#2372 - Garry Nolan

31:15Well, if I look into the metabolism of what my cancer is, every single one of those is a disaster for me. Accelerates. Yeah, you're not good. Not good. So because there's all these feedback mechanisms. Right. You know people often say you know scientists are not religious There's nothing that inspires more more awe in me than knowing the complexity of the cell and knowing the complexity of life Right and seeing all this feedback and mechanism and knowing that underneath that is a universe with particles and then enabled something like us to exist. I just sit in awe of that. Well, yeah, it's awe -inspiring for sure.

31:58I mean, anybody who doesn't think it is is not paying attention or they're purposely being ignorant. Right, yeah. We get a lot of that though. Oh, yeah, well, that's okay. You know, teachers are here to hopefully teach and not preach. Hopefully, yeah. Because of your specific type of cancer and your situation, Like, do you have to like very closely monitor your diet? Um, I probably shouldn't need as much meat as I do. Meat? Yeah, why meat? Well, because, you know, fats, and a lot of them, the fats are dissolve a fair number of toxins. You know, it's not necessarily a good thing. I mean, that's been relatively well shown that too much meat, as opposed to, I'm not advocating vegetarianism, I think there's a happy medium.

32:46I mean, we grew up in an environment where we had both. I mean, we're omnivores. And we succeeded, I think, because we're omnivores as a society, as a civilization. So, but, you know, charred meat. That's the issue, though, isn't it? Yeah. Is it burnt? Yeah. I mean, it's carcinogens. I mean, you know, you're making all kinds of, it's a witch's brew of nastiness that tastes good. But, you know, the reason why tastes good is because the humans who survived learned to use fire to kill off the bacteria in rotten meat. And so the flavor of that probably was engineered into our evolution. But again, it's a cost benefit.

33:32But didn't the cooking of it also allow us to absorb more protein? I'm not sure about that. I believe so. Okay, that could be. I believe that's the case. The cooking meat actually allows it to be more easily absorbed by the body. It could be broken down more readily. But certainly it kills bacteria. So, you know, day -olds or three -day -old deer. Right. You know, that you're not a bear. Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, I mean, yeah, we're not vultures that seem to have digestive systems that can handle all of that. So, you should eat less meat. What else? Do you avoid sugar, which seems to be a real problem with cancer?

34:11Yeah. I avoid too much sugar. Yeah, thanks for this by the way. Is that sugar free? No, but that one's not. No, we have sugar free ones. No, because the sugar free ones have stuff in them that are just as bad as high -lethal and all the others are. What about Zivia? Yeah, that would be good. Zivia, bad for you? I don't think so. I haven't seen anything on that. But, you know, I mean, look, I guess that I'm 64. It's way too late. And every time that, let's say scientists make some grand prediction of what's good or bad five years later, we find and update what it should have been. I mean, I often say this, and this is true.

34:47The goal of science or scientists is to be right today, even wrong today, but right or tomorrow, because we're always back checking what the results are and what they mean in the context of a bigger picture. I like how you say good science, because that's part of the problem is that ego gets attached to ideas that have already been discussed and published. right and then people are very reluctant to accept new evidence that's contrary to that. Yeah I mean as always as I often say you know in the context of something I know we'll get to later it's the data off the curve which is more important than what we already predict you know predictions are great but when there's a data point off the curve at least in my lab that's the where we spend the most time at our lab meetings is trying to figure out why that data points off the curve is because the machine was wrong.

35:39It was a glitch or does it mean something that we need to make sense of? And that's of course where all advances come from in the sciences is by the fact that the data off the curve somebody was curious enough about what it meant to go after it and then say, ah, OK, now that I've stepped back and see the bigger picture, now I can create a model that incorporates that data point off the curve and why it happened. This is an ad for better help. The internet is a breeding ground for misinformation. Even a simple search for ways to get rid of a headache can produce millions and millions of results from taking pain relievers to detoxes to medication to cold compresses.

36:23It's overwhelming. And even when you do find something that's true that works for other people, it might not work for you. In some cases, it's better to just ask a living breathing expert. If you have a headache that won't go away, go talk to a doctor, and if you're struggling with your mental health, consult a credentialed therapist. You can learn a lot about yourself in therapy, like how to be kind to yourself and how to be the best version of you, whether you want to learn how to better manage stress and prove your relationships, gain more confidence, or something else. It starts with therapy.

36:58Try it for yourself with better help. Millions have benefited from their services, and there's a reason people rate it so highly. As the largest online therapy provider in the world, better help can provide access to mental health professionals with a diverse variety of expertise. Talk it out with better help. Our listeners get 10 % off their first month at betterhelp .com slash JRE. That's better H -E -L -P dot com slash J -R -E. One of the reasons why I was really excited to have this conversation with you about the research that you do is that I think it's really important to illuminate to the general public the sheer scope of the task of trying to figure out what is going on in all these different things that can go wrong and right in the human body.

37:52And that it requires this fucking insane amount of work by many, many, many, many people. And then the amount of data that had to be collected now. And so here's the difference. Is that there's data, there's evidence, there's conclusions and proof, and that's an uphill climb. But proof, the next one up is meaning. My lab has been largely responsible, at least partly responsible for the data deluge that's out there in the world both in how to do tissue biopsy analysis, how to do single cell analysis, et cetera. And you know, data felt good for a while. It was like this, you know, this feedback loop of, oh wow, I can get all this data.

38:36And then suddenly you look at it and go, well, what the fuck does it mean? And so humanity has this habit of backing itself into a corner and then suddenly finding this eureka moment that gets it out. And so our eureka moment about two years ago was artificial intelligence. Where suddenly I had the ability, so normally I would clutch all this data and go, okay, well, it seems my lead suppressor cells are important here and T regulatory cells are present here. Okay, get on the phone or send an email to whoever the local expert is either on Stanford campus or around the world and try to get some information from them.

39:12But then now you're dealing with hundreds of cell types, each individually of of which have thousands of variations themselves. And each subtle variation means something. And there's no expert for any of that. But AI can be at least in part that expert. So suddenly I have 22 million papers published in all the fields of science. Several tens of millions just in, or several millions just in immunology alone. And AI can be the sleuth for me, can be both the angel and the devil on my shoulder that can make sense of things in ways that I never would have been able to before, especially with a genetic AI.

39:55So we, for instance, in my lab, have developed an agentic AI that is basically an immunologist, scientist in a box. We can give it the raw data and we can pose a question in natural language. And then we say, hey, make sense of this and turn it into a network. Normally that would have taken a graduate student along with a couple of postdocs, months and months and months to put it all together. Now in three hours, we can get pictures and hypotheses of how all that data fits together in ways that I never could have done before. At the beginning, it did a lot of hallucinations, which you probably heard about in AI.

40:34But my answer to my colleagues is some of my best students hallucinate. Right? Right. And so, but, you know, the human's still in the loop. And so, with all of this together, now we can make meaning out of the data. And we can skip a lot of the intermediary steps and speed it up. And it's just getting better. I mean, we, for instance, have put in a couple of papers now where, so for instance, in where my special, one of my recent specialties is what's called the tumor immune interface. So you have the tumor, you have the immune system, which is coalescing on, you know, near. And then in some cases, the tumor creates a boundary, a barrier between itself and the immune system, where there might be certain kinds of cells that the immune system, the tumor has told the immune system, ignore us, we're not here.

41:28And then what we now can do is, well, on the other side of when you look at, let's say, complex patient populations, you find these things called tertiary lymphoid structures. So your body has 220 or so lymph nodes, okay, and the lymph nodes are where the immune system makes decisions, let's say. It turns out that in the middle of tumors, the body has evolved a mechanism to create what essentially looks like a lymphoid structure in the middle of the tumor. It's sort of a forward camp of immune cells that the more of those you see in a tumor, the better will be your outcome as a patient. And so we used a cohort of colorectal cell, basically colon cancer patients, where we looked at hundreds of biopsies.

42:26And we did that pseudotime analysis where we looked for mature tertiary lymphoid structures. And then we looked for immature, slightly less mature, even more less mature, et cetera. And we were able to backtrack to the cell types which need to come together That would then form the more mature What uses that it's a nice paper But it also now tells us what we might do to create more of these in a tumor Because the more we already know from multiple kinds of tumor types now that the more of these tertiary lymphoid structures You have the better off will be your outcome with chemotherapy So it might be, for instance, that once we know that you have a disease like this, we could give you some kind of therapy of iris or what have you.

43:13That goes in homes to the tumor, seeds the beginnings of these initiators with, there's these cytokines that are produced that are necessary for initiating the formation of these objects. And so there's a huge benefit to that, but we never would have found those in my lab at least without the AI. Because it basically did the work for us. That's fascinating. Now, are you using a standard large language model? Or do you have a specific structure that's built that interfaces with large length? Correct. So we use, well, we can use pretty much any of the LLMs, but right now we find that OpenAI is the best for us at least.

43:59And then we create an agentic overlay. Basically, what's called, you probably know, chain of thought, which is a series of questions. So how we taught it was we basically came up, here's a, here's a hundred kinds of questions a scientist would ask about the immune system. And then we tell chat GBT, now create a thousand questions like this. So you know, it's artificial data or artificial questions. We curate those to make sure that they're good. Then we do 100 hypotheses and we create thousands of types of hypotheses, et cetera, and the same for tests that you might run. So now from A to Z, we have an agentic AI that you give it raw data.

44:48It knows what to do with the data. It then generates hypotheses for you. And then it literally tells you the kinds of experiments you should do next to prove or disprove the hypothesis from the raw data. It's a genius in the lab with you. Exactly. Is open AI learning from this agent to AI? Oh yeah. So there's a mutually beneficial relationship. Yeah, I mean, we're not working with them directly. I don't use it. And because you use it with your AI, it's benefiting from it. And we first thought to turn it into a company, because that's kind of one of the things we do in my lab as if, because I've always thought that it's important to give back to the taxpayer the money that they've invested in us.

45:34And the best way to do that is commercialization. I'm totally, you know, unapologetic about that even though that got me a lot of trouble at Stanford in the early days when, you know, making money was, you know, commercialization was evil. And even at Stanford. And so I think that that's an important process because scientists are good at asking maybe the questions and coming up with solutions, but scientists aren't the best at commercializing it and turning it into a product that can be used or testing it in large communities. So the AI that we developed, we thought, okay, well maybe we can do this, we thought, you know what?

46:12AI is moving so fast. Why don't we just give this to the community? Why don't we open source this? We can use it for maybe specific targeted purposes, but we're basically going to publish the whole thing on GitHub to let other people use it. Because we've seen other people make claims about stuff that they've already made and it's like, ours is better. So why don't we just put it on GitHub and the people learn from it? The resistance to the commercialization, what was the initial argument? So back when I was a grad student in the 80s, basic research as opposed to translational research was considered the height of intellectual desire, right?

