on something. So for example, you could easily imagine somebody is stumbling on the bomb on the Aronoff bomb effect which is one of these hidden features of the world. So our colleague Sabina Hassenfelder has a video not too long ago where she took something that I've only thought about and heard about as physics folklore. Said there's only three ways to hide new physics. It's kind of an interesting

idea. The first way is that that can be so energetic that you can't afford to see it. So maybe there are particles out there when we can't create enough energy to get one of these particles to pop out of the vacuum. >> Second thing is is that something is so weakly coupled you can barely detect it. So there are lots of nutrinos >> But they're so hard to get to interact with anything that you don't know that they're there. And then the third thing is the really interesting one for UFO Sometimes there's a configuration

that you would never think to put things in. Like let's get the current up to this. We'll spin something around. We'll evacuate a tube. We'll put the following rare compounds that have these particular things. And maybe we'll see an effect that is normally hidden amplified to the point where it becomes uh absolutely clear. You know, like the Casemir effect, you needed to know that you had to put two plates very close together for something to happen. So that's sort of what we're looking for. We're looking for is there any new

that we could do that doesn't require too much energy that's not so weakly coupled that we can barely detect it but that can be coaxed to show itself the way the aeronoff bomb effect could have been discovered by an experimentter passing a beam of electrons around an ins insulated solenoid. >> Yeah. and noticing, oh my god, it seems to be able to detect the current. >> I believe in a podcast with Anna Brady Estz, how put off openly discussed uh this idea of extended electronamics and

him even working with uh Josephson junctions and uh this idea of vector and scalar potential. So this idea of extended electronamics is that the you know lorren uh gauge is you know kind of arbitrarily set to zero and the uh derivatives of the you know vector and scalar potentials you know uh should not you know necessarily equal zero and so theoretically in terms of implications for the audience instead of having this transverse herzian wave which is going to you know propagate at 1 / r 2 you're going to get electrons pairing off in

all sorts of situations you're going to get this kind of rapid attenuation of the signal uh you might have other sort of more exotic configurations of, you know, parallel like, you know, uh uh uh wave propagation in a magnetic field or not even the existence of an electric of an, you know, an E- field or whatever with a with an electromagnetic wave. And I believe Hal has openly discussed this with Anna Brady Estz on this, you know, former National Science Foundation director on her podcast. >> I didn't see the video of that. >> Okay. Okay. I've never I never knew

there was a video until I think um she mentioned it to me last year. So >> So you hear you hear a lot of this stuff in UFO world like you know extended electronamics and then even possible experimental inroads towards that and do do you know anything about that sort of thing or no? Okay. >> There are a couple of names that came out of that podcast uh Dr. Lewis Desarro and Dr. uh Larry Forsley that would be of interest to Dr. >> And I know Larry. Well, so one of the things that that

comes out of my work is that we may have the gauge potential that you would put into such an equation wrong. And the thought is the following. Every gauge potential, every every um has a disease when you gauge uh transform it. And this disease uh if the gauge transformation is called G it would look like G inverse DG where D attacks G. So you differentiate the

transformation and then you use the G inverse to pull it back to the origin of the le >> that term has no reference to the the connection or the gauge potential A. In other words, it's G inverse DG. >> Yeah. But G inverse AG is perfectly uh gauge invariant if you put it into a lrangeian. So in other words, there's a part that works beautifully and there's the part that spoils the party.

>> But the part that spoils the party has no dependence on A whatsoever. >> Uhhuh. So if you had two separate potentials A and B, you'd get G inverse A G plus G inverse DG and G inverse B G plus G inverse DG. So the diseases are the same. You take a difference between them and the two diseases kill each other and go away and you have two terms left over. G inverse

A G and G inverse BG added together. So one possibility is that even though this community says a bunch of stuff that makes me very uncomfortable is that you could have a tinkering community that is actually stumbling to things that everyone else is too sophisticated to look for. Just the way when we thought it was the E and the B fields, nobody was looking for the holomi effect which is a classical effect that's discovered quantum mechanically. So the embarrassment of

finding the aeronoff bomb effect in the late 50s when we thought we knew everything there was to know about is the great greatest proof we have that a theory that is supposedly completely picked over and totally explored may have basic things that we have wrong about it well into our sophisticated old age. >> Yeah. uh basically up until that point nobody realized or even gave thought

that the four vector potential was a physical field. >> Well, and it isn't in a certain sense. It's a qu So I I give this example that if you know a professional model, they're expected to to have a set of things that are called polaroids. They're just shots of that model in various standard poses so that somebody who wants to hire that model can say this is what this person looks like without makeup and without fancy clothes. Right? >> Those different polaroids are what we would call

uh I don't know they're sort of avatars of the same underlying human. And so if somebody says I want to hire that person in three/arter profile, you say well no you hire the person that's just the particular shot of the person. The electromagnetic potential is a an equivalence class equivalent to give me all of the polaroids to represent the one model. >> Okay. So the big problem comes out when you single out one Polaroid and you say no no no that's the field because what

that is is that's that's a particular representation of that field but they're all representations of the same underlying field. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So that's the problem that needed to get >> So we don't have anybody in academia that's pursuing extended electronamics. >> I don't know. >> Uh no we do. Um there's a guy named Lee Hiveley uh in Colorado Springs and he has a a colleague named Woodside who I believe is in Australia and then there's

gravity wave A and gravity wave B? He No, not entirely. It's been so long. uh he doesn't know what he's talking about because he was a radiation health monitor for uh uh Kimber Meyer company and they were a logistics service uh company servicing Los Alamos National Lab in Area 51. He never had security clearances. He never graduated, never he dropped out of his first year of college, etc., etc. He's not a

Let's assume the same thing for Bob Lazar. Let's assume that he was janitorial staff and that he just happened to be in a sensitive location and that he's saying something because it sounds to me like total garbage. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. He says this thing which is crazy. He says there's gravity wave A and gravity wave B and you most likely think of gravity as as gravity wave B. That's the long range stuff with stars and planets. He says, "But gravity wave A is different and you associate it with the strong nuclear force." So, of course,

like I'm just I want to throw up in my mouth, right? >> And he says this thing about QCD, quantum chromodnamics of the strong nuclear force is is what gravity wave A is all about. And so the idea is going to be that somehow if you could actually understand that what was going on in QCD had to do with gravity, you would understand that that's the source of strength with the ability to actually do something with space and time. So seems totally stupid, but let me just point

out the following thing. that I know of that give an oiler lrange with the curvature appearing without a derivative in front of it. One of them is the Einstein Hilbert action which when differentiated gives you the reachi curvature minus the scalar curvature over two times the metric. The other one is a thing called the churn simons function. Yeah, it's

>> churn Simon's action. >> the churn Simon's action comes from something called the transgression of the pontriagan class in the churny >> that is part of QCD. In other words, the normal yang mills lrangeian we would represent as f inner product f norm square of f where f is the field strength >> from the topology of uh uh what is

geometry and topology for physics and I can't remember who the author of that book was but I've seen that >> but in only in dimension four you can form a different quantity where you take f inner product starf. >> Where star is the hodge star or complimentarity operator. >> And that thing generates the pontreagen class which when transgressed gives you the churn simons which gives you the lrangeian that is closest to general relativity.

>> Interesting. Uh I haven't seen that. >> Well because nobody's talked about it >> Yeah. Okay. >> So this is the I think this is the first time I'm I'm ever mentioning it in public. So, the thought that I had is assume that Bob Lazar is an unreliable and he was hanging around water coolers and he was hearing crazy stuff and that it's a mix of and something. Is it possible, Eric, that what he's talking about is that the theta term from QCD

is what he's calling stupidly gravity wave A, which no person I've ever heard of has ever used that terminology. I wouldn't think he'd be consciously aware of that. I don't know if it's possible. It's too I I can't rely on anything he says because of his history. >> Dr. Davis, just to play devil's advocate with Bob Lazar, you were saying there's this long-standing UFO legacy crash retrieval program. You have one guy who's come out publicly and has not

changed his story since 89. We didn't really know too much about the existence of Area 51. Definitely not S4. >> He's never been there. >> But how would he know about, you know, Janet Airlines? And he worked at the uh unclassified logistic support facility over on McCarron uh over on Sunset Boulevard next to uh not Sunset Boulevard, Sunset Drive next to McCarron Airport. There's a row of light industrial buildings along Sun uh Sunset Road >> and um McCarron is right across the

street. So Kimber Kimber Meyer was there. EG&G special projects was like next door. So he didn't go because he didn't have clearances. His job was just a radiation health badge monitor. So people that get on the Janet flight to go to Area 51, he gives them their radiation badges. When they come home from work, they get off that Janet flight, they got to give them back, give those badges back to him. And his job is to check those badges every day to make sure that they're not theoretical physicist, but he does have engineering chops. like he runs currently United

Nuclear. He literally put a jet engine on the tobacco Honda. >> Yeah, I know. That's just a tinkerer. He's a hobbyist. He's also been twice convicted of felonies including >> this isn't guys in that case. >> I have no interest in Bob Lazar the person. The key question is if he was proximate to information that he >> is it possible? Could it be possible >> to take the garbled message and associate QCD with two sectors, a Yang Mills sector and a Pontreagan sector and that the churn vape representation of

the Pontreaggan sector inside of QCD with associated with the theta term can lead to something which has Einstein-like properties which is that the different >> that would be remarkable right >> absolutely remarkable the vacuum energy of QC so the thing that I'm so let's get into vacuum energy and 0 point what the source of energy is for all of these things. I'm very turned off by certain attempts to mine like if you look at the Heisenberg uncertainty relations, one of the great

innovations in our time >> is that they've been associated to the simplectic form on phase space in ordinarily classical Hamiltonian dynamics. In other words, you take the space of configurations of a mug on a table. Then you add the momenta. So that doubles the space its size to get to go from configuration space to phase space. Position to position and momentum. >> On that space there's a guaranteed

object called the simplectic form that comes just out of the math. The big innovation was to say you know that thing is actually the at the base of a different different structure called a line bundle and it's the curvature tensor for this line bundle with a connection whose sections form the Hilbert space and quant in quantization effectively in a certain sense fiber bundle. Well, yeah, it's a line bundle. Exactly. That that line bundle, it's L2

sections properly taken, polarized, there's a whole rigomear roll, >> Sort of self-quantized the manifold. In other words, >> that the the classical mechanics leads naturally to the quantum theory when you realize it's not an isolated degree 2 object, but a degree 2 object that comes as the curvature of something else that we had not thought to study. If you try to if that's the source of the Heisenberg uncertainty relations, that's a curvature you can't get rid of.