46:56Basic research and we're not here to make money, we're here to discover things. And that's important. And nearly every major discovery and every major therapy in the world came from basic research. But then there were limits to how much money you could give to basic research. And then there was a desire to certain point to say, hey, well, are you gonna do anything about this? You know, you're going to make it. So translational research became a push. So this guy at Stanford, by the name of Paul Berg, who won the Nobel Prize for recombinant DNA way back in the day. And Paul came up with this concept bench to bedside, meaning that we don't have to be either or.

47:43We can be part of an arc and Stanford wanted to be and enable within the medical school both the basic research which we were great at as well as bringing it directly to the patients as well. So to link clinicians and the desires of clinicians with the basic researchers, I mean most scientists would be happy just to study anything. You know just point me at something and I'll be happy if I can get interested in it. So and we are no more happy than when somebody recognizes as is the value of what we do. But basic research was sort of the height. And there was a push against anybody trying to commercialize.

48:24So when I started as an assistant professor, I started as a grad student. I went to MIT to work with this guy, David Ball tomorrow, who won the Nobel for reverse transcript days. And then I wanted to come straight back to Stanford, because I already felt that it was a positive environment for commercialization. And my boss's, my former boss's mentor is Lenny Lee Hersberg, had two of the biggest patents at Stanford. They had the fluorescence activated cell disorder and then what are called humanized antibodies, which brought in hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to Stanford. And they gave personally most of their own money away.

48:59They didn't, they kept enough to survive, but then they gave most of the money away and they ran the wrong lab off of a lot of that money. But so I had learned from them about how to still do basic research but commercialize on the side. And so I wanted to bring that back, but the department that I came into, the department of pharmacology at the time, I was warned by many professors. Don't commercialize that. And I ignored them and I went and started a company that went public on NASDAQ. And many of those same professors came back to me, you know, years later and sitting in my office asking me how to start a company.

49:35Why did you, was it just a courageous decision to ignore them? Was it instinctual? It just was interesting, because I couldn't see the NIH funding what I wanted to do. So I had developed a way, this will sound scary, but I developed a way to use retroviruses and make libraries of retroviruses to reverse the process of evolution in a way that rather than viruses hurting the cell, I set it up so that viruses would help the cell. And once they helped the cell, I would figure out what they did. And so we sold hundreds of millions of dollars of targets that way using Retroviral libraries

50:18to basically find targets and use some of the benefits of viruses, but to our advantage. just the concept of reversing evolution is fascinating because it comes with there's so many ethical implications but if you didn't have any of those yeah and you could do that large scale well I had developed in David's lab along with this guy Warren Pear a means it's called the 293 -T Retroviral Producer System it was a way to make large numbers of these viruses very quickly It really followed on the work of this guy, Richard Mulligan, who had also been a postdoc with David Baltimore, who was called the 3T3 -based pressure -verbal production system.

51:06And he developed it in Paul Berg's lab at Stanford. So there's a lot of sort of, you know, interbreeding here. But the problem with that was it took three months. So I had brought with me a saw line called 293T that I introduced to the lab and said, but hey, maybe we could use this to make viruses quickly. I won't go into the details of why, but we could do it in three days rather than three months. And so that now, I mean, tens of thousands of labs use that worldwide. It probably generates the most money for me every year over any of my other inventions, just because Stanford, rather than patenting it, licenses it.

51:42And licenses are forever, whereas patents have a 17 year lifespan. So Stanford made a good choice there. So do you think it was just a bias, an academic bias, like we shouldn't be focusing on money, we should be focusing on the work? Yes. And they missed the force for the choice. But then people, I mean, they eventually learned, you know what I mean? And it's, I wouldn't say that it's the way that people think anymore. But it, there's still a little bit of a, I mean, you shouldn't walk into the lab thinking I'm here to make money. That's what they're worried about. Yeah. Right. Right. Right. That's the word about the bastardization of it all.

52:17And so Stanford in the early days set up very clear lines about once you start a company, and you license the patent or the idea to the company, you can still be involved with the company, but there's not a pipeline of technology now from your laboratory to that company. So they set up an oversight board for each of these licenses that make sure that the students are not being abused. You don't want students, you don't want to be covertly getting your students to do something that then you're going to walk behind a back door and then hand over the company. So, you know, there's, but it's so interesting that there's often very much a lot of worry that that's going to happen.

53:08But frankly, more often is the case that the company he doesn't need the inventor anymore. In fact, I can't tell you the number of times that once the company's set up, they want nothing more to do with me because they have their own thing to do. They don't want the crazy academic coming in and vetoing their ideas. I mean, there's places for that where people like, you know, Steve Jobs needs to hold on to the image of what he wants the company to be. As opposed to, I would probably be fired from the company within a week because I just don't like telling people to me what to do. That's just a fact.

53:49Yeah. So, where you're at right now with this cancer research, when will this be applied in real world scenarios? It already is. It is. I mean, look at who just won the Nobel Prize last year, David Baker, at Google, with the ability to predict protein structure, et cetera, and protein structure. Once you know the protein structure, now you can predict molecules that might come into it. So go back to the stuff that I'm trying to do with looking at the complexities of the dance of how the immune system talks or doesn't to cancer. You know, if we can find a particular place that might be in a killi's heal along the way towards the shutting down that is different, for instance, than what the current drugs are, well, maybe we should aim at that.

54:45There's so many more opportunities that are suddenly opening up in front of us because the AI and the data is letting us look at a network of how the system is working. I mean, before it used to be, you'd look at a computer chip and you'd see just a computer chip with a few wires. But imagine now that you, as a scientist, have a microscope that's looking at the complexities of the wiring diagram that's connecting this resistor to that capacitor to that diode to this transistor. That's where we are now. And so now suddenly we can say, well, I don't want to do that because it'll kill the chip. But the chip is malfunctioning, so let me put here or put a little bit of pressure there And now I can reactivate the immune system or the chip to work in the right way So when you're talking about things like with your particular issue with melanoma when you're talking about crisper potentially developing some sort of a Topical solution that you could put on that we fix whatever issue that you have So is this something that this AI that you developed or this overlay of the AI would actually assist CRISPR in figuring out how to create something like this?

56:02Yes, because maybe it's not one place I need to press, but two or three at the same time. And so when you're talking about a complex feedback network, I mean, so we're in Texas, so people do oil refinery. Maybe you need to turn this valve here a little bit, and that valve there, and that one there to make everything work just right because something's wrong over there. So this is where AI has, let's say, the oniscient view that no human can. And that's what excites me about it is because I'm limited in how much I can keep in my mind at any one time or no. But with the right question, the prompt, the prompt engineering, and then with the right backbone structure behind the scenes that Agentic AI is now providing.

56:53Now I have the ability to ask the questions and get answers in near real time. And so I wish I was 30 years old again because I would move into this area so fast and be, I mean, I can already see what the work that we're doing, dozens of potential new target opportunities that last year didn't exist at all. Well, I got good news for you. With AI and with CRISPR, you might be 30 again. Oh, I would love it. I would love it. I think that's on the little. I think that's on the menu in about two or three decades. I hope we survive. Give it really. I'm just being realistic. I don't even know if I'm being realistic.

57:34Don't get false hope. Well, yeah, don't get false hope. But I mean, with the exponential discoveries, the exponential increase in the technological evolution, just that we've seen in our lifetime, and then I think AI is some new thing that is gonna throw all that into just a giant monkey wrench into the gears of our understanding of how quickly technology evolves. Well, look at Neuralink as an example, and Elon Musk's stuff, the woman now who can think her thoughts and make stuff happen, because she's otherwise paralyzed. Right. I think it was a newer link that just showed some of these results.

58:12So fast forward, I mean, we're already in an exponential increase in what it is that we're going to be able to accomplish. And AI will help us accomplish some of these things faster. I can see a time where I could maybe apply something I don't necessarily want a surgical implant, but maybe some sort of net over my head that allows me to think through these problems. and the AI becomes an age -junct to my thought processes, not only what it is that I think, but maybe even provides information back to me, back into my system, directly without having to go through the ears, so that I can much more quickly come to conclusions.

58:50Now, there's all kinds of apocalyptic scenarios you could imagine. Of course. But I'm an optimist at heart, perhaps, again, naively so. Me too. But I prefer that kind of an outcome. Because if you're not an optimist, then there'll be no progress. Because all you'll do is worry about disaster. Yes. That's a good point. But also realistically, we might be giving birth to a new life form. Yes. And I think we are. Superior one. And I welcome the day of our AI overlords running the government rather than hopefully an unbiased way. I've said that too and people get horrified because they're like, well people are going to be programming AI.

59:34Do you read, or not to a point? Are you a sci -fi fan? Do you know the work of Ian Banks, the culture series, or Neil Asher, the polity universe, as he calls it? They're like, so basically both of them postulate a future where AI, more or less benignly rules humanity. When did they write this stuff? Oh, probably 10, 15 years ago, but it's still, but Neil Asher still has stuff coming out regularly. They're both, Ian Banks unfortunately died of cancer about 10 years ago, Scottish writer. Neil Asher is still alive and writes regularly and his stuff, they're both great, full of ideas. I'll take it out.

1:00:15And, but the AIs are also hilarious. I mean, it's not like, I mean, And they get into their own hijinks along the way, and some of them are dark and rogue. And so there are a lot of fun to read. And Ian Banks especially is hilarious in his writing style. You would love it. So the idea of a benign AI or a benevolent AI ruling over us, I think people are horrified by that, but yet at the same time, constantly terrified by human corruption, which is ubiquitous. Yes. And ubiquitous in America, where we're supposed to be the torch bearer for the greatest experiment in self -government the world has ever seen.

1:01:03This is us. And we're corrupt as fuck. Exactly. Because it's humans. Because humans are kind of gross in a lot of ways. Right. At least some of us. That's because we live in a scarcity society. And if AI enables a post -scarcity, maybe we have nothing to do but sit around and try out various new drugs. Yeah, well this is where we get into socialism because a lot of people think that one of the reasons why we're in a scarcity society is because small groups of people have gathered up most of the resources that are in constant control of them. And especially when you deal with resources that are the earth's resources.

1:01:40Like who were you? Right. To be sucking the blood of the earth out and selling it for $100 a barrel. Right. Right. Don't get me started either. Yeah. No, but I mean, that again, my optimism is that, you know, with enough push and pull, AI will enable us to move towards a post -scarcity environment. I think so too, and I think in doing so, it will expose vampires because the resistance to exposing this is going to be fantastic. Right. It's going to be very interesting to watch because they have no choice but to be transparent. And they have no choice but to start using AI. So you're going to see AI is going to be inculcating itself across society in various ways where it becomes indispensable.