So if you try to mine it, I don't really see how you extract lessened. On the other hand, were you to try to tap into the dark energy, if that is in fact a ve a vacuum expectation value rather than a hard constant, could that be used as a ondemand power >> Sure could be. >> Do you work on that at all? >> No, but I looked at people who sent me their ruminations on that idea and it

looked pretty intelligent, but it wasn't very welldeveloped in my opinion. So, I think that would be a great direction to go. And I like where you're going here. >> I'm just trying to be constructive. Let me let me try another one. >> I like where you're going. I think you pointed out some stuff I'm not aware of other than the dark energy aspect, which I'm already aware of. Um, which need to be followed up on. >> Imagine for the moment that you embed what we currently call spaceime. >> In its space of all pointwise Lorenzian metrics. So, every way you could possibly have of measuring length and

angle through a series of three rulers, one watch, and six protractors. Okay, >> that's a 14-dimensional object that I work with on a daily basis that I call the observers. We don't have to get too far into this, but the point that I want to make is the following. There are ways of traveling through time and and space. And I want to say also that time really should always be times because the number of actual temporal dimensions we currently think is one but it doesn't need to be one.

>> I agree. talk a lot about wormholes. We don't talk about pinch to zoom. >> We don't talk about what? >> Pinch to zoom. Imagine that you pointed at a star that you wanted to visit and imagine that you could find some way of traveling in 10 transverse dimensions. >> Where what you're doing is growing the ruler in the direction between you and

that star. >> Now once the ruler says one foot, you need the energy to walk one foot, >> Not the energy to walk four light years, And then you have to put the ruler back. So you have to shrink the ruler to grow the distance after you've grown the ruler to shrink the distance. Okay? So the idea is that this is something like pinch to zoom, which doesn't work on an ordinary table, but if this was a smart table, it would be a what's called a multi-touch gesture.

Have you thought about whether multi-touch gestures like pinch to zoom or another one that I call shear to tilt might be built into the object that we confuse for spacetime? >> It sounds plausible. I like that. Um I've seen hints of something like that in some books I've read back in the '9s. Uh very small hints of it and uh I thought there was something to it that I just didn't follow up on. Um yeah, I would say that makes sense. That makes sense to me. That

that's very interesting idea. >> Do you think much about dark chemistry? >> About which? >> Dark chemistry. >> Dark chemistry. No, >> like chemistry with dark matter. >> No, I don't. >> I haven't seen anybody use that phrase before. supposedly dark matter doesn't interact with uh regular matter uh especially at the electromagnetic force level. So

>> well that's what we mean largely by dark right that >> yeah like because you can't see it there's no luminosity involved >> no exchange of photons that we can visibly see and collect a spectrum for. >> Well we have we we sort of have three long range carriers. We have light we have gravity and we have nutrinos >> uh that we know about. But let me ask you about a weird phrase that I keep hearing that I don't understand. I keep hearing about interdimensional beings which causes me to want to throw up in my mouth. People uh I think that's

>> Do you know what they >> interdimensional means you're going between dimensions. So I don't understand the word interdimensional beings. I think it's really beings that could trans transverse other dimensions or traverse other dimension. Does it mean something technical being that's dimensional? Again, let's >> we move through three spatial dimensions. So that makes us interdimensional already. Okay. And we move through time allegedly in one >> So David Crush, I believe, used this phrase in a hearing and they talked

about holography. >> Yeah. Dave's not a physicist. That's >> I understand that. So what I'm trying to look again the point isn't to say whether somebody knows what they're talking about but to say assume that somebody does assume that the plumber comes to you and says wow I was just out at some crazy base and I don't even know what these words mean but here's what I heard. Right. So very often I'm just trying to I'm not I don't care. >> Yeah I think he's heard that from his briefings given to from the briefings

given to him on the crash retrieval program. I just, you know, he can't tell me that level of information at the classified level because I'm not cleared for it. So, he can verbally on a superficial level discuss it in the open, but I don't know what he if he's it sounds like he's garbling stuff at times. So, >> and if we had an adversary that was aware of multiple temporal dimensions where we're only aware of one. So we have an arrow of time and they would

>> like a right-hand rule of time. It would be a Have you thought much about the threat assessment as to what capabilities a >> nobody does threat assessments like that but I would say that is something worth worth having a threat assessment done And have you are you aware of reports that we are being I wouldn't say menaced but

>> made to know that we do not control our >> Do you find that highly credible? >> What percentage? >> 100. Because it was definitive. It was that was told to me definitively not speculatively. It was we know this to be >> So I've been told the same thing by multiple parties who are not related. All of whom seem like credible people. Yet nobody seems to have direct firsthand Yeah. Even I can't get into

that level. I mean Harry Reid tried to get a special access program and he failed because Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn denied it. And that was because Harry Reid did it the wrong way. He did it the wrong way and that's why it got denied. If we did it the proper way, which I'm trained on in the security apparatus, uh, we would have been more successful. So, >> do you remember Dick Fineman's book of stories? Like, surely you're joking and what do you care what other people >> Oh, yeah. It's been long time since. >> Do you remember a story called Any

Questions in which he goes to Buffalo, New York? Because as a physics professor at Cornell, he has to teach in an aerospace company. >> Yeah, vaguely. I regularly >> she gets beat up or something in a in a washroom or Yeah. >> over a girl. I forget what. >> Do you have a sense what Richard Fineman was doing with all of this? Because he also has another weird story where he's got patents for sub nuclear submarines, nuclear planes, nuclear shopping, I

don't know what. Uh are aerospace companies something that we don't understand where people actually did basic physics research? Not material science, not something that's plane or rocket or drone adjacent, but where people were doing actual frontier research in fundamental >> No, they wouldn't do that. Not in that not in that uh >> so they wouldn't use it as a shell. >> No, they do applied physics research.

They're they're developing technical solutions to the government customer's request to to answer the government customer's need for a solution to some problem. So it does it go to fundamental physics like can should we worry about these type of quirks versus those type of quirks? No, no, no. They're looking at a physics that could be applied to the engineering of a technological solution for the government customer. That's what the aerospace industry does. >> Oh, I understand what it's supposed to do. But what I'm trying to say is, is it a system of containers

and you can put anything in a container? I mean, in other words, you could imagine that if a container was secure, you could put a a drug laundering, you know, moneyaundering drug operation inside of it, and we wouldn't think, oh, that's what you'd expect to find. That's >> That it's like something crawled into that shell. My question is, is it possible that theoretical physics was sort of relocated into aerospace companies because this is a perfect >> I wouldn't say no to that. That's

That's possible. >> Uh when we spoke to Hal Putoff, he said definitively he said, you know, um I don't not sure about fundamental physics being tied up in aerospace corporations, but he goes topological physics like probably. And he said it it it would seem to me that physics generally is held in these aerospace uh companies. And uh you know that was very it made your sort of blood boil as it should. >> I worked for the aerospace corporation for 4 and a half years. I was one of a dozen or so physicists with PhDs

>> in the company. 4,000 employees. >> Which location? >> Uh I was at Huntsville, Alabama. >> Okay. because I was supporting this NASA space nuclear propulsion program office. So uh I was only one of maybe a dozen maybe two I don't think it was more than two but definitely within two dozen PhD physicists in the whole country in the whole company and I'll have to tell you that not a single one of few of us were doing any physics we were doing engineering work >> and how many of you were trained in

front trained in frontier theory >> frontier theory what do you mean >> standard model in GR >> oh I how far back from the front lines were you guys >> I knew those guys and none of them were. Some of them were trained in astronamics, so they know general relativity and Newtonian mechanics. Uh I'm the only one I know of who's been trained on the standard model in GR. I don't I didn't know any of those other guys that were there's one guy at Blue >> who went to my university, got his PhD

in general relativity theory, >> University of Arizona, >> Tucson years after I got my doctorate and he wor and he's working as an engineer at Blue Origin. Last question. I can't wrap my head around this. If I was facing an incursion in my airspace claiming craft that defy the laws of physics and I didn't have a single top physicist on my team, I would expect to be fired instantly. >> Oh, sure. But that's not how they think.

They don't think in terms of that. They're thinking in terms of their bottom line. And their bottom line will not involve a theoretical physicist. They might have >> sorry sorry >> what you have craft the claim is you >> I know they're engineers >> okay but if you >> they're not thinking in terms of fundamental physics or something beyond the standard model or something beyond generality they're thinking is >> how are they doing on this project decades in the supposed project how are they doing on it what's their level of >> I know is as of my knowledge

>> if you're failing at something >> yeah they have >> that requires new physics you say defy the laws of physics we have we can't make progress and we have no physicists. >> That's because they >> David, this can't Eric, this can't this can't add up. It's it's a twoline proof. It defies the laws of physics. We haven't made progress. We have no >> If something defies the laws of physics, who do you call? I I know you ask any of us. Any of us write down 15 names of who

you call if you had a craft that defied the laws of physics. Wait a second. >> 12 of those names, 10 of those names would be the same on everybody's list. >> the the the final thing I would say is if Halputoff was telling us that some physics has held, whether it's even if it's just experimental physics, you have a bunch of people over the last 70 years, the foremost in my mind, Towns and Brown and you know this uh Ningly at University of Alabama Huntsville saying that they're getting little weight

However, without a theory back then to describe it, it was hard for them to miniaturaturize it, to optimize it, all of those things you want to do to to make it a useful force. >> His name is Charles Beller, >> talking drug science, >> even though he's the electrostatics. >> And then the the physics chair, um, who is the lead of Ning Le's department, left to join her company, Larry >> Yeah. But she was wrong and so was he. >> Okay. and and they made off with $400,000 in army research lab money and didn't produce a producible for it. They

didn't deliver anything that money. >> So the topological physics effect >> you talked to Travis Taylor he knew all he knew England. >> So so the topological >> rotten terrible physicist. So the so the physics that are held in private aerospace we just have to sort of guess like we there's there's no sense of what any of this stuff is but they're also not putting any theoretical physicists you know like Eric's colleagues on any of this stuff like it it just feels sort >> here's the thing the government is going to tell the aerospace company we okay

this is hypothe hypothetical but this is how it works according to my two industry sources >> okay the government says, "Here's a We want to know how it works." The industry contractors say, "Okay." And they think in terms of engineering. >> We're going to we're not they're not going to do fundamental physics. They're not they might have experimental physics. It's not out of the realm to have an experimental physicist working there, but they're not theoretical guys. So, they'll have to know some theory,

but they're mostly experiment. Hang on. Hang on. So, so they get the tasking that they've got to take apart a craft and they've got to figure out how it's made and how it's worked. That how it works. That's it. That's the tasking. So, that leaves out any not need for a theoretical physicist. They don't know that they >> would agree. Wait, wait. That that made absolutely zero sense. >> But that's how they operate that. >> No, no, no, no. You said be but because of that that's why they don't no you

absolutely need a theoretical physicist if you're going to take apart a device. >> I don't disagree but that's how they operate. That's what the program manager and the government says. So the program manager in the company's going to say okay here's our solution to that problem. So here's our bid. They get a soul source contract. Uh no there's no bid. It's the soul source contract. So they get the soul source contract and they've already laid out what the tasking is to be done on that contract and the tasking is to be done that needs to be done is the engineering to take

this thing apart piece by piece reverse engineer it put it back together again and try to figure out if they can make it work or not and understand how that happens and uh that's all they do. They don't have tasking to hire a theoretical physicist to sit there and start thinking about the standard model beyond the standard model or anything. They don't go there. They don't go there. These are engineering companies. They're not universities. And they don't even aren't even allowed to talk to universities about this because of the compartmentalization is horrible. Sorry.

If if an iPhone fell into the into the hands of a villager uh in some far-flung uh developing country, the odds of a cobbler or a carpenter figuring out how an iPhone worked is negligible. >> So the same thing is true on your engineering. I mean, look, the Manhattan project was an engineering project. There was a deliverable. It was a >> The argument to have physicist

>> for both projects. You're not giving me any understanding of why there were physicists in one and not the other. Wouldn't the same even if you had a >> Sorry. It doesn't make sense, Derek. That's just what all the evidence goes down to. Um comes down to I should say it's I I haven't met Well, I asked my sort my senior VP said, "Oh, we didn't have any physicists. They had Bernie hush working in that company. He is a physicist. He's an astrophysicist. He was a Max Plunk Institute fellow. He was

a fellow of that company and he did astrophysics work because that company built spacecraft for NASA. But an alternate hypothesis is that this is a dummy program masking something. And the last thing that you would want ever on such a program is a physicist. because the physicist is gonna tear right through this thing and say there is no Bfield Brown effect here let me show you you know or whatever. So my my my claim is >> that avoidance

physicists might be necessary to keep a dummy program going just the way the presence of physicists was necessary to get a deliverable for Hiroshima and >> Interesting. Okay. I I just on another note, the five people I knew of at that one legacy company, >> two of whom I met with and dined with and met and one of whom I met with routinely through the OAP and after. Uh >> so the woman was a mathematician but she worked as as a chief of security.

There we go. The other one was a material scientist. Okay, that's a for that's a discipline in engineering. The other three were engineers. One of them was involved with the development of the F-17 fighter and I don't know what the other guys roles were but they were all engineers. That's what they were described to me and I said no physicists. He said no not really. >> It's insane. Both you guys what do you hope for the next year or two of disclosure? I mean I think it's clear that you think the the brain dead way in which this is run without theoretical

physicist. I would like I would like to meet adults on this project who are not grooved into thinking that we can just repeat things that never made any sense into the future as if they make sense. The idea that we are being visited um by crafts that dominate our airspace, that we cannot understand, do not know their origin, that defy the laws of physics, and we avoid the one specialty that could help us at all costs, and that this makes sense to anyone is is a fairy tale that should not be I I think that a

mentally golden retriever should not repeat this fair. >> Doc, Dr. Davis, what what do you hope for over the next few years? Well, I'm I'm actually uh what's the word? I'm don't want to say I'm uh uh I'm looking for a negative term here and it's I'm I'm not enthusiast. Well, it's not enthusiastic. That's not the word. I think the presidential emergency action directives are so strict. They were instituted in the White House admin uh

in the Eisenhower White House administration. So Eisenhower instituted that and that's been carried forward on many different topics, but specifically Jim Seivan and I know that they were instituted for this topic that we've been discussing. So I I uh am not hope I guess that's the word I'm looking for. I'm not hopeful that there will be meaningful disclosure uh because of the presidential emergency action directives. And I'm also not hopeful because I don't think that this topic has risen to a level of urgency in the

White House as the Epstein files have and the retribution that Trump wants to execute against his political enemies. Uh those are those are at the top. He's got his economic agenda. He's got his foreign policy agenda, tariffs and all that. Disclosure of UAPs at this level, it's just not rising to the top. >> That's your prognosis. But your hope is that we get full transparency on this issue outside of national security. >> He and I

>> could get the keys to the door with how and we can walk in and we can talk to people and say where the are your physicists and uh or we can say we're going to volunteer our time or you can pay us to work for you. Uh I would love for both of us with Hal and some others to be able to go in and take a look at the hardware, see it ourselves. I've I've I've heard physical descriptions from Jim Lowsky um >> who said that he breached the hole and walked inside of a UFO. Yeah. >> And you believe him? >> Yeah. Because there's no reason not to.

>> You told us because you were allowed to tell us that our government has a UFO in its possession and has been able to access the inside of it, right? >> I mean, when you work with people like that, we know that we're not trained to lie and make up just for the sake of lying and making up Uh, no. We are people with clearances. We are responsible people. Jim Lowsky was a uh missiles engineer. I believe he was. Uh, so and there are other missiles engineers I knew who worked at the DIA

back in the 80s and no back in Yeah. ' 80s, 90s, and 2000s until they retired. So, there's a lot of engineers in the DIA. Not too many physicists that I ever ran across. So, anyway, it'd be nice. But so my point is Jim Lowsky wouldn't say that just just to pull it out of the air and throw people off. He's telling you the truth. >> That was during his time. >> This is exactly the truth and this is exactly what he experienced working at the DIA at some point. Uh I don't know whether this happened during the Osap because he certainly didn't tell us all

of us in the OSAP. Tell Keller Bigalow Pafy myself. We never heard this come from Mikowski. >> Was this at Locked or when he said >> no I don't know where it was. It's just >> you don't know where he stepped or >> He He didn't say in his book. I don't know if you've read the book or not. >> I haven't read the book. >> Okay. So, he didn't say where he went into that craft or who had it, >> but I have a general idea based on conversations I've had with Jay Stratton. But the point being is that he was able to get it, touch it. I also know a four-star general from the

Clinton administration who was able to go there, use his authority, his power uh to go see the program and get inside, talk to the program uh employees and leadership, touch the crowd, look inside the crowd. So that's two. And then there's Admiral Wilson who said, "I tried to get in the program. I met the program manager, the corporate security chief, the legal counsel, and the chief scientist, and they told me after a lot of resistance and arguing, they finally said, "This is what you're looking for. It is a crash retrieval, nonhuman

intelligence, non-human technology, off-world, but we can't let you in because you don't have a need to know beyond that." Yeah. >> You know, it's like, oh, but that's how it works. I mean, that really does work that way. the head of the NRO doesn't know what the hell a lot of the stuff that's going on beneath him because they're wooaps or SAPs or hidden SCIs. He he doesn't have a need to know unless there's a reason that he has to and then they have to brief him. >> On that mindblowing but also baffling note. Uh and I I'm glad we ended in a

sort of a you know collegial way. We share mutual hope that we can we can you know bash down the door. >> But I love this guy's mind. I love the way he was going in the last hour or so. >> Yeah. This is uh this has really opened my mind a lot more my eyes on some things I want to start looking at now. Thank you for that. >> Thanks doc. >> Thank you sir. >> That was an interesting conversation, >> wasn't it? >> Yeah. What's your I don't know. Do you have kind of a gestalt sense coming away from that as far as an update where you

were before the conversation uh where you are now? So, first of all, it's interesting to see somebody who believes in aliens and and and craft in some deep level and doesn't believe in going beyond the theories that are uh blessed with holy water by the physics community. And so, you know, I take general relativity and standard model quite seriously, but he takes it almost as a constraint.

So I think one of the things I didn't understand is that the physics output is rec seems almost recreational and it seems like what is the closest you could get to science fiction using known >> Yeah. Yeah. And the idea is that it's all extremely vague scenario like if we could come up with huge amounts of matter and energy then we could do this uh alubi

space-time solution or um you know maybe we could engineer an Einstein Rosen bridge you know and like again I I'd heard somebody say this thing about um maybe the black hole information paradox is a key that because it doesn't fully make sense that that's where the technology is and you should use quantum gravity as a guide. Maybe you go into a black hole and you somehow get shot out some some some place at a speed that you couldn't imagine otherwise. Whatever

these things are, this is garbage. I hate to say it that way, but it's not that he's he maybe he's doing the best that you can do assuming general relativity and the standard model trying to reproduce something that clearly goes beyond it if it exists at all. Another thing is he said I was sort of surprised that he wasn't nearly as read in at a primary level. Um so that he's able to talk because

he didn't actually make primary contact with this. >> Well, that's the thing we were just commenting on off camera, which is like this funny dynamic of everybody seems to be circling around this program and nobody seems to be in the program. It's a little like the Epstein list or >> Which is not at all, you know, we'll stop the analogy there, but it is this weird thing where it's like, you know, uh, no one no one no one's gone to the island, but like, you know, or not me rather, but everybody else has or whatever, and these are everybody's

demonic or whatever. And in in this case, it's this weird thing where everybody's this Mr. Smith goes to Washington character who stumbled into this in this sort of hapless way. uh and they have no idea how the thing actually sort of functions and works and that allows them to talk about it >> or even if there's a thing as described at all. I mean, I'm convinced that there's a thing >> and it has a boundary and it has some structure and there's some money in it, But I don't know that what's inside that

container is what is indicated on its surface to the extent that anyone can even see the boundary. >> Yeah. Well, that's a question is like, you know, does the tip of the iceberg look like is it actually an iceberg? And are we looking at a tip of the iceberg where you can say uh we have a crash retrieval reverse engineering program but that's actually some sort of intelligence slight of hand and in fact the body uh or a structure that is underneath you know submerged in the water is obfiscated and that changes