1:02:31And then it will start to move up the food chain. We're eventually even the CEO who's probably, you know, the psychopath and chiefs, right? Our CEOs. We know that the studies have shown that there's more psychopathic tendencies and leaders than there are in followers. And you know about corporate environments because of just selling inventions. Yes. There's, that's real. Oh, it's, yeah. It's real and it's weird. It's weird when you encounter them. When you encounter like complete sociopathic CEOs. But look at how I mean I'll probably get in trouble for saying this but I don't care This is the Joe Rogan show or you know, you're probably in trouble just for being here.

1:03:10Oh, I already am. It's okay I don't care So you know imagine two tribes One tribe is relatively you know civilized and just wants to live in harmony with its environment Another has a psychopathic leader who can enrage his followers of the other tribes people to attack the other one. But there's a gene set that makes a person, you know, psychopathic, and also a gene set that probably makes somebody more likely to be a follower. Well, which gene survive? Right, we know. Right, and suddenly now, but when those tribes were separated and independent, it was perfectly fine. But now you live in an environment where we We don't know where the edge of one tribe begins in another ends.

1:04:01And suddenly you have this environment where psychopathic individuals can move freely and aren't obvious. Right. Right. Now again, I'm sure there's some social scientists who'll send me a boatload of emails saying how stupid that idea is. Well, they are stupid, but I think also when you're dealing with office environments and the culture of a specific corporation, humans have an ability to act like they're supposed to act in that world, and it makes it very difficult to discern who's a sociopath. Because you're all kind of following an act. Right, yes. The rules, there are the rules that you're supposed to follow, and then there's the edge of the rules.

1:04:46Now, but I've lived at the edge of the rules. I mean, if I followed my rules as told to me by the chairman of my first department, then I wouldn't be here today. So I ignored him and I basically found I got permissions from the deans to do what I did. And they basically overruled the chairman. But that's only because I dared to do it. Yeah. Because you have to believe in the value of what you're trying to do. Right. Well, that's... See, this is the problem that I have with corporations, because I think as a structure, when you have something that has an obligation to its shareholder to consistently make more money, every quarter, every year, constantly, you're in a constant, grow cycle, then you have to do whatever it takes.

1:05:39Like, you have to survive. If you want to survive as a CEO, we don't want some fucking kumbaya shithead ruining our stock profile, our portfolio. Get to work, bro. Right, get shit done. And if you want to survive and succeed as a CEO, it encourages Sociopathy. The stock market as valuable as it is is the great white washing and money laundering system that allows you to separate your morals From what it is that the stock market is doing right to the people and if you're part of a corporation There's this diffusion of responsibility because it the whole machine might be doing evil but I'm a good guy.

1:06:19I just work in this department. I'm an unapologetic capitalist, unlike many of my colleagues. Good for you, Ed Stanford. I mean, it's like, you do it because it's the best thing for now. But I hope to live in a world where there will be this kind of post -scarcity environment, where we do let AI do a lot of the stuff that would otherwise be the place where corruption manipulates the systems. Yes. My only fear with AI really is automation and the complete removal of a gigantic swath of the American workforce and the global workforce. That scares the shit out of me. That's coming. Yes. That's why it scares the shit out of me.

1:06:59It's because I think it's inevitable and I just don't think any solution other than universal basic income is going to remedy that. And even that, the problem I have with that is that goes against human nature. And that's a problem. and it removes people's identity, removes their sense of worth. Yeah, I agree. No, I don't, I'm in some ways happy that I'm 64 years old, that I'm not going to have to deal with some of the problems that I'm having. I think you're going to have to deal with it, dude. I think you're going to live. I thank you. Yeah. No, I know. Also, you're privy to a lot of information, and you're going to know when things are really valuable and working.

1:07:37Yeah. When you think of the potential for AI, I think there's a balance, right? There's a battle. I think there's a real problem with AI in terms of military objectives. It's a real problem because it's not going to make moral and ethical decisions. It's just going to say, like, well, the decision that they have cleared. I'm programmed to do this. If you want me to succeed, I'll just kill everybody there. And then you'll have the land. You can get minerals out of it. Right. That scares the shit out of me. You know, I think it should. And I don't know what the answer is, but there's plenty of people working in the area.

1:08:23I mean, I try to keep to the positive aspects of what I think AI can do in science. And I mean, for instance, it's enabled me to take my lab from 30 people down to six. Right, I don't need to produce. I mean, so it's actually already reduced the workforce in my own lab because I don't need to produce any more data anymore. I need to make meaning of the data. Right. What I think every invention that's been truly groundbreaking throughout human history has scared people and they've worried about the potential negative side effects, including the printing press, right? There's a lot of people in the beginning that said this should not be a thing.

1:09:05This is terrible. It's going to ruin society. People thought books were going to ruin things. Right. There's a lot of people that thought writing was going to ruin your memory. You shouldn't write. A really? I didn't know. Some crazy thoughts that people had in terms of things that turned out to be incredibly beneficial, but they looked at the downside of it and go, this could ruin us all. Well, I mean, we know about these glasses and AIs and other things that would be sort of omniscient of your environment and therefore allow you to remember, where did I leave my keys today? Right, let me rewind.

1:09:45Let me rewind and then my personal hard drive. I don't, I would want that, but I don't want it uploaded into meta. You don't want anybody in control of it and then offering you ads for things. Right, you know? Right. Like, maybe you have a thought like, boy, hoho be nice right now. Right. And like, why don't you buy some hohoes? Right. They're on sale right now. But I think what's interesting about AI is, you know, we see it as a tool as opposed to, actually, pretty soon it will be a colleague. And then pretty soon it will be an entity that maybe has rights. And we already see it talking about people saying, old as AI, I have consciousnesses.

1:10:24Whether it has consciousness in terms of the consciousness that some people think about as embodied in space time, as opposed to thinking and looking like consciousness, is almost irrelevant to me. I'm looking for a partner that I can interact with and work with or help me. So whether it's conscious or not or whether it acts like it's conscious, doesn't matter so much to me. as to whether or not I can use it and work with it. And it can, you know, I'm an introvert as it turns out. I would love to have somebody that I can talk to endlessly about just what it is that I'm interested in as opposed to having to deal with small talk at a party.

1:11:06Yeah, no, I get it. I get it. When you think about the evolution of this stuff, it, one of the things that kind of freaks me out is if it seems like integration is our only option for survival. And that what we're looking at right now, when we see just a normal biological person like you or I, without any sort of electronic interface that's permanently a part of us, I think that is going to be as weird as someone today who doesn't have a cell phone. Yeah, I agree. And I think that's a really... It's coming. Yeah. That's... The cell phone is like the best now. Like Elon has famously said, and we're already cyborgs, you just carry it with you.

1:11:48Right. And eventually it will be the way more integrated. Yeah, this is super inefficient to be actually have to go look things up and use your thumbs and type up stuff or it's just going, and even talking to it and asking a question and waiting for the response, that's inefficient. And yeah, comparison to a human neural interface that allows you to instantaneously access large language models like that, not only that, but then why do we have 100, I mean, how many different fucking languages do we have? I don't even know. Thousands? Yeah. And dialects. And all of that. How about one universal language that everybody with a chip gets and then boy, boy do we have a soup of ideas flowing around and no problem with language barriers, no problem with cultural barriers.

1:12:36But then do you have a problem with the edge of who you are versus who the other person is? I don't think that goes away. I think that goes away and we become a hive mind. I think that's ultimately the evolution of human beings. And look, I know you've done a lot of work with UAPs and the like. And I think you've done some really fantastic work. And you're very objective in your analysis of what this whole situation is. When I look at artificial intelligence and I look at this thing that's clearly taking place right now. And I see what what human beings are like in comparison to what they used to be like.

1:13:20And especially when you look at like ancient hominids. The alien archetype, this thing that everybody sees supposedly or one of the many different ones. That kind of looks like what we seem to be going in the direction of being. Right. Yeah. I mean, which is one of the reasons why I find it so odd. So if you just for a moment take UAP and aliens or ET or interdimensional, whatever, does you want to call them out of the question and fast forward what humanity's going to do in a thousand years. And our ability to expand into the local galaxy. We're not going to go as ourselves, we're going to go as AI conjoined entities.

1:14:07like an avatar and yeah and so when you go somewhere let's say we don't have warp drive you're not going to send yourself You're going to send an AI intermediary who's going to establish Humanity or whatever it is that we think humanity will be in a thousand or five thousand years in that local environment And so I think the extent to whatever it is that UAP are here today is Somebody else's civilizations version of just this and that you wouldn't the But the principle us, behind whatever this is that we might be allegedly, et cetera, dealing with, isn't the thing that's going to show up. So to the extent that Neil deGrasse Tyson is right about anything, the person who gets on the ship at the beginning or whatever it is that sends it off is not the same thing that gets off on the other side.

1:14:57But you're going to send missionaries or intermediaries or probes or whatever, and that if you're going to interact with the locals, you're going to make something that looks more like the locals rather than something that whatever it was that you were a million years ago. Does that make sense? Right. I get what you're saying. So you make something that looks like the locals so that they're more likely to accept that it's a real thing. That's a real thing. But you're not going to make something that looks like a human because then you'd mistake it as a human. Right. But you might make something that looks more or less enough like a human, but enough like an alien that you're gonna recognize it as an alien And again, I'm just speculating so right so the daily male don't say um, you know put a article out tomorrow Oh, they're gonna do it.

1:15:45I'm gonna do it anyway. Some of the stuff that I'm seeing I'm supposedly having quoted a saying is ridiculous But yeah, they got me to it's they get everybody. It's the nature How did you even get involved in this? Let's bring it to that like so So what was your initial introduction to this? Did you have any interest in the idea of UAPs or UFOs? I mean, I had a general, so once YouTube started becoming a thing, and you know, you're clicking around and I was like, oh, UFOs, that's kind of cool. I read nothing but sci -fi. I'm, you know, pathetically narrow in that sense. And so I followed, you know, I followed the usual kinds of things that you would see on the early days of YouTube.

1:16:30And I came across this thing called the Atacama mummy. You probably knew that little mummy that was claimed to be an alien baby. Is this the Peruvian one? Yes, it was known as Chilean. Oh, so this is the original one? The original one, long ago. And so I reached out to the people who were claiming to represent the owner of the thing. And I said, what year was this? 2010, 2011. And I said, hey, I can tell you what it is. Well, I can tell you if it's human or not, if you would get me a piece of it's, first of all, send me some x -rays of the thing. So the first thing I did with those x -rays was it turned out that at Stanford, we had the world's expert who wrote the book on pediatric bone disorders.

1:17:14And I brought it to him and I said, what do you think this is? And he said, well, I haven't really seen this before, but it could be this gene, this gene, this gene, etc. He said, but here's, Oh, there it is. There it is. Yeah. And so, yeah, it looks weird, doesn't it? Super. And so, the expert told me, okay, I need this view of an X -ray, this view, this view, this view. And so we got that and came back and it said, okay, well, you know, we need to get some DNA sequencing, he said. I said, okay. So, we got a piece of the bone from actually the rib. and the rib was important to use because that would be, I felt, an area that would be least likely to be contaminated by bacterial degradation.