>> Yeah. It's like you have a kelp forest which has a top which looks like an >> you know something like that. I was trying to figure out the right analogy. >> Well, there isn't a good one. >> There isn't a good one. >> And you have unreliable narrators to contend with as well. And you have unprepared ontologies to contend with as well. So, you have these voices giving you information. You are Eric Davis in this situation. You have these witnesses or these sources giving you information, but they are a filter unto themselves. They're an ontology filter and they're a

reliability filter. How much can you totally bank on what they're saying and use it to build a model for whatever is hiding in this boundary? >> So, one of the questions that we we were discussing is if you believe in the legacy program and I think all three of us are in a position where we've talked to too many different people with different backgrounds that are talking about a something in common. And you know, in my worst fear, it's the

jackaloupe where everybody sort of believes the jackalopes are real. Um, because there's an industry around a myth. Um, but assuming this thing is real, because I can't imagine how you would fake it. What is real is a program with a So, there's something where you're inside the program and there's something where you're outside the program. And people have to go back in and out unless you imagine that there's a secret facility which you enter once and you never leave just physically.

instantiation of at least the theoretical physics component of the whatever we calling that this UAP legacy >> at Renaissance Technologies. And I thought it was interesting that uh in 2022 NASA had this, you know, UFO review >> 16 researchers will spend the next 9 months studying the UFOs. They will use unclassified data in their research and release a report to the public next year. Now, this follows the Pentagon's

announcement in July that it would create an office to track reports of UAPs or UFOs. And they were seeing, you know, if there was anything to all this stuff and they were they were looking into it in an official capacity. And the person overseeing that panel is this guy, David Spurggle. Of course, Jim Simon started Renaissance Technologies and Spurgle was head of his foundation. So I find that to be very interesting >> So there's this concept in Washington of steady hands and steady hands. I never really found

all the different meanings for it, but one meaning for it was who can we trust when the pressure gets insanely high to do what we expect needs to be done, which may involve obfuscating, lying, pitifying, all of the things that don't have to do with disclosure. The world of steady hands is often a very small world. So they reuse the same. You'll notice that the same people in Washington DC somehow show up on

eight different issues. They're like because the government knows that they can trust that person in a crisis not to not to buckle. They've sort of given their life for the team. >> Would Fouchy be sort of analogous? >> Sure. Right. the idea that you're going to stand up to Rand Paul in an open hearing and you're not going to call your call for your mommy and you're not going to say, "Okay, I admit it. There was a whole thing and we screwed up and I feel terrible." Whatever.

And so maybe the idea is we're dealing with the steady hands phenomena >> that you need people to deny the obvious. You need people to spend credibility and there are very few people who want to do that job. >> One other connection I was thinking of speaking of you know the intersection uh institutions that are well respected that nobody can deny have power in the

country like the Jasons which uh you know they made in Santa Barbara. It's the elite of the elite when it comes to uh military-industrial complex and specifically figuring out kind of it's frontier physics, but it's also uh uh you know um and so you have that committee that you brought up and then you have the UFO world which seems kind of more quacky on the face of it and you have this guy Ron Pandalfi who seems to be a part of the Jason advisory committee um but also

seems to show up in UFO world And so I think it's really interesting as a huristic to look at the intersection between quacky UFO world and more institutional undeniable military-industrial complex. Well, that was why the the golden age of general relativity was such an important uh thing to mine because that was the last major moment where the lunatic quacks and the super respectable people were seeing each

other after hours for cocktails, right? And you know there's a different version of this maybe where um David Kaiser I think wrote this book how the hippies saved physics about what gets done at Eselin you know with entanglement and uh bell inequalities and all that kind of stuff. So I think that there's this weird way in which the quack world and the respectable world are are always

intermingled and we don't really admit to this. Uh I' I've called the passion for let's say string theoretic physics and other official uh mass delusions karks which is crank spelled backwards. A kark is a crank inside of the who would be ridiculed for their belief structure but for the fact that they are upholding the institution. Right? And so we have a and by the way

the mass delusion isn't that string theory might be interesting. It's that 42 years in you're still not seeing this what do we have wrong? Does anyone else have an idea? There is no that brings together the critics and the proponents to try to get to ground truth. Well, you have an idea about you mean you mentioned this in the interview. You said, you know, we have been beating Einstein to death trying to kind of quantize gravity. Uh you have an idea about gauging gravity and how, you

know, maybe we we fell into the kind of quantum gravity culde-sac when we could have thought about gravity in this other context. Well, so this this is a a very strange point. Um, so I just turned 60 >> happy birthday. >> Well, thank you very much. What I realize about myself is that I am the youngest person to see the transition between old style physics and the string physics in terms of the community. So I got to college in

1982. I started going to seminars essentially immediately which was unusual and I was 16 at the time. So that was my claim to saying that that's why I'm the youngest. Things change in ' 84. So there's really only 8283 and I happened by complete accident to be at the first lecture of Ed Whitten on string theory at the University of Pennsylvania in 1983 which I didn't know until very recently that that my memory actually is because I fell by accident into the beginning.

theoretical physics and there's nothing they can do to hide it. If you go back to research articles before uh 1984, you see an entirely different culture of inquiry as to what are the problems of physics, what might we try to do to solve them? and quantum gravity was just thrust down everybody's throat as the holy grail from 1984 to87 and by the time of 87 everybody had accepted this. So what you

did is you retconed a story where nobody mentions the phrase quantum gravity until 1972. And you say well that's always been the holy grail ever since uh gravity in general relativity in 1915 and the quantum let's say by 1928 when you have quantum electronamics were both realized to have this kind of incompatibility. So if the incompatibility between the two is real but it's not really quantum gravity, what is it?

So what I said was most people don't realize that due to work of Jim Simons and Cen Yang which got written up as Wooyang as if Simons was woo um we know that underneath the standard model is a classical geometric structure and we don't talk about the classical differential geometric nature of the standard model um and that that is the subject of the

Wuyang dictionary. So that unearthing of a geometric origin for the particles and fields that are not gravity but all the all the quantum fields uh is a very important clue that that geometry has a property which is that it is gauged which means that you can keep yourself from being fooled that many different versions you know that problem with the elephant with the blind men going around and it's all one elephant

And the blind men aren't wandering around the elephant stupidly. They're just staying in one place. So a gauge orbit would be let's get all of the information from all of these people and decide that it's one elephant and they're just looking at it from different perspectives. So it's kind of a unity of knowledge thing. General relativity can't be Now there's a lie that says well that it's a type of gauge theory because there's a different kind of symmetry which has nothing to do with gauging called uh general coordinate invariance

or diffmorphism invariance. So we make up a story to pretend that Einstein's theory can be gauged and it can't. And so now you have this weird question. Why did Ed Whitten tell us that the incompatibility between this the standard model and general relativity was that one was fully quantum and the other never quite grew up and that we had to grow up general >> So general relativity and the standard model have two separate attributes. Einstein could do two things that the

standard model cannot. He these things are called contraction where you take two indices on either side of a separating barrier called a tensor product and you get them to mate uh and pair off. So he contracted the remanian curvature to get the reachi curvature. He contracted that to get scalar curvature. He spun the scalar curvature around 180 degrees. Plugged it back into the formula and got rid of this vile curvature. Whatever that operation was that was the central idea of general

curvature tensors that occur in the standard model and break them up into You can't do this contraction gate. And the other thing Einstein had that the standard model didn't is that there's a central reference object called the Levita connection and there's no analog for that as in the connections that give us photons and W and Z particles and So in the case of the standard model, you've got if if my arm here is

spacetime and this is the data of the particles, the data of the particles can move around without moving spaceime. In general relativity, if you think about this as the xy plane, moving the x-axis affects the y axis. advantages of those two different pictures gauge equivalence in the case of the standard model and contraction and a specified levy jvita connection

that difference gives two sets of advantages to two different theories. Now my work the reason it's called geometric unity nobody ever asks that question really is that I said are there any places where you get to use the advantages of both and the answer turns out to be well certainly in general it won't work but for some completely absurdly narrow class of theories you get all the benefits of both systems and then you check the particle table of the standard

model and you're exactly in that freak glass m so like how how can you not devote your life to that fact? I just don't even understand it. Um so that thing is having to do with the fact that we didn't gauge gravity properly and there's old work about this with Einstein and Cartan with Mcdow and Mansuri with a bunch of other people who've had versions of this idea but it all got blown away by quantum

Do you think that was by design or let me give you something that is Although modern people won't see it as such. It is insane to spend 42 years under the spell of a group of people you call leaders who stagnated a field. In general, you have to ask the question, why is no one allowed to say

what is going on with David Gross, Lenny Suskin, Edward Whitten, Why are these people still our leading >> I mean, this program failed. It's not the first failed program. We had a program associated with um with Reggie called the Reggie Calculus that was supposed to do great things and didn't work. There was a guy named Jeff Chu who had a bootstrap program and the Smatrix thing that didn't work. We've had lots

of ideas that don't work and it's part of the game and it's not a question of these are bad people but they they failed scientifically. We can't say that. We can't say that we are slavishly devoted to making sure that we don't offend our leaders and we're going to insult everyone else and literally we're just going to professionally insult everyone who's been saying for 42 years this is not sensible. You saw what happened with Eric is I sort of had to say you know

none of these ideas are remotely plausible that you're exploring. It wasn't personal wasn't mean. He sort of said, "Yeah, I know that now, but you can kind of tell at the beginning none of this is going to >> And so, both in string theory and in what he's doing, which is accepting that craft exists and are retrieved and can do miraculous things, and the constraints are he takes for himself, I'm not going to challenge the standard model of general relativity. What's the closest I can get to science fiction

from known science fact? And the answer is you're a million miles away, buddy. There's no you're not even you're not in the right zip code. >> Is your sense that there is a vital core that does have either geometric unity or some frameworks that are closer to onlogical truth than general relativity and quantum field theory? You know, >> you can't ask me because my my feeling is I wouldn't have spent the same 42 years on geometric unity >> if I wasn't pretty confident that

>> this is this is right. Right. >> Okay. So, so then the question would be, do you think that somebody else or some other entity on the inside of all of this? Because what's interesting is you have a similar thing going on in UFO world as what seemed to go on with Epstein where you have this bizarre telephone game of terms being you have like in UFO world it's like extended electronamics and all these like weird frameworks that nobody knows how to define and then you read those Epstein

emails and he's like boost your physics he's like you know time is actually just a function of the vibration of cesium atoms and infiltrating the math department at Harvard and somehow has a lot of sway with these people and is speaking like a person who was maybe told some real stuff. Well, >> this is this is the thing. It's very hard to convey because particularly academics and PhDs don't want to be conned like at all costs. My feeling is this is an

extremely dumb way to go through life. Um, you're going to be conned for sure. Try to figure out who's saying something interesting by listening. And in my estimation, Epstein was saying interesting things to me that didn't originate from his mind. >> It's like they've hired an actor to play a hedge fund manager. I only met him once. Uh, it was probably for about an

hour or so. Um, but he was an absolutely terrifying person to encounter. It would be surprising to me if I was alone in that I immediately had the suspicion that I was looking at somebody who had been constructed rather than something that had organically arisen within the financial community. It was like somebody who' learned a phrase in a foreign language and he was repeating it as best he could. Like I I don't think people really have a clear idea of how crazy that interview

he gives to Bannon or the media training he was doing. He gets like eight things wrong in a row and people said, "Well, Eric, you were wrong. He clearly is a much better spoken, much more informed person." So he founded the Santa Fe Institute in 1990 to 93 when it was founded in 1984 by other people. >> So bizarre. Or this was around the time that Murray Galman was naming quirks from a poem when quirks were named many years earlier. >> Says he was a good Wall Street trader

because he had calculators. We had Texas instruments back then. So, >> okay. So, so this is what I saw with like Bob Lazar. You know, Eric latched on to the fact that Lazar is lying. Okay. So, fine, he's lying. It doesn't mean it's uninteresting. Not only is it not uninteresting, but it's I think it's simultaneously it's a little strange to say I know that there is a longterm legacy UFO reverse engineering program than the one guy that comes out where I

think a lot of his stuff checks to be honest and I think you can easily character assassinate the person by saying you know he was involved in XYZ but a lot of his the details check. My point is assume that assume that he's uh schizophrenic. Assume that he's uh got delusions of grandeur. I I don't know. I I'd never had the thought before that the topological instanton sector of QCD based on the Pontriagen class could be

transgressed to a churn simon and churn Simon is as close to Einstein Hilbert. Um, and I only had that because I was just so sickened by what Lazar was saying as if he's talking, I'm going to explain the world to you kids and he starts talking garbage. >> When when did you hear that and and have this idea about the theta sector and then look at it? >> It's an interesting question. Ro Joe Rogan, who's, you know, a friend, wanted me to sit down with Bob Lazar and, you know, I sat down with Terren Howard. Um, and I have a great deal of fun with Terrence and Terrence and I get on,

although sometimes he threatens me and I hate that. Um, but Terrence, you know, I I was I was praiseworthy in the one or two areas where Terrence was doing something really new. And in general, I had to pour cold water on most everything else, he said. And you know, that's the price of being taken seriously by somebody like me. And in the case of Bob Lazar, Joe once said, "Let's sit down." Now, I didn't I wouldn't have done the Terrence episode if I didn't have something to say which Terrence which is positive, which is

Terrence found one remarkable thing. At least he just did. So, with one remarkable thing, I'm willing to do it. Otherwise, it's a character assassination. I did not want to sit down with Bob Lazar and do a character assassination. Just characterologically, I don't like going after human beings. I go after institutions. Well, he would say he's not at he would say these are frameworks that were given to him >> but but he said that he was at MIT let's say in the physics department so immediately the problem is is that whenever you get to real

academic physics the world shrinks to a tiny number of people and I don't think that the outside world either appreciates one of two things about frontier physics one it's a tiny world because it's so difficult human ability. >> Did he say he was in the physics department though? I don't think he >> I think he >> I don't think so. >> I think Joe Joe told me >> there's a statement somewhere where he said he had physics at MIT and Caltech

going back to the early 90s. That was part of the early >> I think it was just MIT, but I think my read on it is that MIT is university uh affiliated research center UARC and they do spooky and >> well Draper >> for example and Lincoln Labs, >> right? MIT Lincoln Labs. >> Yeah. Are are different sorts of >> Exactly. You know, so the the issue is are you are you at at MIT or are you really at Draper or Lincoln?

>> Yeah. If you're talking to somebody from MIT Lincoln Labs, you're not talking to MIT faculty. This is I >> I don't know, but my sense is he was put there to work on um something defense related >> So like more like functional, not high level theoretical, but So you as you're asking me the question, how did I come to think about this thing from Bob Lazar? >> Yeah. When did gravity age sounding like

>> in order in order for me to sit down with Bob Lazar according to my own rules for I don't hunt human beings in general unless they hunt me or unless unless there's no other option. I don't I hunt institutions that are failing. I don't hunt people. I just don't like I don't like the ethos. So, in order for me to come on with Bob Lazar, I would have to find one thing credible in what he's So, I went over it. I tried to say, "Is there any way of making this make

sense?" And originally, I couldn't do it. I couldn't figure out this gravity wave a gravity wave B because he and I would get into it and it would be a very short, brutal, you know, it it would be Askrin versus Musvidel and I don't want to do that. and then I found that and that was the thing that was going to allow me to sit down with Bob Lazar is you could be saying something. >> Problem is I don't think he'd be able to hang with >> Okay. But but it's it's a formal >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> I also don't think he would try as an

author of the material to your point he would convey these are frameworks provided to me elsewhere. He wouldn't try to take technical ownership of gravity A and gravity B. Well, the other thing is is that I would say that even mathematicians and physicists really get this wrong. And the person who didn't get it wrong bizarrely was Jeff Epstein, which means that he's talking to >> In general, we we we do a bad job of the degree of a differential equation. So if differential equations are how we

tell how the world develops, the standard way of figuring out the degree of a differential equation is saying take the fields that are in it and count the maximum number of derivatives that are taken of those fields before you get to the equations. And that would say that the Einstein field equations are second order and the Maxwell's equations are second order. There's a different thing you can do which is you can say okay in fundamental force law first spot the curvature

tensor and then tell me how many derivatives I take of the curvature tensor. In that case those are no longer the same. Einstein's theory would be zeroith order in that way of writing it and Yang Mill's theory would be first order because you take one degree in Yang one differential in Yang Mills theory you take zero differential you just do linear algebra to the curvature tensor in in general relativity I don't think most people realize the

extent to which the churn Simons and Einstein Hilbert are basically playing very similar roles In the two theories, one of them is Romanian, one of them is Arismanian. the key features that they're both second, they're both zero with order in the curvature when you take the oil lrange equation, which is very hard to that thing that that property means that there's a very strong tie which is more broadly accepted between

churn Simons which currently lives only in dimension three in in its most strict sense and Einstein Hilbert which can live in any dimension. So you know look there's a hope I just don't think that most people think about uh geometric physics in this way. Well, interesting connection. Turn Simons is named after who and who? >> This is Churn and Jim Simons. >> And Jim Simons. And that that takes us back possibly to Renaissance

Technologies. Who what has the largest concentration of differential geometers in the US? >> Well, that's so look I I more or less accused Jim Simons of this shortly before he died. Um, and I told him, I mean, it was very collegial and very positive, but I said, "You do realize that you have the closest Lrangeian to Einstein Hilbert. We don't usually talk about Simons versus Einstein." What did he say? Well, then we have this completely

bizarre interchange. So, he wants me to tell him more. So I explain that in dimension three your object which is actually a transgression misinterpreted as an action or a lrangeian has the closest thing to the characteristics of the Einstein Hilbert action which is the integral of the scalar curvature integrated over the space-time manifold and I said in dimension three you don't have any

vile curvature to get rid of the way Einstein had to get rid of the vile curvature and discard it as he filleted the rest of the remon curvature tader and you you you don't have the gauge um benefit of your action you churn Simons in the Einsteinian case but otherwise they're extraordinarily similar did did you know that they're both inside of a parent theory and the parent theory combines Einstein Hilbert and

Chern Simons and new stuff. And that's what geometric unity does. Geometric unity gauges gravity gives you contraction. So you're both contracting and gauging, which you're not supposed to be able to do under most And I said, 'You going to have a role in life that is much closer to Albert Einstein's when this is all done. Not

that not that you're making an Einsteinian discovery, but the thing that will replace Einstein will also explain the work that you did. And he said, "This is unbelievably fascinating. You have to come to State University of Stonybrook to the Simon Center for Geometry and Physics and spend a year and teach us this." Wow. So, I said, "Okay. Um, I'm moved, but I I I would like nothing better." I said, "You're

just going to have to understand that I have a family and I have a son who's finishing his last year of of high school. So, I'm going to need a little bit of help with the heavy lifting of relocating the family for a summer for for a year at a time when we can't afford a lot of tumult. And he looked at me and he said, "Okay, well, do you have any idea where you get the money? Isn't he worth $20 billion plus what at

that time?" >> That's crazy. And I I I looked at him. I couldn't parse it. >> It's so strange. Did you I mean, you just didn't want to gravel at that point and you kind of >> Well, I'm not going to grable. >> Yeah. And that that's so crazy. >> Did you get the vibe that he was gener genuinely hearing about this technical detail for the first time? >> This is the first of two meetings that

sound like this. The first time I had a meeting with him, I spent three hours with him going over a gauge theory of modern economics. Now, he happens to be married to an economist. He obviously works in the markets and gauge theory just so it's not thought to be intimidating or or too cool for school is really just differential calculus done correctly. And unfortunately we call it gauge theory and we only teach people who are very high up in pure mathematics or

Milani was to show that modern neocclassical economics is a self-evident gauge theory at multiple levels and that was not taken well by the Harvard economics department particularly by one man named Dale Jorgensson who was the chairman of the department and basically went nuts trying to make sure that my wife was And the reason that he did that is that he was tasked by senators uh Bob Pacwood

and Daniel Patrick Moahan with pretending there was a 1.1% overstatement in the uh consumer price index to transfer a trillion dollars because all tax receipts and all social security payments are indexed. So tax brackets and you can raise taxes and slash benefits both at the same time by making a technical adjustment in inflation. You'll notice that many of us are

experiencing inflation that's not fully reflected in our statistics. So there was a crime going on which the Bosan Commission was committing against the American people by putting in a 1.1% overstatement in the CPI by hand at the same moment that Melani and myself were the economics is a gauge theory and there's a completely different way of looking at this and Jorgensson didn't want any competition. So anyway, I talked to Jim. Jim said,

"Look, this is amazing. Uh, I've never thought about this, but you're right about bundle theory and derivatives and projection operators." I said, "Well, you have to I have to ask you a question. Your returns are so off the You have to have some explanation for why you're able to do this much of a better job." And I said, "Are you are you using this? Your wife is an economist. You're a differential geometer. you're in the same situation I am. Did you get here

first? He took a drag on his cigarette. knew how he actually made money, you'd be so disappointed. >> You could imagine. I have no idea. But there's certainly, look, so far as I know, I'm the first person because I come from a math physics background to say I'm not really positive that this thing is just a hedge