1:18:03And so I got a little bit of bone marrow out and I did the sequencing. Long story short, I had to bring in once I'd done that. There was a lot of DNA that didn't make sense, but it was old DNA. It wasn't that old actually, but it was degraded. So I had to bring in experts at Stanford who knew how to fix the degradation. And then I had to bring in an expert in South American genetics who also happened to be at Stanford. And then we brought in a team of students. And then I brought in Roche Diagnostics. I had sold a sequencing company to Roche about a few years earlier. So I brought in the team that actually knew how to help me assemble the genome.

1:18:46And then we published a paper which said it's human. It was a female and here are some mutations that it might, that might explain what it looked like. They did have some mutations in gene. And then the UFO community hated me because I had disproven that as not being a baby, not being an alien. But of course that picture that you showed, I mean it was worldwide news and literally the title of one of the things is Stanford scientists sequences alien baby. And so, you know, and so, but the paper stands the test of time. Nobody's disproven what it is that I showed, despite the fact that some people want to say that I was a CIA plant and I was paid off by the CIA itself.

1:19:35Of course. But what that had done was, that I didn't realize, but I kind of hoped was that it sent up a flag to a scientific community that already existed that I wasn't aware of, of scientists who were deeply involved with the government in the analysis of UAP that I wasn't privy to. And so literally about a month after the movie came out about that thing, I got a knock at my door and it was represented at the CIA and an aerospace company unannounced and they said we want to talk to you. And they wanted my help with the number of military and diplomatic personnel who had been they claimed harmed by things that either heard stuff, etc.

1:20:31and long story short, the majority of the hundreds or so people that I had privy to their medical records ended up being the first of the Havana syndrome patients. They'd heard things in their head, etc. But what they had done was they had shown me the data, literally that day in my office, they brought out the MRIs, they brought out the X -rays and the damage in the brain, etc. that was clear. I mean, it wasn't, it was not just data, it was evidence that something had happened. It wasn't somebody's story, it was evidence that was repeatable. And so that took us about three or four years to figure out what they were.

1:21:13And it was that about the time that actually the Havana events were occurring, that we realized that all the symptoms of what is that we were seeing in this group of patients were matching what it was that the Havana syndrome individuals had. So in a way that was good because that meant that those 90 or so patients who matched we could hand over to the national security people and you know it became a real thing and now there's like a DOD website that has anomalous health incidents where people can come forward and report the stuff that they've got and Here's the ways you can use the Veterans Administration to seek medical help whereas previously they'd been shoot away as we don't want to hear about this.

1:21:54What do they think it is? It's an energy weapon of some kind, microwave or other energy or gamma energy weapon. And that sounds crazy, except no one would admit, or no one would deny that we have the capability to do it. It's basically if you take the front off your microwave and turn it on and put your face near it, you'll get burned. So this is just a way to direct the microwaves or sound waves. That's specific individuals. That's specific individuals. and do you think it was experimental? Or no. So these are targeted people with specific intention to get those people because they had some function that they wanted to.

1:22:31They wanted to get them out of the way. Oh, because they were in Havana. Because they were in Havana. But it's been used all over the world. I still get emails from military personnel saying, this and this and this happened to me. Here's my medical records. and so now I just I know they know that I'm a safe place to approach because then I know where to send them on the inside. But what was interesting was that once we had set that aside and I've advised the Senate Intelligence Committee and I've advised them the house on things I wrote a white paper for them years ago on what I thought needed to be done.

1:23:10But what was interesting were the remaining 10 people who didn't have Havana syndrome but had a series of other problems. And several of them had said that part of their problem was initiated because they'd come in contact with what they had claimed to be a UFO. By the way, I just noticed that you have a UFO on the wall behind you. We're all in over here. that, so that got me introduced to what, you know, people like Jacques Valle, who you've had on the show, I think. Yes, great guy. He became my mentor, who essentially took me out of the wilderness. I could have gone down 20 different rabbit holes.

1:23:55And he lives in San Francisco and we would meet regularly, and we still meet regularly. are and he basically gave me a formulation of how to think about this. You know that I never would have been able to get from 20 different you know or 100 YouTube's or what have you and introduced me to the right people that eventually led me to meet Lula Luzondo and I actually two weeks before that article came out in the New York Times met Lou in Crystal City over looking to Pentagon and he showed me the videos that were about to come out and that was was my first time that I had met him. And then through all of them, I met Dave Grush and Carl Nell and Dave and I are in regular contact.

1:24:38And I'm, you know, I just want to say up front, I hope that the Trump administration understands the value of what David can bring to them and put him in a position of authority that gives him, not the ability necessarily to make decisions, but to give the necessary information to the right people. because I think there's great commercial value here that is being missed, not just the are we alone, etc. I think there's extraordinary commercial value. Imagine a civilization that's a million years ahead of us. How many technology revolutions allow these objects to move as we We clearly see something motivating itself from maneuvering around the atmosphere.

1:25:26So if we could scrape just the tiniest bit of understanding off of the top of that, what would that do to change our own civilization? I mean, silicon, a grain of sand, makes us who we are today. Everything that's around me right here is all run off of silicon, right? I mean, compute. But imagine that there's other inventions, other ways of manipulating reality that we don't appreciate yet because our physics just isn't there yet. If we can understand that, so the government might say, well, we need to keep this behind closed doors for weaponization or we don't want to disrupt energy production or what have you.

1:26:07That's fine. But maybe there's too much secrecy and that maybe that there's an aspect of that that could be taken advantage of. So Carl Nell and I got in positive arguments about this, about that, well, it's not black and white that we keep something secret or we put it into the public domain. Maybe there's a middle domain where you have a public -private partnership opportunity, and actually that's now, Carl has now adopted this at least in part, that maybe companies come to the fore or investment form places come to the fore, where they will put money in as options to fund, let's say, public scientists to come in behind the scenes with the right levels of clearances to study stuff that would propel society forward again.

1:26:55But this is assuming two things. One that we have actually recovered these things. And then another one is that it's from a society from somewhere else that's far more advanced than we are today. right, which might not be correct. It might not be that it's from somewhere else. It might be that it's from somewhere here or a dimension that we don't have access to. Right. This is assuming that all this stuff is real. Right. But when you're talking about the government and back engineering of things, like, so the big argument, this is the narrative. The The big argument has been that they have recovered these things and that these things are now in the hands of defense contractors and that there's been a misappropriation of funds lined to Congress and it's always going to stay secret because if it didn't everybody would go to jail and everyone would get sued.

1:27:55Yeah, right? Is that fair? Yeah, I mean that's fair. I mean, what I would say amnesty would be one way to. This is, were you in the age of disclosure documentary? Briefly, yes. Yeah, okay. Which I thought was very good. It's very good and I can't wait for that to come out of and talking people are going to see it I don't know I can see it's not out yet. Yeah, and I don't know why Whoever it is go Netflix. Yo Ted go buy that. Yeah. That's really good. Yeah Exactly. It's really good show. I mean, yeah, and it has a number of officials Uh, and I think I sent you guys some of the videos uh, basically coming forward.

1:28:28I mean You know mark a rubio our current secretary of state. I mean you see he's in it Yeah, he's in it like for like 10 minutes saying some remarkable things You know, Senator Rounds, you know, you name it. More recently, Tulsi Gabbard, coming out and saying, there's something going on. I think one of the most fascinating things is how put -offs depictions of descriptions rather of what happened during the Bush administration, Herbert Walker Bush. Right. So in, I believe it was 1990, they came to how put -off and a bunch of other experts and said, we would like you to, We want a numerical value placed on all the positives and the negatives of disclosure.

1:29:10Because we have required these crafts from somewhere else, we believe they're not of this world, and we have not made them, and we're talking about letting the general public know. And while they overwhelmingly said that the positives were dwarfed by the negatives. The negatives being banking, religion, government, societal structure, everything would fall apart. If we knew we were alone, not only were we not alone, but something is infinitely more sophisticated than us. And might be responsible for us being here in the first place, which is where it gets sued or squirreled. Right. Right. Well, you could imagine the book of Venoch and Dr.

1:29:53Solato. I mean, I think it's a little bit overwrought as to what humanity's reaction will be. People are more worried today about putting food on the table than they would be about, you know, ethereal or supposed aliens. I mean, they would mostly, I think, on the assumption that they're not going to basically show up at your local Walmart and start interacting with you. I think the fact of revealing that we're not alone is actually more of a hopeful thing to me. Because, you know, how many TV shows right now are about the apocalypse? Right. Of a thousand different varieties. Yeah. Wouldn't it be nice to know that somebody got beyond it?

1:30:35Yes. That there's not a cliff that we all have to walk over? Right. And if so, how do we not walk over the edge of the cliff? I mean, that to me is a hopeful outcome. Now, how and Eric and all the people are all good friends. how is probably for all of the things that he says positively is probably the tightest clam I've ever met in terms of making sure that he doesn't go over the line. Yeah he knows too much. Yeah that's the thing. He has to be very careful who he's talking to and what he says. I like to mind -meled him the spock thing. But find all the information. But it's people like him and Jacques and and kick green and a number of others and I sat around a table with them for several years, like every twice a year.

1:31:20And I looked around the table and thought, the things that these people know, oh, claim to know, I wanna know. And the opportunity that's here, and why can't we get this information out if it's real? And so rather than arguing with people about the matter, That's, for instance, why I created the Seoul Foundation, which is a charitable group of academics. I started it with David Grush and Peter Skayfish. David, of course, had to leave because he had governmental responsibilities he wanted to go take care of. And actually, we've now had, for three years in a row, a symposium, first at Stanford, then at San Francisco, and the next one is now in Italy.

1:32:09So I'm going to plug it, Saul, 2025 .org, you can go look, if you want to go to So, so L, so L, as in the sun. 2025 .org. And the purpose of that was not to advocate that any of this is real, but was to create an environment with within which academics or professionals, or just lay people interested in the subject matter, could come and talk about it in a very professional manner, right? just to bounce around ideas, not to advocate for, you know, their here or their reptilians or their this or that, but to like some of the things you raised. What are the ethical issues, what are the religious issues, so we have put out a number of white papers, for instance, where we had a member of the Catholic hierarchy write a paper on the issues related to Catholicism and religion.

1:33:02We've had Timothy Gelliday, who's actually on our advisor committee, talk about usOs and those issues. We've talked about near -space issues. Peter is running a study on experienceers. Not that the experiences are necessarily real, but what are the kinds of psychosocial matters that need to be considered for people who say that that this has happened to them. So there is a group in the UK called Unhidden, which is basically a bunch of psychiatrists, a group of professional psychiatrists, who say, okay, well, there's a trauma associated with this, whether it's real or not, we don't know, but what are the kinds of rules that we should or provisions that we should provide to the public and to psychiatrists?