>> The returns are too impressive. You know, they're like North Korean returns. And then the deer leader, you know, ascended to the mountaintop and wrote the seven most beautiful symphonies before descending on a winged unicorn. It's like in the early 2000s I didn't believe the following four funds. Bernie Maidoff, Renaissance Technologies, De Shaw, and Jeff Epstein. >> Why De Shaw? >> It was a strange thing that I knew people who worked there. They were so

highly compartmentalized that they basically had the sense of they had no idea how the whole thing worked. And so it had as you know there is a very strange property of government secrecy which is the only thing people really trust is compartmentalization and stove The general belief is is that people will always talk and you have to have the people sharded with enough granularity that nobody can put together what's actually going on. Do you think

because I mean Brook Haven National Labs is the site of Cosmatron which is the largest particle accelerator in the US. It is. Do you know that? >> No, I didn't. I thought Firmay Lab would have been. >> No, it's interesting. Yeah. Yeah. So, so, so they they're doing you know they have uh particle accelerator that's you know pretty powerful up there. They have Stonybrook which you know uh is definitely punching above its weight class when it comes to physics uh which has some interesting also >> particularly mathematics >> particularly mathematics also some

interesting architecture up there as well that you've noted uh and then you have this fund which seems to get 30% year-over-year no matter what you know up years down years you know it's just always sort of you know performing at the same clip and uh I guess my question Do you think this was sort of a slush fund for secret science? >> I think it's not irresponsible. Look, you know my thing about responsible conspiracy theorizing, which is that you

go back in the history of actual conspiracies and you say your new thought about a conspiracy should be within a standard deviation or two of something that's known to exist. So if you take Los Alamos as a good you have a You have top math physics talent. You have duplicitus filings. For

example, they didn't want people to know that plutonium and uranium were the two main radioactive elements that they were focused on. And so that I believe Harold Yuri may have been sent to promote others. They didn't want people realizing that it was as easy as it as it turned out to be. So there was a lot of disinformation because you had to explain why you have all of this focus on chain reactions and then suddenly interest just stops. Okay. So my claim is that if you believe

that Los Alamos exists and if you believe that the RAD lab exists, the radiation laboratory at MIT, and you believe a bunch of these things, it is not hard. Oh, and then you believe like dummy companies and shell companies like Southern Air Transport or Air America, you know, um squirrels in Washington DC don't want smart Americans turning this into a

parlor game. So they've decided that okay we're going to spread one idea which is that everybody who speculates about the secret world is a loser. There's only one reason to speculate about the secret world is that you're >> Right? And I really despise this. >> So what I said was entirely responsible. Uh, if you were trying to call the National Security Agency, no such agency back in the day, that would be bad because I would say,

"Tell me where number theorists go who don't get academic jobs, and let's map the uh the zip codes." Oh, look, there's this little cluster. I mean, I don't know, Maryland or Delaware or wherever it is, you know, and you'd find Fort me. Okay. Well, there's a cluster Renaissance >> Yes. You know, so are you actually I'm not telling you what's in it or not. I'm telling you if if somebody told me tomorrow there is a Manhattan 3.0 and

it's about gravity and UAPs and post Einsteinian engineering. Where is its brain trust? With 95% I would tell you it's Renaissance there such a program? I don't know that I don't know that my confidence would be so high. If there is a secret program, I'm pretty sure it's Renaissance >> some percentage times 95% or something. >> Well, that's the thing. It might be. It

might well not be. But you know, if you asked me, um, hey, tell me what are Fineman Beta uh, John Vanoyman doing at a boarding school or at a boy school in the New Mexico uh, wilderness. I would say that's a really strange place to find. >> Yeah, it's an odd concentration of the country's top physicist. Oh, well they're investing in secondary education for young men because they have self-image issues. Oh, okay.

>> Exactly. Well, you also, you know, you've noted that or this isn't even something you've noted. This is something, you know, in the age of disclosure or and by the way, this movie came out and you have DNI level people. You have James Clapper, you have Brennan. >> Wait, wait, wait one second. I just want to say this thing. Yeah, I don't want to speculate against Renaissance technologies if they're just really good traders. In other words, I'm not trying to bring darkness to their door. But if we're going to play this cat and mouse

game about what's true and what's real and and and I'll just get very very pointed about it. Do not mess with your expert class, with the expert class who's not read in to whatever this is is to just pretend that we're all incapable thinkers, that we've got some personal problem that we're working at.

I want to terminate that program with extreme prejudice. You do not go after your expert class because you were dumb enough not to read them in and then they figured out something of what you were doing. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know the specifics, but I'm not I'm not stupid. >> Well, the other issue with the way things have gone, if we take Eric Davis at face value on there being no physicists in this vital secret core >> how did you react to that, Jesse? Let me turn it around. >> I It's crazy. I mean, it's it's um it's

outrageous. It's uh if that is the case, it's uh it's extremely irresponsible and it's not being run well at all. It makes no sense. Why would you be operating within a boundary that has been set historically, you have, you know, every century or two centuries, you have an overturning of our physical model of reality. And if you're telling me that you are getting slag discs, you know,

whatever it is, material that you are saying, you know, with 100% confidence is not ours because it's been atomically bonded or has isotope ratios with heavy elements or any of the stuff that we're hearing before Congress, a lot of these guys saying. And then you were saying, but we're operating within the bounds of the constraints that we've set on ourselves in this century. No make >> It makes no sense. It's >> I'm following my contract. It's like that's is nonsense. >> No. And and everybody repeats this as if

as if they're I mean it's it's like if you gave the excuse, well, no, because it's it's Wednesday every week and everybody said that. You you sort of get a nerd to it, but then you realize, yes, there's a Wednesday of every week that had nothing to do with any. You have to be highly disagreeable to basically say, you know, Eric, what you just said, no, no, no offense, makes no sense at all. >> And what's so weird about it is I'm cynical. I think I think national security runs the day on all this stuff. And so once something makes sense from a national security standpoint, it just

happens. Yeah. >> And so if this were this grave national security issue where you think you might be able to do anything with any of this obviously you'd put your best and brightest on it. Obviously the stove piping of it would be an immediate urgent issue that you would >> or you put the best and the brightest on top of the stove pipe system which is what we did at Los Alamos. The white Look, man, we have cowboys stilling

>> You're Yeah, you're you're castrating the people who can do this work. Well, that's that's the other, you know, thing which I think is even worse than the program being dysfunctional is you have this narrative of in UFO world of, you know, restricted data and all this stuff getting relegated to, you know, your locked and northrups and aerospace contractors because if they retrieve a thing, it's born secret under the atomic

energy act of 1954. And this is you know it's sort of DOE jurisdiction right then you end up with uh you know 1980s 1990s world where you know not only is that the you know whatever program is going on there seems to be sort of uh inert and neutered and not particularly impressive all all the stuff we're talking about right now. But you end up in a world where DOE security is so lax that Epstein can

move to, you know, Zoro Ranch with the explicit intent of being near retired Los Alamos physicists so he can gain. >> You saw that clip I broke out. >> I broke it out for a reason. Nobody around me. They're going right through that clip. >> So why did I buy a ranch in New Mexico 1993? So that's gives you some sense. So I would have funded it in 1990. Uh Los Alamos which was the high energy lab up in New Mexico was losing all its

>> And Los Alamos it was where Oppenheimer where the where the a lot of the the nuclear weapons program the bomb >> that's when the Manhattan project >> Manhattan project was as Los Alamos. And you bought your property out in New Mexico to be near that. >> Yes. because the scientists were going to be they cut the funding for high energy physics. >> Look, I'm just going to be more forthcoming. I have had a thankless job of saying the string theorists are horrible. Get them more money. People wonder like that doesn't make any

sense. And now I'm going to spell it out because Epstein said the thing that I was trying to I was trying to be Straussian about it and sort of speak so that it's not evident. He was listening. At the end of the Cold War, you over your physicists. Who who who thought this up? How dumb are you? How dumb are is the United States of America? I just don't grasp it. On October 30th, 1993, President Clinton

signed into law the death blow to the superconducting super collider. You have all of these deadly ninjas running around. Tell me something. Who were the first people the Israelis killed in Iran when they went in? >> Nuclear scientists. >> Yeah. Physicists, >> Iranian Leon Leerman's. Now, I was not happy about that. You know, my feeling is don't shoot us with the piano players. But the Israelis made a decision that the first thing you do

is kill your scientists. The thing here is if you look at the scientists, they look like a joke. They're playing around with toy models, lying about all the progress they're making. And my claim is is that until you pay these people, until you stop making them afraid, until you until you remove your hands from around their throats with their grants and their you're not going to get any physics. So the alternate interpretation of this and I hate to say it is that some somebody

soft sunseted the world's most vital intellectual community which is frontier theoretical physicists and basically these people are now kind of almost buffoonish the ex Epstein thing is a giant tangle and I'm just going to say more because I said it before these last this last trunch epine was running many different programs. It wasn't even Epstein probably running it. So, call the name of the organization or the project or whatever you want to call it, Jeffrey

Epstein. But that does not mean that it was Jeffrey Epstein. >> He was not a policy maker. >> I don't know who he was. And and one of the things about responsible conspiracy theorizing is is that you don't constantly answer the question, well, if not X, then what? Why? No, I don't know. Get used to I don't know. There's a lot of I don't know in the story. I don't think he was running the Jeffrey special access project or whatever it

was. If it was in the US government, it would be a special access. >> Clearly, yeah, somebody was running that thing. They hired the wrong actor cuz he wasn't that great of a friend. Many different things were going through it at the same time. So that plane of his is not the Lolita Express. It's his it's the plane that belonged to the project and it very different people for different purposes. And that island is not pedophile island. That island may

have had a tremendous amount of pedophilia and horrific things going on, but it simply a container for whatever was going on through this project. So now you have the question about to what extent were the scientists implicated? To what extent was Jeffrey Epstein doing one thing saying he was doing another? So let let me um uh assets and directives. You're not

supposed to let a super rich guy with no ostensible means of achieving his fortune buy an enormous ranch, a stones throw from Los Alamos with the intention of talking to high energy and weapons physicists at the end of the cold war as they lose their funding. Who blew this? And and who blew the fact that in the released information? This is the first

thing I I found. You know, I was looking for this, which is the guy set up listening posts. He had another listening post called One Brattle Square. >> Where was that? >> It's in in Cambridge, Massachusetts >> So, let let me explain. Let me spell this out for the kids at

is the Harvard math department. The analog of nuclear and theoretical physics and high energy physics is number theory. The benefits of ignoring about this in New Mexico it's weapons. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, it might be

In Cambridge, Massachusetts, you work with Martin Noak. Your base of operations in New Mexico is called Zoro Ranch. Cambridge, Massachusetts, it's called Office 610 at One Brattle Square. But whoever is supposed to be smart enough to protect our crown jewels

has to recognize that just because the the thinking is is that he was going to make a a baby manufacturing facility at Zoro Ranch and that he was doing evolutionary dynamics at Harvard. I see no reason to think that those aren't cover stories. >> Well, what you just articulated, I think only a specific millu of people could even strategize for like clearly Epstein himself wasn't making that calculation. >> Listen to what Bannon asked Epstein.