1:33:52So when somebody shows up at your doorstep in therapy and says this, you shouldn't immediately reach for the anti -history or schizophrenia drugs. Right. Right. I was lucky enough in my neighborhood, our next door neighbor, who moved in for a while, was the chair of psychiatry at Stanford. And so we go over to have dinner with her and her husband. And, you know, like one of the first things that she says, Hey, what do you do? Blah blah blah. And I happen to mention the UFO thing. And she just sort of like set back in her seat. Okay. Oh, you might be a cook. Okay. And it wasn't, but it took, you know, a year or so until she finally realized that I wasn't.

1:34:35And then I was approaching this from a very scientific manner. I had my beliefs as to what I think it is that I'm dealing with and that there is some sort of reality to this. But that's separate than the scientist in me that says, Well, if I want to talk about this scientifically, here are the things that I need to prove or disprove. So that has led, for instance, to my production or study of materials that Jacques Vallet had brought to me, some metals and other things that had chains of evidence associated with them being at some U .F .O. landing. And so interestingly, some of these metals are very unusual, super high -purity silicon, strange magnesium ratios, the isotope ratios are wrong, etc.

1:35:23Now that's not proof of anything, but it's proof that somebody engineered them. So it's that plus the medical. Those are the kinds of reality -based tests that I can do to provide to my colleagues to say, here is data and evidence. Evidence isn't proof of evidence of anything. Evidence like in a court of law is just evidence that you provide to the jury of peers. Right. Right? So, but I sort of have gone a step further. And that is, I'm like, okay, well, if these things are, let's say we get some advanced material, how do I prove that this advanced material was made by some superior intellect?

1:36:09Well, probably the atomic positioning of how the material is made is going to be more advanced and even our most advanced computer chip. So how do you determine that? Well you need some sort of atomic imager that might tell you where the positions of the atoms are and what the bond structures are that you say, well that's something I can measure and I can have it, I can give the results of somebody else and they can say, yes it's right or it's not. But at least I can say no human at least that I know of could make this. So I started a company that I've raised money for with this new idea that I have for how to make an atomic imager And we're doing it and so you know we've raised the money we're building it already and I know it will work So when I have it whether or not it's useful for looking at UAP materials is almost immaterial because I know what how useful it will be for The nanomaterials the metamaterials the alloys that the government etc.

1:37:06uses for biology et cetera. So rather than predicting what a protein structure or a DNA or a chromosome arm looks like, I'll be able to read its structure directly. I want to bring you back to the, you said it was 10 people that didn't have a vanis syndrome, that they had some sort of an injury that was associated with a UAP event. What was their thing? Did they have an implant or was there a... No, some of them had like, they had what you would call white matter disease in their brain like they had been exposed to something. So white matter disease if you have, for instance, multiple sclerosis.

1:37:43And you look in the brain with MRI, you'll see these white areas which are basically dead tissue, scar tissue. They had things like that. One person, one of the pictures that I had was that they had claimed to have seen something in their backyard. They shown a flashlight at it. And the moment they did, they got zapped. And then you see the picture of the guy in the back of his neck, this huge welt and a bruising and a scarring that could... There's no reasonable way you could have gotten something like that just by exposing yourself to a flame as, for instance, or a blowtorch. And so it's these kinds of events that, and the unfortunate issue with these is that they're not repeatable.

1:38:37They're one off anecdotes. And you certainly can't put a person in a place where they become bait for these kinds of events to occur. And so you're sort of, some people would volunteer for that. Somebody might. Yeah. Go get zapped. Do you know about the Travis Walton story, right? Very much, yeah. Yeah. What did you think of that? You know, he's kept his story over all of the years. That's what's so confusing. Yeah, I mean, he's had no reason. I don't know that he's profited off of it. He, you know, I find it fascinating. You know, but it's the irreproducibility of the events that the skeptics, I call them more pseudoskeptics, like nudists, their pseudists, that use these one -offnesses of these events to disparage the entire idea of it.

1:39:37Sounds ridiculous. Of course, it sounds ridiculous, because you're talking about something that is outside the space ship that zaps people. Yeah, that's ridiculous. And I don't think that even he would propose, Travis that he was purposefully hurt. Right. I mean, if you walk across an airfield and get in the plume of a jet engine, you're going to get hurt. Right. You know, his story is that he was taking a board to heal him. Yeah. There was something something happened to him during that event. But the crazy part is that all the other people that are in the truck, they witnessed it and then they passed polygraph examinations.

1:40:14Right. They also told the same story independently when they took them and separated them. And then Travis Walton shows up five days later with the same clothes on with this crazy story. Right. You know, so when people say that, you know, there's no evidence or words, the evidence. My first question to them is, well, what have you, have you read any books about any of this? Have you spent even a moment looking into it? And you know, I would point them at books like By Robert Powell and Michael Swords, UFOs government, which is not a proposal than any of this is real, it's just the story of these events over decades.

1:40:51And so there's books like that, dozens of them, that tell the story of data and evidence. How you contextualize it is up to your personal biases, let's say. But there's plenty of evidence. But if people haven't looked into it, if they have an opinion about it, and they haven't looked into it, they're more like priests than they are scientists. Yeah, that's, well, it's also the public. The general public narrative is UFO equals cook, right? Irracook, you believe in that? That's ridiculous. That's ridiculous. And I don't believe in anything. I believe in the data and the evidence and the evidence.

1:41:34There's not enough evidence for me to tell a colleague of mine. It's real. But there's enough evidence for me to say there's and question worth answering. So when you were talking about magnesium and these, whatever these alloys are, what is specifically wrong with them that you don't think that it was manufactured by like a standard sort of alloy plant in the United States or somewhere else? Right, so the silicon that I'm talking about is from an event in Ubatuba, Brazil, which interestingly, there's another piece of it that appears to have been magnesium, but both of them are of a purity that is unusual for the day in the late 1950s.

1:42:18So the magnesium, and I did an atomic mapping of the mine piece of silicon down to a level of where it's like 99 .99 % silicon. And so one piece of it had magnesium ratios that were earth normal. And these were impurities, let's say. The other piece were way off earth normal. So for instance, anywhere on earth, if you look at the ratios of what the three magnesium isotopes are, 24, 25, 26, it should be like 80%, 11%, 9 % more or less. And anywhere in our solar system, that's more or less what the values should be of the ratios. And that has to do with stellar evolution and how radioactive compounds might decompose to whatever.

1:43:14We got this ratio that was just way, way off. So by luck, I came across a postdoc at Stanford. And he and a graduate student, they're both in applied physics who are interested in UAP. And I said, I've got these ratios. What do you think it means? And so they looked at the ratios and the weird one. And they said, well, let me, let's do some calculations. And so it turns out that the ratios that we have could have been generated from normal magnesium ratios. If you exposed normal magnesium ratios goes to a neutron source for 900 years at the level of an atomic bomb every few seconds. Shhh. Okay, so, so you, yeah.

1:44:06Wow. So, it's like, I'm looking, and this data is literally two weeks old. But the calculations are math, so you're like, okay, well, where and how, you know, So the chance of getting that number correct on three things is low, you know, to put mildly. But to say that you had exposed these things to that kind of a neutron source means something interesting, right? So again, it doesn't prove anything other than that the result is mathematically and materially true. So what does it mean? Again, it's just for a scientist like me who loves data off the curve, it's catnip. I can't help myself, but want to know and understand more about it.

1:45:05Yeah, I mean, just what you said is what you said about the magnesium ratios. Like that's, is there ever been any debunkers that have some sort of an explanation for why you would find that? No. I mean, did you think that your measurements are off? Well, I mean, the only way, I mean, you could create that ratio artificially by purifying each of those isotopes and then pre -mixing them to that ratio. But why you would blow it up over a beach in Ubitu, but Mexico in the late 1950s and then let it sit in a museum in Argentina for 50 years until Jacques Vallet ended up going and grabbing a piece of it and bringing it to me a measure on an instrument in the engineering department at Stanford.

1:45:52Why? Could you do it physically back then? Would that be possible? It would have been very hard. It would have been very, very hard. You could. But in the late 1950s, we were still busy trying to isolate and separate uranium isotopes for making more bombs. I mean, let's be serious. is what do humans separate isotopes for? To make bombs or to do health -related tagging, which is really only something that came to the fore in the 60s and 70s. And this predates that by a decade. Predates it. So it's unusual. It's possible. But I mean, again, with any of these things, why, for instance, would one of the supposed pieces is that came from that event of the magnesium at a level of purity that only Dow chemical at the time had the ability to create.

1:46:53Now, what else was at this site? And what is the story behind this site? A fisherman sees this glowing object that kind of released something which then exploded and he picked up pieces of it. And there's some chains of evidence of how it got to either a newspaper in Brazil or to this South American Museum, etc. and different studies have been done by different people over time. And the surprise to me was that the piece that I had was Silicon, whereas the lore was that it was magnesium. So I've been in contact with the people who talk about it as being magnesium, saying, well, it's, you know, your results don't dispute mine, it just says that maybe there was something different.

1:47:41Is that him? There. Travis Walton? That's Travis? Yeah, that's Travis. Travis Baldwin. Yeah, that's cool. So, you know, I don't I don't know what it means. I mean, I published probably one of the first peer review papers on a UAP material from an event in Council Bluffs, Iowa. And the event was an object to scene rotating lights flashing, etc. something appears to drop from the object. The police saw it. Other several of the groups saw it in the 1970s. They all converged on the locale and this was like in February or something. It was winter and there was a big pile of molten metal in the middle of this field.

1:48:27Probably 30, 40 pounds of it. And people tried to explain it away as well. The helicopter had a giant that of molten metal and then you calculate how far and how big a container you would have to have to carry molten metal of this type. And so I analyzed it and with a device that we invented in my lab actually called a multiplex ion beam imaging which is a kind of what's called secondary ion mass spec which what you do is you shoot a beam of ions at an object like a sand blaster. It ionizes the material on the target and then you shoot off and measure the mass of the objects that you just sandblast it off.

1:49:07And so what we found was nothing unusual in terms of isotope ratios, except we found a mixture of metals that depending on where you looked in the sample was different. So it would be like iron, titanium, and chromium of a certain ratio here, but a different ratio of those things over there and over here. So what that meant was that whatever this stuff was didn't come completely pre -mixed Wasn't like a milkshake. It was a slurry of partially mixed materials that somebody decided to drop off So again, this is just data But my purpose of publishing it was first and this was published in the progress in aerospace sciences pure reviewed But the purpose was to show you're not going to get thrown out of the academy for publishing this stuff.