>> He said, "So, wait a minute. You bought this ranch uh and you founded the Santa Fe Institute?" Yeah. Around 1993. Okay. Who founded the Santa Fe Not Jeffrey Epstein. What year was it that he founded that Jeffrey Epste founded the Santa Fe Institute. Founded fund. I'm not sure. He did give money, but he he's not behind the Santa Fe

Says Murray Galman was working out the word for quirks. around then quirks were named much much earlier. He has no idea what he's talking about. >> Right. So there's some telephone game at >> Yeah. And he says, you know, quirks had a certain they had color, they had flavor, they had a charm. He says, nobody knows what these things mean. Okay. Yes. uh SU3 flavor was a failed scheme uh for lumping the up down

and strange quarks into a multiplate in complex threedimensional space. Uh charm and and strange uh are the names of second generation QCD we very well understand what a lot of it means because in part it has this property of asmtoic uh freedom so that it becomes a free theory it's one of the it's the only theory we have that's physical that extrapolates all the way

to the plank level this guy had no idea what he was talking about he didn't have an idea what he was talking about in currency trading >> and and yet he knew to infiltrate Harvard's math department >> or somebody Somebody, that's what I'm >> Somebody behind him knew that clearly because what you just articulated about particle theory and number theory and those two, >> but nobody's thinking number theory because it's the emphasis is on the program on evolutionary dynamics.

Martin Noak doesn't know anything about number theory. program in evolutionary dynamics? There's a different guy named Dick Gross who was a number theorist and Harvard references an imaginative proposal by Benedict Gross and Jeffrey Oh, so his initial contact was a number How interesting. So strange. And then he's, you know,

he's funding Joyito and this uh, you know, Bitcoin initiative. Well, that's about crypto. I I'm just saying look, I don't know what happened, but smart people? mathematics and physics should be on this and they've they've got everyone

that to utter the words that are obvious to any one of us. Like why why were all of these super smart people hanging on Jeffrey Epstein's every word? >> So weird. Well, no, it's not weird. Have you ever noticed how interesting astrology becomes when it's explained to you by a woman in a really low cut right? Suddenly it's like Virgo, I never knew that. Wow. Oh, retrograde. That makes everything make sense. When when

rich people are around you has much the same effect. People blow smoke up rich people's backsides all the time. They just That is so insightful. That's what all these people were doing. We We're all starved for funding because the Vanavar Bush arrangement has been welched upon. And so you've got all of these starving ninjas who have skills that are pretty advanced and dangerous. fawning over this crazy guy because he's

got an island in a jet. Where do you think uh moving on to higher ground, where do you think all this UFO stuff goes? Because you have more official disclosures at a very high level going on that than ever. You have rumors of Trump saying things. You hear smatterings of people at least peripheral to the admin pretty interested in the issue. Donald Trump

Jr. interviewed Ross Colthart last year, you know, who's a UFO investigator >> Do you remember how Trump wanted to get to the bottom of the Epstein files? >> You could forgive me for wondering what happened to that zeal. >> Do you think the same thing will apply to secret? This is what people don't understand about Washington DC. You have all sorts of people who don't understand what Washington DC is or how

it works who outside of the beltway form beliefs about what they're going to do once they get to Washington and they change almost instantly. it's like the drain the swamp guy turns out met his wife through Epstein. You know, it's this thing where I think in that world, everyone got tagged. And so maybe this is the same thing that goes on with the UFO stuff. I don't know. But

>> there's something that cause you not to want to reveal things, >> right? Like it's somehow Trump gets implicated in the UFO thing in some weird way or >> it's insanely lucrative to control instead of to disclose. >> Sure, it could be that. Yeah. Or maybe the idea is that whatever this information is, assume it's the cover story for a weapon system that is easy to create and completely dangerous. Like I I keep

giving the example of a thing that doesn't exist. And the thing that doesn't exist is a is an energy beam that can be focused on the opposite side of the planet at any particular latitude and longitude that you give it. So you point a a mythological gun into the ground in a particular direction. You calculate the effect of the earth on the on on the beam that you and then you vaporize it. So you have somebody's cell phone coordinates. Suddenly that person

is no more. This is like a scalar weapon in the ufology. >> I'm not going to talk garbage stuff. I'm just going to say imagine that this >> right? So, you know that you can transmit energy and hurt something and you know that you can transmit nutrinos through an entire planet and they'll go through. You just don't know how to recombine nutrinos on the other side. Right? So, you know, it it's theoretically I don't want to get into it. I'm just trying to say imagine you have some imagination. You say if I can have a beam of nutrinos because I could

direct a charged particle and then I get a decay and that gives me the momentum in this particular direction. Now can I refocus the nutrinos and get them to convert on the other side protect a particular is there any way to induce that. That's a theoretical idea. I don't see any way of doing it. But what if you had such a weapon and it was easy? Now, you'd say, "Okay, are you telling me that everyone on Earth can build their own and just point it and vaporize

Right? That'd be terrifying. What if you could unhook the uh the true vacuum of the of the Higs field and get some kind of vacuum decay? Like, we don't know whether hidden in physics, sees what could happen keeps their mouth that I believe and again you you guys don't have to to believe it but I

believe that if geometric unity is as rich as I say it is doesn't even have to be correct just has to be rich it is inconceivable to me that there is no interest in it from the very people who funded my education. Office of Naval Research funded my graduate education and the National Science Foundation found it uh funded my

position and I believe I was put on a Department of Energy grant which is very unusual for a mathematician because Isidor Singer had one. None of those people have any interest whatsoever in what I'm saying which is fascinating because even if it's wrong I wouldn't take the chance. It's a studied level of disinterest that doesn't really add up. Like I can tell you lots of people whose theories are almost certainly wrong. If I were the government, I would want to keep tabs on

just to indicate how crazy the level of string theorist madness is because it's you know this phrase in Latin race or the thing speaks for itself. I don't have to throw pot shots at it. The claim that, you know, string theory is about to figure it all out is a joke in and of itself. So imagine that that was the blocking mechanism to keep people from doing, you

know, dangerous physics work. As per Andre and Horovitz, it's expiring. I think that a lot of things are happening right now because the old order that was set up to manage all this is two generations, three generations out from the architects. We had these genius administrators like Vanavar Bush and they set up these structures and the structures worked pretty well but then

they didn't pass the knowledge of what the structures were and how all these tacid understandings and cryptic arrangements worked. So that the modern people who've inherited the structures basically don't even understand what they're for. You know I talked to the provost of a UC university major research university. He had no idea how the laws had been changed to secretly benefit universities for doing particular kinds of work. So very often what happens is is that the architects die and they they leave a

zombie. We seem to be in a zombie era. It's a little cargo cult and then you probably have people at the top freaking out saying we need to get in front of this and actually reorganize as uh our multi-polar nuclear world gets more and more hot. >> But how how strange that you can't talk to your own top people. >> Yeah, it's weird. And as it pertains to legacy program, the people at the top panicking might also be disappearing

such that awareness of the problem could be dying. Well, I'm explaining modern UFO disclosure through this idea of, you know, national security that we would we would actually try to get this stuff out. But yeah, it is this weird cloak and dagger tongue-in-cheek sort of like it's not uh overt at all. It's still like like even you know you you mentioned this sort of you know theoretical directed energy weapon where you could take anybody out remotely in this perfectly precise way across the

world. I don't know if you caught this part of the age of disclosure. Eric Davis says in 1989 we should have brought this up with him. 1989 uh the Soviets uh engaged in a UFO crash retrieval where they were able to derive a directed energy weapon from this particular craft. And that's a fascinating claim, right? Like I I don't know what to make of that, you know, how do you how do you know that? A So you are saying some of this stuff is functional and it works its way into

weapons that we now know, you know, the Department of War are scaling up publicly. Uh and so like this whole idea that we haven't made any progress is actually kind of bogus, but it's being used in these extremely dystopian ways. Okay, but let me just ask, how do we reconcile the fact that all three of us have talked to so many which can't all be lying about what they're saying? It's just I see no world

in which that's possible. this a done deal. It it does weirdly feel like the Epstein thing, you know, how is it that there is either a lot of people are implicated that are publicly appearing around this topic who are talking about it and they're implicated but they don't want to say they're implicated or the tip of the iceberg doesn't look like the rest of the iceberg and uh intentional vagueness

is being used with words like crash retrieval and biologics and I don't heir on that side of things given how just how high up the people are saying this stuff how overwhelming uh the circumstantial evidence seems to be overwhelming. It's overwhelming, but you have to think probabilistically. And I, you know, I always try to, you know, put a healthy check on people who are hardcore in UFO world who are sure about discrete, you know, org charts in the reverse engineering problem. Like, how

can you be sure of anything? You know, I think you have to think probabilistically about all this stuff. >> This is not the most imaginative solution. But another alternative to reconcile that fact is that some of them are lying and they are firsthand. >> Well, that's what I was just saying. because that's the red line. Maybe >> I think you're telling stories that are like more than one >> about what could be going on so that we >> Yeah, let's do it. >> So that we don't get committed to one. >> excellent idea. >> So I think the taking everything at face value story is that there is this

decadesl long UFO crash retrieval and reverse engineering program. It probably existed prior to 1933, but it became formally instantiated in the 33 Magenta crash in Italy. This is all hypothetical in the magenta crash in Italy and then that was transferred to the US under FDR. You had Roswell in 47. You had Trinity in 48. You have these sort of sequential uh uh nuclear related UFO crashes. you have the office of global access under the CIA in the early 2000s

under Doug Wolf doing rapid response you know retrievalss all over the world. Um and this kind of convoluted org chart structure where uh the locked and northrups are the tip of the you kind of the fingertips and uh you know uh CIA uh you know um um science and technology and and DOE and uh uh um you know DoD are kind of at the top and so you you could you could have that entire narrative and just take that at face

value. I think another possibility would be something like uh aerial phenomena show up around nuclear weapons and energy grids and that is this clear pattern. It's global. It's ubiquitous. It's exists in the US but it also exists totally outside the US. Um those aerial phenomena also seem to be provoked by weird high energy physics experiments. So, uh, lasers, high energy lasers, um,

you know, high voltage experimentation, uh, particle accelerators, things of that nature seem to attract this weird aerial phenomena. We don't really know what the aerial phenomena is. We actually have uh some prosaic, you know, human terrestrial physics breakthroughs that have led to novel propulsion from some of these kind of, you know, topological physics anomalies that we figured out midcentury. And we actually do have propulsion based on them. So we have, you know, real craft that seem

like they they fly like UFOs, but we're running this tech protection thing by intentionally conflating this aerial phenomena that is very, you know, bizarre and worthy of scientific inquiry, but we just don't understand. we were conflating that with just this you know kind of more exotic black um you know uh uh not reverse engineering program but uh uh craft program that is that is human craft. So that would be number two. And then number three is like MC West territory or something

where it's like you know there is no aerial phenomena around nuclear sites. You know there are no anomalies there. All the topological physics you know Biffield Brown Ning Lee stuff is all BS. Uh you know all you know conventional physics models you know are going to run the world for forever. And um you know this is all a scop like it's literally all like you know this crazy sort of you know government lunacy thing. I don't know would you guys say there's an option four or five that you'd like to