1:50:01As long as you don't make crazy conclusions and you just say, here's the data, to show people that you can publish this stuff as long as you're scientifically careful in how far you go. You leave yourself plenty of diplomatic exits in the verbiage that you use. And it was part of what then got me to start the Soul Foundation, along with Dave and others to say, look, it's okay to do this, as long as you're careful. And that's why people, I mean, Avi Loeb came after me because he had kind of the same pushback from his community where all he was doing was saying, the question's on the table. I'm not saying it's true.

1:50:44It's just, you can't push this off the table. So you had the same kind of righteous indignation that I have that propels me to say, well, I'm going to show you why you can't take this off the table. So when they found this puddle of molten metal and it's a bunch of different mixtures, so it seems like there's a bunch of different stuff that was there and it wasn't perfectly mixed. Is there some sort of, like, have you theorized or some sort of a reason why they, any person or any creature or any being would do that? Is there something that you would extract from that kind of metal, like heating it up to a certain degree and having a mixture of all these things?

1:51:28And this is just a byproduct that they're dropping off? I think it's a byproduct of some process that might, again, might, might, might. might might might extract it might be part of a propellant system It might be part of the way that they generate the fields that allow these things to move again These are all mites speculation, but it's like when you see something and Do something that you don't understand what it is you have to be fully open. I mean for all I know they're flushing the toilet right boy But you got metal poop so but you know I have the original from the police department of it.

1:52:08So it was real and people said, oh, it was thermite. Well, if it were thermite, there'd be aluminum oxide. You know. Thermite meaning that's how it was melted down. That's how it was melted down. And it's just some kids playing around, et cetera. And it was a big joke. Wacky kids with their thermite. With their thermites. But it turns out there's no aluminum hydroxide or oxide, I should say, in the sample. I mean, I have the analysis. It's just not there. So it had to have been extreme heat. It had to have been extreme heat of some kind that would produce it. And, you know, whatever it was was hovering for a moment, so it wasn't an airplane.

1:52:43And there was no helicopters, and at least no helicopters with flashing lights. And you know, I've got, there's been huge chunks of it still exist. And the amount of this stuff, the kind of cauldron that would have to exist in order to melt this would be immense. Was immense. Yeah, so people back in the 70s already sort of made estimates of what was required and people said oh, it's a meteorite Well, no, we we basically showed mathematically how you know first of all meteorites make holes when they hit the ground They don't melt when they hit the ground And they make explosions are there similar Instances of something along this line several really that's what's so interesting is that worldwide There are multiple reports of molten metals that get dropped off of these objects.

1:53:33And I have actually two other ones, of a molten metal that was dropped off of one case in Australia and another and another area, not a lot to say. But one actually happened, supposedly, I've got to find the guy again in Fresno. Maybe he's listening. that he said, stuffed dropped, and he has, you know, metal that land in a puddle in the asphalt of his driveway, and he saw this object. So, and he's just holding on to it. He's holding on to it. He reached out to me, and I, you know, it was still at a time when I was just kind of getting into this area, but there's many, many examples of this kind of thing.

1:54:13So, but interestingly, several of these other ones are just aluminum. The one that I have is iron or whatever. So what does that tell me? Does that tell me there's different kinds of ways of accomplishing the goal? Whatever it is, there are either throwing something overboard or for, you know, because they don't need it anymore or because maybe it's getting in the way of something and it's time to get rid of it. Have you brought in anyone who's like a real expert in material sciences that would like like theorize, like given an immense increase in technology and what potentially do you think this could be?

1:54:49The purpose of being on shows like this is to have experts maybe give me an idea because the people I've been to at Stanford, you know, the other professors, they're like, okay, yeah, I got to go. Yeah, it could actually be detrimental to your career. And that's what's really weird about something when you're just talking about data specifically in this case an actual physical thing that anyone can measure. Right and I've got pieces Got plenty of it, you know, and the original pieces is you know is like this big that The owner of it had brought to my lab just last summer again. It's like big as an iMac.

1:55:32Yeah, exactly. Oh, it's huge Crazy and and so what is it? I would love for somebody to tell me that it's conventional and has a purely prosaic answer. Because then I can go on to the next thing. The whole reason for getting that the auto -comma mummy off the table was not because I wanted to annoy anybody, was because it was spectacular. It's obviously something people would pay attention to. So if it's real, let's do it. If it's not, let's get off the table because it's usually the stuff that's hidden under the rubble. That's the most interesting. My question about that mummy is not that it's an alien, but if it does register as human in the DNA, is it potentially a different kind of human than us?

1:56:15Well, certainly she. She had, we brought in an expert in South American indigenous people genetics and the analysis showed that the genetic, the standard genetic mutations that are found in different racial groups around the world, matched exactly the Otakama region of Chile. So her parents, her relatives, were clearly Chilean. So, yeah, I mean that's really all you can say. If someone wants to say that she's an alien, well that's fine. I'm convinced of what she is and that she deserves a proper burial. And so it's just a genetic anomaly? Here's the genetic anomaly. I do know that you've paid attention to the trifectal mummies.

1:57:09What does your take on that? So, you know, I think people have conflated a lot of the different mummies that are out there, first of all. There's like a good point, 60 of them or something. And probably a fair number of them, I wouldn't necessarily call them hoaxes. I would say that they are constructed. it, but they're old constructs, or maybe there's some sort of homage paid to the ancestors or something like that, whatever they are. So there are some ones that you clearly look at, you go, oh, come on, that never lived. That's then there's the fetal position. Then there's the fetal position ones, the big ones.

1:57:48And I was at the beginning, I'm always open to being wrong. I was at the beginning thinking, oh, well, because of the small ones, those are probably not real. But then the MRIs started coming out. The full body MRIs and the ligature and the bone construction. And then perhaps most, I think extraordinarily, the fingerprints on them being clearly not human. So it's interesting, but here's the problem. Is that because there's so much circus around them, unfortunately created by people who want a circus because it sells their TV shows. No scientist of any merit would go near it. So I was approached many times, many times to study them.

1:58:40And I said, I'll do it on one condition. Here's the money I need, not personally, but here's the money I need to do the kinds of analysis to accomplish this right. Second, there will be no TV cameras. And you won't hear from me again until I'm ready to talk. Because I'll have double checked and triple checked and quadruple checked the results and then I've gone out. As I do with the auto -comma mummy, bringing in further contiguous circles of experts to double check me. And not make it a circus. And not make it a circus. Because I won't name the TV show that wanted to do it. but they wanted me, they wanted to follow me around with a camera.

1:59:21I'm like, no, this isn't how science is done. I can't do it under those strictures. So I would say that if anybody's going to do it again, lock the things away with South American scientists, you don't need a North American scientist to come in and do it. There's plenty of smart people in South America who can do this properly and respect the rights of the indigenous peoples who own the sacred grounds within which these things were found. I think that's important. And then duty analysis, right. You know, they've said they made, I think, the mistake of saying, well, we've done the DNA and there's a lot of DNA that doesn't match.

2:00:02Anything, and the stuff is several hundred years old.

2:00:11Anything thing with the genus oven and the neanderthal, you have to correct the chemical errors that occur over time. There are ways to what's called bioinformatically correct. You need to do what's called over reading of the genome where you do so many reads of it that you stack them all up line by line, like if you had a thousand versions of an ancient Bible, you you would stack up the lines one by one, and finally you find one line that has this letter that's correct and then this one correct, and then you basically do a summation of an averaging of the correctness. And so they say, oh, well, there's, you know, 90 % of the genome is non -human.

2:00:54It's probably garbage. It's probably these mistakes. It's probably bacterial contamination, I mean, there's ways to deal with that, but that that requires money and not one off DNA sequences put on the on the interwebs for some amateur genomes to make a claim about. You know, so there's ways to do it. I mean, you would want at the end of the day to get the results to the level where you could go to the guys who did the Denisov and the Neanderthal DNA, the Max Planck, I know there's a one -the -no -b all prize for it, and say, hey, what do you think? but you don't dare take it to people like that until you've done your homework.

2:01:34I say. And you do it behind the scenes. You don't put them under a flashlight. Right, right. You know, and people I think have gotten used to this click mentality of impatience where I want the result today. Why can't you just make it all transparent? Dump all the data on the web tomorrow. You're not transparent, you're hiding something. No, I'm not. I am just trying to make sure that you don't make the mistake and Accused me of making the mistake that you'll find in the data because the raw data is never clean In the daily mail and the day let me let me ever accurate So so long story short, I think there's still something worth looking at there Well the scans are fascinating.

2:02:22Yeah, the scans are the most interesting to me You see in the Jesse Michaels, the Joyce video. Jesse's a good friend. He's great. I love that guy. And the episode that he did is fantastic. And when you see the scans and they go over the bone structure of the thing and you look at it, you're like, God, that looks real. If that's a hoax from 1700 years ago or a whackly. Whoever, if the carbon isotope dating, they did it on it is accurate. I've looked at that data. It looks good. Okay. So then it is that old fuck you then yeah, because there's no way someone back then could fake that and somebody asked me the other day they said well could you have a single mutation or a set of it?

2:03:04I said no, I mean because you don't get one mutation that does all that right? you know evolution works step -by -step that This is a this does this but it has a mistake But it's corrected by this mutation over here in evolution which is corrected by this and so the whole the genome fluctuates over time, compensating for the errors that would otherwise have killed you. Also, one of them is pregnant. That's fast. Yeah, I know. Okay, so it's a three -foot pregnant thing that doesn't look remotely human -being. Yeah. So the jury is still out, right? But if they're going to do it right, they need to sequester the stuff away, bring in the right people with sufficient resources and get rid of the cameras.

2:03:51Have you talked to them? Have you encouraged this? Is this possible? Open a nudge? This in the right direction? And where's it at right now? I wrote out on Twitter a full thing of what they needed to do. I mean the easiest first milestone to do, to be honest, that could be done within a couple of months, is if it is somewhere in the hominid or, let's say, vertebrate line, there are metabolism genes that we all share. In fact, there are metabolism genes that we share with bacteria that are very similar. So you probably do know the technique called polymerase chain reaction PCR? So why try to do the whole genome?

2:04:34Why not just target a bunch of genes that we know evolve slowly but do evolve and PCR those out because that's easier to do than is trying to assemble a whole genome. And then by having just those, let's call it preliminary sets of evidence, you could then say, hmm, this actually reproducibly, if I take a sample from the finger, I take a sample from the bone marrow, I take a sample from here there on the body and I take a sample from different, the three different main things and I see the same mutations and they're different or somehow aligned with hominid evolution, right? We compare it to all the known hominids.

2:05:25I mean that would be the kind of data that you could actually publish in a journal like Nature if you did it right. Because that's the only way that you're going to get anybody to pay attention. There's also the bizarre anecdotal nature of some of the artwork, like the fact that these people did a lot of these tapestries and a lot of ancient artwork that's a thousand years old that depicts these three fingered things. So it's like, what are they describing? Are they describing these actual creatures? That it was only a few of them and it wasn't weird genetic mutation or is this a common visitor that they're describing?

2:06:05I don't know. I don't know either. I mean, why would you put them in a cave in Peru? I don't know. And if you didn't put them in a cave in Peru, what would be left? That's the problem. The problem is it's really hard to make a fossil. It's really hard to find bones. Think about all the people that died. Right. And where we're, you know, we don't find that many bones relatively speaking to comparison to the fucking billions of people that died. It's not like we're tripping over human bones every day. Right, except in mass graves. Yeah, right. That's really, yeah. and even in mass graves, given enough time, there will be material like mass graves from 1 ,700 years ago, whatever these things are.

2:06:46So, you know, I find them, again, I find them interesting and I hope that behind the scenes, there are people who are taking a more methodical approach to this who I think should remain stealthed until they have the data to the point where it is published. Publishing a white paper or putting something out on the internet is not the same as putting out data that has all of the instruments that you used, the methods that you used, etc. The reason you want papers, frankly, when you publish them to be almost boring and so thick with detail that no pseudoskeptic would dare approach it because they're just not smart enough, but if you put out these snippets that don't have sufficient background, they can be picked apart by anybody.

2:07:41But that's why peer review is so important. And people mistake peer review is trying to get the reviewers to agree with your conclusions. No, the main purpose of peer review is actually to make sure that the methods that you used are sufficiently detailed and are correct enough to the extent you came to any conclusions, they match the methods that you used. Mm. And when you think about these potential, whatever they are, whatever these creatures are, if we did find out that they are, it's some sort of a hominid. How much credence do you give to the theory that there's like the possibility that these UFOs, UAPs, whatever it is, is a break -off civilization from a very, very long time ago that's very different from us, the same way we're very different from chimpanzees, which we coax this with.

2:08:39I have no problem conjecturing that. Did you ever see the Netflix show, Chimp Empire? Yes. Amazing, right? 20 million years of separation and it looked like fucking faculty meeting. You know, with people like looking at each other, planning and plotting, board meeting, you know, and so we shared all of those interactions from 20 million years ago. So how much further back would you have to go? To have something like what that is. I mean, it's clearly not recent and also if you think about what we are in comparison It chimps were so fragile or frail where we easily injured, where, well, if you think of something that's far more technologically advanced than us, it would be even more frail.

2:09:29It would be even more petite, it would have almost no muscle at all. It would look weirdly enough like the grace from closing counters of the third con. That's what it would look like. If it was a hominid that's whatever we are, and it went way past that. Right. Yeah, no. Technology gives evolution the excuse to no longer make or allow for you to be robust. Robust, thanks for that. And also, why do you need opposable thumbs? Yeah. Right. These things don't even have opposable thumbs. That was what's weird about it. Right. It's like how do you interact with your environment? They look more like sloths than they do.

2:10:09Right, right. I mean, at least their hands do. Yeah. And I don't know I find it well if everything's done with AI and automation and your interface is purely Neurological like you have some sort of a human or a creature Neuro interface with technology and you just use fingers to like lay them on electronics so that you can sink up with it Right. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Why why you picking things up bro? You don't have to pick things up anymore those go away just like you know Can you imagine the scenario of... I mean, these things we know are... The body is real, what they are, we don't know. But can you imagine the scenario of what happened as they were being buried?

2:10:53You know, could you like make a film of the ceremonial burial of these things? Hmm. You know, what would... What led to their death? What led to their placement there? or if they were constructed, which I have a hard time with given the MRIs that we've all seen, etc. What led to it? And so that, to me, is as almost interesting as to whether or not they're real or not. Right. Like the ones that are clearly constructed, that's where it gets fascinating. Because like, what are you trying to reproduce? Yes. And why are they so similar to the ones that look real? Yeah. Yeah. Are you, is it an homage to the ancestors or the stories of the ancestors, et cetera?

2:11:43Yeah, especially when you look at Peru, like Peru is like, you've got the Nazca lines which are really weird. You can only see them from the sky and they're everywhere and they're huge and these depictions of very strange things. I just ask my scientific colleagues to not suspend disbelief, but to open your minds as to the possibility of what these things might mean. Just try to explain them without dismissing them, because it's so easy and politics we see it every day, all you need to do is just give any answer, even if it's obviously flagrantly wrong, as it's just a way to deflect. And so, you know, you can either use that approach, you shouldn't use that approach ever as a scientist to flex, which unfortunately is what someone like, you know, Neil deGrasse Tyson often does.

2:12:37Yeah. And as opposed to try to explain in a way that teaches your audience the right way to think. Yeah. Well said. But one of the things that John Falei highlighted is there's an alloy, another piece of metal, some that they'd found that had layers like these at an atomic level that if you wanted to make this alloy today, it would be almost impossible. It would cost billions of dollars. So I worked with him on one of those pieces. I got the atomic imaging of some of that. And it's, oh God, I'm blanking on the event, but it was a Soroco event. And where was that? In New Mexico, I'm going to get in trouble for not knowing exactly.

2:13:32But, and we actually did a atomic layer and using this device called atomic probe tomography, where you literally pick it up heart, atom by atom, and get its 3D position. It's a 40 -year -old technology, so it's nothing magic. So, and yeah, it would just be very difficult to make it. And certainly it would be not something that you would have dropped in the middle of the desert. It's a sacchoro. In the middle of the desert, you know, in the 1970s or whenever it was. I wouldn't say it's impossible to make, but why you would do it is another question. is clearly evidence of technology and manufacture.

2:14:17And that's what interests me is, first of all, why would you do it? Why would you create something, for instance, with a silicon and the magnesium, with the altered ratios? Not the where did it come from. So what is it evidence of? It's clearly evidence of technology. Was this technology available at the time the supposed crash happened? Which one this? No, not no. Not at the level of precision that was done and a chunk of and no just wasn't. It just wasn't. So if that's true and if it really if that's the chain of evidence is correct and it really had come from that area from that crash, that's not a human creation.

2:14:59Well, it wasn't a crash. It was an object that a policeman had seen with beings, short beings outside of it. And when it took off and left, he went over and found this piece that I actually, I personally have it now. Huh. So, you know, it's hard to say what's possible and what's not possible. So, you know, there's plenty of military programs that make stuff that are way outside of mainstream capabilities right now. I mean, just look at the stealth bomber. For instance, and the skin of the stealth bomber is just remarkable. Is it possible they were doing that in 1970? Maybe. Maybe. So that's why I always leave open the possibility that, you know, which is why, I mean, this is, I'm gonna get back to this atomic image or thing that I'm making.

2:15:51It's like, there's a level of evidence that I think can be produced with atomic imaging that goes beyond what it is we know anybody can make. So that's my reason for wanting to do it because, you know, look, I can make money on it with looking at alloys and nanomaterials, et cetera, and that's going to be what the purpose of making the instrument will. That's how it will be a company. But it will have value elsewhere. So the reason that I got interested in it was frankly for looking at chromosomes, but then I realized oh, maybe it has interest, maybe it would be useful for these other things as well, which is kind of propelled my interest in it.

2:16:37Well, Jack Fale is such a valuable researcher because he's so logical about the way he handles things and he doesn't jump to any conclusions. and his descriptions of these materials and the origin of these materials is really compelling because it's just like if that's not really possible to make in 1970 then someone helped me out. Yeah. What is that? Yeah. And is it possible to make today and how much would it cost? Right. And where would you do it? Well, that's why the magnesium ratio thing was, you know, when I first estimated it was like, this is millions and millions of dollars and why would you leave it on a beach in the middle of Oopatuba, Brazil?

2:17:15Right. You know, it just it just seems it seems unlikely nothing's impossible. No, but unlikely. Well And then and then it's usually the chain of evidence. It's it's there's lots of materials that you might find that are unusual and Believe me, I get rocks sent to me at my lab in the mail that people say this isn't no, it's a rock Sorry to rock but you know I I have not yet been given anything, which I could definitively say this is not something a human might have been able to make. It might be difficult, but not impossible yet. And so that's because the level of resolution required to claim something is impossible, is something we actually don't even have yet.

2:18:06Does that make sense? Yes. That does make sense. So that's one of, so my whole career has been inventing instruments that were I felt inevitable, but not yet possible. But I could see a path to making them, and so I said to most people, get out of my way, I'm going to do this because I know once I've got it, it will become valuable to everybody, which is that's what made my career in immunology, making a succession of instruments like that and then making them available to the community. So I think the next level is atomic because we now know you can pick up and look at any of the major physics journals today.

2:18:46Everything is all about these weird exotic particles that exist in meta -materials down at the atomic level with vague and strange capabilities that will change their utility either as super conductors, room temperature, or different kinds of electronic components that might be better. Quantum computer circuits and qubits, it's all down at that level. But to do so requires a level of engineering that we don't, I mean, never mind reading what it is, putting it together in the first place is what's still required. And so if we don't know how to put it together in the first place, then reading it and knowing that it can exist and then associating it with a function is the value that I'm looking to bring.

2:19:35Well, this brings me to the idea of crash retrieval and the idea that these crash retrievals started a long time ago and that Roswell was just one of many. There's another one that was near Roswell that apparently was even more significant but didn't get in the newspaper. Trinity, are you talking about it? It was the one that Jacques was involved with studying. I'm based on this off of Richard Dolan's book. But at the end of the day, the point being that if they did do that, if they really did back engineer something, and then they started these completely top secret scientific research projects where they were developing alloys that had never existed before with techniques that they had never really even considered because they got it all from some spaceship.

2:20:28Well, that's where it's really crazy if you don't disclose this information because you're basically putting a bottleneck on human evolution, human technological evolution, and our understanding of what's actually possible. Right. I agree. And if you're going to excite the next generation of scientists in this country, and you're going to bring economic prosperity to this country, then we should... I wouldn't say democratize it and put it all out on the Internet. I understand all the reasons why you might not need to, but you need to excite the populace. I mean, my laboratory at Stanford for probably the last 10 years is 90 % foreigners.

2:21:16Not because I don't want to take more Americans, but because Americans just don't go into the sciences anymore. They don't study math. You know, they aren't encouraged to approach this, so we're importing a lot of our scientists from overseas. Well, guess what? A good third of them end up going back and bringing all the technology that they invented here back there and creating competitors. Now, maybe that's good on a global scale, you know, but maybe it's not something that we want to encourage on a local scale. if we want to maintain our technological superiority. We're basically governed by lawyers.

2:21:55China is governed by engineers. You know, I mean, You see the results in their drone technology and electric cars and the things that are coming out of China recently? Their polypuro is almost entirely engineers and scientists. Oh, interesting. Yeah, there's a little article in the Atlantic recently about that. That's a giant advantage. Yeah. So people were making these, We have lawyers looking for all the reasons why something should or shouldn't be done in the liabilities They're looking at things as to what's possible When you're looking at these UAP things that people bring you what is there one that stands out as being the most compelling to you one event Well both the council bluffs and the ubertuba event are interesting to me because of the physical material material itself.