>> Hard to say. So one possibility is let's let's imagine that the atomic weapons were not developed during war but during peace time inside of a national lab. It'd be a question about should we reveal that this is possible, to how to how to do work on this thing

and whether we should reveal it to the world or should reserve it as a zeroday your taxonomy >> is that option agnostic of where the technology came from? >> Well, so imagine for example that the government figured out something in physics that isn't the whole thing, but it's powerful enough to do one or two things that haven't been done before and we're we wanted that in reserve. You can

imagine that the entire system would say, would you please stop digging? We want to keep the zero day exploit. It's a matter of national security. Don't make us reveal this. >> That thing though would need to be neatly adjacent to UFO crash retrievalss. They would need to >> I don't want to talk about crash retrievalss until I've been to one. >> But you know what I'm saying. >> No, I don't know what a crashed retrieval is. What I'm saying is if that's being used as passage material for some other secret weapons program,

the two probably need to surface level look alike somewhat for that to be an effective cover. So that's that's the thing, right? Like so you remember when we attacked Iran, we sent one squadron of B2 bombers in one direction, one another. That was my principle, an example of whenever we do something cool, we do something fake. So invasion of the operation overlord D-Day and the beaches of Normandy was

cool and operation bodyguard and fortitude were fake because we never actually invaded Norway as we said we were going to do. Um this could be the fake program to something super cool. another aspect of this, if we're going to just talk about crazy stupid theories, is there's a strategy with I think like malarial mosquitoes or where you release a bunch of sterilized

into the world and sterilized males effectively mate with the females but leave no offspring. And it's a way of controlling mosquitoes. One possibility is that one of the reasons we kicked all of the Americans out of our physics programs and science programs is that we wanted to sterilize the world so that it didn't catch up to us what we'd already done. It's crazy idea, but why else should you be, you know, having 27% of your PhDs

granted to Chinese nationals in sensitive areas? Just doesn't make any sense. So one possibility is that we use string theory to sterilize India. Let's say there are lots of Indian string theorists and they're not making any progress and they're extremely arrogant about string theory. You know these are crazy ideas. Uh another possibility as somebody once said to me or somebody said to me relatively recently, you know, Eric, you don't need to rely on the government. You can just go up

and look for yourself. The keep idea being that you just need to get adjacent to sensitive places and you'll see these things everywhere. >> Like this isn't that big of a deal. They're always there. >> Well, that's what I always find so frustrating is for the, you know, the MC West option, the MC West scenario, the super skeptic thing. it. You spend like a few days on this or literally like you probably walk around one of these sites or something. You go to the bar near one of them. Something's going on. The

amount of smoke without fire is insane. >> No, no, no. The the question is when you see smoke at this level, the question is what is the nature of the fire? There are different fires. >> Or there's a smoke machine. >> Or there's a smoke machine. >> Right. Right. Like in other words, >> or there's a really good spoofing technology that we're all not aware of or something. Exactly. And and so, you know, my feeling unfortunately is that the UFO world is so polluted that I just don't want to deal with it at all.

And if you believe you can leave, you have to imagine that you're being I can't understand why they keep interacting with governments and nobody can get good footage and we don't have But on the other hand, I would have to say that the Epstein story was pretty contained

and you were seen as a little kind of crazy if you created a world view out of the EPC like the the the the Pizzagate people seemed ridiculous four or five years ago. >> No, no, no, they didn't. looked to me like an amalgam, something real, something fake. Like for example, the particular pizza parlor and the guy who shot up the roof and all

that, you know, it was perfect. Don't be like the guy who brings a gun into a pizza parlor and shoots the roof thinking that he's tracking pedophiles. Also, what does it really mean pedophile? Like, do do we even think about this? Is there such a clamoring to do horrible things to children and that these people are natural leaders of the world? Well, now we're getting into weird territory because not only was pedophilia, which alone is just disgusting discuss in the context

of Epstein, but like weird like rituals and things to like dissociate weird at all. This is normal. You see, that uh homosexuality could play the of pedophilia. That two gay guys would be so terrified of they're having

their secret revealed that they'd be willing to do almost anything to avoid that revelation. It's a stain that can be used, >> Well, but I would say utilized. Yeah. Like hazing rituals, >> it's easy to see them as brutal, but that's not the function they serve. It's like people don't understand what the mob is. The mob is a contract enforcement service for enterprises that cannot use the courts. It's not violent because it's recreationally violent, and

it's not violent because these people love violence. The idea is you have to enforce a drug contract or a lone sharking contract, you know, or or a gambling some somebody has to pay up. >> So the notion would be pedophilia was used as an enforcement system. >> Pedophilia is trust, >> And that nobody wants to say that, but that's what I think it is. >> You force people in that circle to commit these crimes and then >> how do I know how do I know I can trust person A? It's always a question. Do we

come from the same ethnic group? That's not trust. That's black. That's low trust. No, >> it's blackmail. it's consequence. It's shared consequence. >> And the key point is shared consequence is a resource and ritual and all of these things are used to direct that What you're seeing in the Epstein world is a high trust network. enforcement network. It's like a, you know, made man mafia system sort of

>> There's an email from the girlfriend that alleges that he got in deeper than he meant to. He was told to do this. He didn't really mean any of it. It it just came out in the latest trench. And it speaks to this notion of an enforcement campaign, an enforcement infrastructure. >> But my my claim is is that in general, most of us are unfamiliar with how effective silent systems work. If you think about the Velace papers and you know how the the mob lost Omera and

the innovation of the Rico X and all that kind of stuff that was about I think that the rule was is that you killed every informant up to second cousins. >> Jesus Christ. Yeah. Like completely over the top and insane. But that's how it worked. And what was the what was the way that these people referred to each other as men of honor? Honor is the proxy system. Of course, I'm going to honor you and you're going to honor me because it's

too dangerous. It's too dangerous to contemplate anything else. My guess is is that right now there's no one that can be hung out to dry because the first person who gets hung out to dry, you saw Bill Clinton saying, "Of course I'd love to talk to Congress. Bring them on." It's crazy. >> Well, why is that? I don't think he wants to talk to Congress. What I think he wants to do is to say if you make me the fall guy, think about think about what you're saying. >> It's a little shot across the bow. >> I think it say Trump's Trump's dump of

these documents was 3 million shots across the bow. >> Yeah, I think so, too. Also, we should this was probably the sanitized version of these documents. >> No, no, no. This isn't even the sanitized version of these documents. They've also set up the idea of okay well these three million of the last year are going to ever go but the other three million. So then what what is everybody going to do? They're going to chant we want the other three million. Okay. Okay fine fine we'll give you the last of them and you just fell into the

>> Who said there were six million >> Right. Tell me something. If this guy ran a hedge fund that was a multi-billion dollar currency trading hedge fund. How many documents does a hedge fund throw off just due to Right? Nobody's making any sense at all. What you're seeing is a bunch of deeply grooved people not thinking for And they're they're happy to repeat the

heterodox version of the script that they're handed, but it's not the heterodox who are writing that. >> It's really crazy. Well, I'm officially demoralized and >> Don't do that, Jesse. >> No. Well, I I appreciate I mean, sometimes, you know, the the truth sucks and uh you're a very incisive thinker and you have a way of elucidating uh things. Sometimes they're dark truths and realities uh that others don't. So, I I I really appreciate your brain and

>> but can we just finish it positively? >> Yeah, let's do it. Yeah. How do we do that? Well, if you don't mind, imagine >> that we threw off this UFO yoke >> and imagine that we just pushed on one one particular place, which is Eric Davis saying we have things that defy the laws of physics and no physicists. Imagine that the UFO community got really smart instead of doing what it always does and said, "We're going to push on this one thing. How can you be

by craft that do not obey the laws of and make sure that the one type of person who could possibly help with this is to be found nowhere on the scene. Right? So the opportunity is is that if Tulsi Gabbard or JD Vance or any one of these people sees this and says I could change that tomorrow. I could snap my fingers and get an allocation of several million dollars

and I could get a few theoretical would change absolutely everything because one of the top theories has to be that the reason you can't have a theoretical physicist on this is that there are no graph that defy the laws of I hope they put that to the test because Eric Davis is actually on record as part of James Fox's last movie saying if you give me blanket immunity, I will say everything I know. And so I I I hope that they are able to just, you know,

dress these people down. we could in a in a in a better world that we're not that far from push to have the one group of people who could crack this case for us, the detectives of our choice inserted. They were trained on our dollars. They're supported on our dollars. We have an arrangement with them. It's basically like not calling Delta Force when you've got a hostage rescue situation. >> Can I up the ante? >> Yeah. an interdisciplinary symposium where maybe the physicists are at the

top. They're hanging out, but you also might have some other people. Don't bring in the mushrooms and the consciousness. Let's just do theoretical physic physics and leave the rest for Burning Man. >> Fair enough. Well, to be continued. That's a whole other debate we can have or whatever, but I agree with the Burning Man issue. Okay. Well, thank you, Eric. This was awesome. Jack, appreciate you. It's a lot of fun. I think this is going to be a historic >> Thanks, Jets. >> All right, cool.