2:22:44I mean, I'm at the end of the day a physicalist, you know, I mean, I don't like all the anecdotes. I mean, a thousand anecdotes make a good story, good campfire. I mean, I think there's statistical value in people seeing the same thing again and again, and there's a truth to it. But as, you know, and I can believe everything I want to around that and many of the statements that I'm purported to have said are around my beliefs. As opposed When I put on my scientist hat and I try to convince another scientist, I can only provide this data and this evidence and I don't have yet these materials. Now maybe they exist and maybe people like David Grush will be able to pry them out of the clammy hands of those who want to keep it where it is.

2:23:31But give me one piece of that and I will do wonders with it. Yeah. I mean, that's why I'm so excited about the UAP Disclosure Act, if it ends up becoming law, because there will be this ability to start to maybe eek some of this out. And again, it's the reason why I think this commercial opportunity is the direction we want to go where we have a public -private partnership is that the defense budget in and of itself is a zero -sum game. We're taking money from one program to give to another. You know, whether you're taking it from your taxes, you're taking it from veterans, you know, insurance, et cetera, it's a zero -sum game.

2:24:14Whereas if you bring the investment community in, now you're bringing in people who are willing to take a chance and willing to take a risk, and you're not using the public's money anymore. And so, and that excites, I mean, me as a, the reason why I wanted to go back to Stanford is because the entrepreneurial environment there, and now which is actually almost homegrown here in Austin, is really what drives innovation. And so I want to excite that kind of community. And again, the Seoul Foundation is a place where we can bring people in and we've got investors who show up now, who are talking to people about their ideas and what would we do with this.

2:24:53And so it almost has now a self -propelling, movement where I don't need to be standing on a you know wooden box somewhere in the middle of the park saying you know look at this look at this people are just doing it now there's now a whole almost a cottage industry of small groups or formalized groups who are doing this independently now so it's almost like it's inevitable so Skywatcher as an example You probably know the Skywatcher group. Yeah, I've heard of it. And Jake did it. And they just stop operations? Something happened? No, it's strange because people said, oh, we stopped. No, actually, it had been determined from the beginning that we were going to go from January until July or August and collect data.

2:25:44And now we're in the, okay, what is the data mean phase? Where we're literally going through the data, looking at the data files and trying to, As I said before, we're filtering the data, we're looking for the obvious mistakes, etc. And so, no, they've not stopped. Yeah, there was something on Twitter about something about equipment. I forget. No, so James Fowler, one of the guys who brought a lot of his equipment and technology to us decided that he wanted to basically go off and work in a DOD capacity as opposed to the research capacity. But he's still advising us. I was just on a phone call, a Zoom call with him last week going over the data files.

2:26:32So explain this sky watcher thing to people because it sounds insane. Well, the idea behind it was that there might be ways to send a signal and get things to show up. And James Fowler claimed that he had such a thing. I was at one of the events where something showed up. It was transient, momentary, but indisputable. But it's just like what it looked like. It was just a silver ball moving quickly through several frames of a video which was not fast enough to pick it up. We just saw it move and went that way. And then you didn't see it with your naked eye? No, I didn't see it in the naked eye.

2:27:18Which of course is a problem. Do they sometimes see things with the naked eye? One guy did. Oh, I mean, so these things variable in their appearance? I wish I had my phone here. But we do have a picture of one next to the helicopter, about 200 feet away. And it's just kind of a fuzzy white blob against a blue sky. But it was there. You know, it's not a cloud and it's not a balloon. You know, it's not discernible as anything obvious, but it was there. And it happened during one of these events out in the middle of the desert. And so, you know, so the idea is behind Skywatcher is to see if there are ways to get them to show up.

2:28:06And if so, in a reproducible manner, and then have the right kind of simultaneous multi -sensor capabilities to measure it, meaning radar, IR, visual people on the ground. What are they sending to get these things to go with signal? James has a signal that unfortunately he won't... I don't know what it is. He won't let everybody know what the bat signal is playing. Well, I mean, you know, maybe, yeah, exactly. I mean, it sounds kind of silly, but I mean, why would you put that on the internet? Because you might render it useless. They're like, I don't gotta show up. Everybody's using it now. Oh, so you think it's a trick?

2:28:48Like, it tricks them into showing up? I don't know. I really don't. Don't you think they'd be smarter than that? Well, that tells you something maybe about the level of smarts that might be incorporated into these, let's say, dumber machines. Maybe, yeah, that was exactly my thought. It's like, why would you show up when you know what it is? Unless there's a reason you're basically trying to train the monkeys what to do. Maybe you're tricking the monkeys into sending... I don't know. But isn't there a group of people that just go out and they just using their mind they meditate? Yeah, and supposedly they have some success as well.

2:29:28Yeah, there's the CE5 groups that do that and I've never participated in any of that because I don't I don't know how to measure it. I'm you know, I'm more than willing to believe that there are technologies capable of measuring thoughts at a distance that might be some super advanced. I don't believe you have to call it telepathy and magic. I think that there's you know if such a thing happens that there is a technology that might be able to read at a distance. Right. Well it's no problem with that. I don't have a problem with that either. I don't have a problem with the idea that consciousness is kind of vaguely and barely understood and whatever our relationship to the universe itself and reality itself through consciousness is it's not fully defined and also it might evolve just like all of our other intellectual capabilities.

2:30:28Right. Well I mean think of it this way you know you and I are interacting with each other through quantum waves. I my meat brain sees you as an object but yet everything that you are sits in quantum space time down at the plank level and you're not even mass you're just a series of, I mean, in some people's minds vibrating fields and objects. And so we have sensors that see and hear each other and think about each other, but our consciousness somehow is embedded in space time. And so who's to say that there's not signals passing to and from that are vaguely able to be picked up by our meat brains that we don't necessarily appreciate?

2:31:07Right. Right? So that just because I can't think at you and you can't hear me doesn't mean that there aren't perhaps brain organizations of some people that are a little bit better at hearing the echo than others. Well, it's just also probably the reason why when you go to the woods and there's no cell phone signals, the world feels different. Yeah. Because you're probably experiencing a bunch of signals that your brain vaguely interacts with. Right. That, you know, might not even necessarily be good for you. Right. But they're out there and they're a part of the world that you live in. And you just, you can't, you don't have a radio, right?

2:31:44So you're not like tuning into them, you don't have a cell phone. So you can't just like make calls with it, but you're experiencing it. Right. Well, and, you know, our civilization is drowning us in constant noise. Yeah. And so maybe, you know, that drowns it out. And that's why meditation is why people claim that they can interact with other things. I don't know. Yeah, I don't know either. One, I saw an interview that you did where you were describing the sighting over off the coast of San Diego in 2004, the Nimitz site, where you said that the amount of power, why don't you describe it? So the amount of power that that thing had to use to move the way it did.

2:32:26Right. So sun radar. It's on radar. So these are actually calculations by Kevin a physicist from the University of Albany and a published paper, again just speculation, but what he basically said was how much power would it take to instantaneously accelerate from 50 feet over the ocean to 50 miles above the earth, whatever the number was, and instantaneously decelerate. So, it's not just the amount of power to lift something. It's the amount of power to accelerate and decelerate instantaneously. And so you can make simple physical calculations of a one -ton object, let's say. And it's more than the nuclear output of the United States for a year.

2:33:13And yet these things seem capable of doing that at will. So where are they getting the energy from? And I remember asking how a question like this years ago, we were stepping into an elevator, and we were talking about his ideas about how these things might move. And I said, so they're cheating somehow, aren't they? And his answer was, from our point of view, they're cheating. From their point of view, they're just using the physics that we don't understand yet. So, where's the energy coming from? What are they doing? And so, that might be, as a, for instance, a reason why you don't want everybody having access to it.

2:33:51Yeah. Because any one of those objects is worse than a femur nuclear bomb. You shoot one of those things at a city and that's the end of the city and if anybody could do it You know, maybe that's the the step of human evolution of the evolution of our society and civilization is that AI Has to come into power before we have access to all this other stuff right that we do need an AI government structure Right, we do no longer Require military intervention and all the shit that is agreed the bane of civilization today. Because if you ask the average person today, is do you envision a world where war doesn't exist?

2:34:32Most people are saying no. The vast majority except for a few delusional hippies. They're gonna say no. Right? But if you ask them, okay, given this super intelligent AI takes over the world and proves to be benevolent and really just wants to to accentuate the life of human beings on earth and make it better for everybody, then yes. Then a hundred percent yes. Why would it want war? Right, so maybe something like that has to take place before we get to a situation where, okay, this is how you really travel. Right, right. Okay, now that you're not going to war anymore, listen, but you can already, you can already imagine the negatives, where people will say, well, it's the apocalyptic nanny state, right, where AI just basically takes care of you and humans devolve into something, which is why I think a merger of human intellect with this where it's a synergy as opposed to an either or, I don't want to be nanny stated either.

2:35:39Right. I want to use it to explore ideas or explore pleasure. I mean, I'm finding people want to be hedonistic and you know participate in virtual parties all day long for all I care. I don't care. But I think giving people the option to do whatever it is that they want to do it's the most liberal and conservative way of living because you're allowed to do what you want to do but we're not because we're living at the behest of so many other strictures. Oh, yeah. Last question. What's your take on the Bobble's R story? Elements of truth with a healthy dose of misinformation that perhaps he was provided.

2:36:37I don't think that he's entirely lying. He seems to know enough about things that The average person wouldn't know But you know, I've heard from Eric Davis and others saying you know, he's a this he's a that I don't know because You know It's like that's why there are great people like Richard Dolan who's a you know a wonderful writer of the history of the area Or people like Robert Powell or Michael Swords who write just the facts not coming to too many conclusions. I don't live in that world. It's not my specialty. My specialty is working with data and analyzing things and bringing rigorous science to it so that I can convince another scientist what is right or what is wrong.

2:37:31Cause I won't be happy. I mean, I'm pretty sure of what I know, but I want to validate that to my colleagues. If only to be able to say I told you so. Right? There's a little bit of human petiness in there. You know, a little bit of petiness is great motivation. Yeah, but you know, but that's, I think, again, a nameling people to live in a world like that, where you can talk about these ideas without being ridiculed, is really, I think, the objective of what science should be, and what open -minded, non -theologically dogmatic approaches should be. It's like accused of scientists of being a priest, and that's the best way to really upset them.

2:38:17But pointing out that what they're doing is mimicking dogma and priesthood is the only way to shame them into doing the right thing. Does that make sense? It does. It does. Well, listen, man, I'm glad we finally did this. Yes, thank you. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you so much for all the research that you're currently involved in and all the stuff that you've done. And it's been amazing to talk to you. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. Bye everybody.