Something has Been Watching Us? ||Dr Beatriz Villarroel || NEW PEER REVIEWED PAPER ON TRANSIENT OBJECTS IN SPACE

1:22 Speaker 1: Good evening, seekers of truth, seekers of the unseen. Uh, pull up a chair, dim the lights, and let's talk about the sky's dirty little secrets, the ones that governments tend to whisper about in skiffs, scientists bury in footnotes, and the disclosure movement claws at like a cat. I am Ty Roberts, and I am having trouble with my placement on the microphone tonight. In this unfiltered, you know, kind of solo narration, I just want to take a look and crack open the vault on this no panels, no guests, just me, you and the story that's been literally screaming for attention.

2:18 Speaker 1: It's all over X right now, big debate, and we'll kind of start at the beginning. And I did, so what I what I want to do in this is I also want to God damn, placement on this microphone is terrible, and it looks like the service is coming in and having an issue with the internet here too. I apologize for that. I really just kind of threw this together last minute because everyone, like literally everyone is talking about it and I have some you know, we're gonna talk about it in the live show tomorrow as well.

2:57 Speaker 1: So I mean kind of, I don't want to get too too bogged down in it, but I definitely also uh want to give my like unfiltered and unfettered attention. So like I said, let's start at the beginning of the hypothesis. Uh that, let this feuse and we'll kind of trace it through the the white paper process. Uh. You know, it survived the gauntlet of peer review. Uh, and I think that is a you know, it's it's what people and debunkers have been asking for for so long, you know, like video evidence was no longer good enough, pictures not clearly not good enough.

3:42 Speaker 1: So they what we wanted, and what I think a lot of the community wanted was active like PhD scientists and experts working on this and writing papers. And now that we have that, I mean, it's it's like it's it's the goalpost. Just keep getting pushed back. And I get it, Like I get it, there are things that that we need to be skeptical about. But I mean, come on, who made these people who have made a career out of dismissal are are almost and I'm not gonna name anyone, but some of the debunkers they seem to be just as bad as like the the UFO gurus, and it's just like take them at their word and take them at this and you know what they say is the truth, and you know anything outside of that is uh, your your opposition.

4:45 Speaker 1: Like we can't disagree, we can't sit in the same room disagree, but at the end of the day, shake hands and walk away at least maybe learning something or showing a bit of empathy and being able to at least put yourself in the shoes of the other person. There's no more of that right in the world that we live in right now. It's just if you don't agree, you become the enemy. And this is trickling down in so many different facets. I mean, look at Disclosure tonight and those guys in Red Pandaquala. It's like this stuff is taking over the drama, the inherent chaos that seems to be the UFO ex community.

5:37 Speaker 1: And I'm guilty, Like I I'm not Jeremy Corbel and say that I don't interact with it. I definitely do, but I try to stay as neutral and as impartial as I can be, you know, looking at it from both sides, just like I do on the show. But anyway, I want to look at how every turn the gatekeeper seem to have official disclosure, uh, moving the goalposts, dangling transparency like it's a carrot out a string and it's just always right out of reach. It's maybe not bedtime rereading for the casual stargazer, though, I'll try to keep it kind of simple.

6:24 Speaker 1: No PhD required, wink wink uh. If your knee deep in UAP lore, I think you'll not belong to the frustrations. If you're new, welcome. By the end, you'll see why these vanishing lights aren't just dots on old plates. They're a mirror to our place and the cosmos. And because the universe loves a plot with a twist, we'll cap it with an interstellar wildcard. Everyone's watching right now, and it's three eye outlets. It's the third cosmic drifter crashing our solar party with with anomalies that make the Vasco transient kind of you know, look like not child's play.

7:04 Speaker 1: I wouldn't say that, but I think people are running rampant with the three I Atlas story. There's definitely some oddities. I know. I've been in talks with people like al Vi lobe, Mark D'Antonio. They don't agree at all. But then also, I've been talking with h my NASA that the NASA Chief of Aerospace Medicine, who also you know, uh worked in you know, chemical engineering and was a flight surgeon and uh did did a lot of a lot of a lot of work. I got him talking to me about it too, saying, you know, certain things don't add up.

7:44 Speaker 1: So uh yeah, buckle up. Uh we're gonna whether you're like it or not, Uh, we're gonna. We're gonna jump into it. So let's rewind uh to twenty seventeen. Ironically, Uh no, not going where you think we're going. Uh. But Beatrice Villa Roel doctor Bia to her ex followers at doctor bea Villa Reale if you're tweeting or ex posting this later, she's a sweetest astrophysicist with a nose for the anomalas. She's not chasing little green men. She's very much a data hound, sifting through dusty archives like a cosmic archaeologist, and she stumbles on something odd in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey plate posse.

8:36 Speaker 1: I don't know if I'm saying that right, but those black and white snapshots from nineteen forty nine to nineteen fifty eight, and that is what's mapping the northern heavens on glass point like flash stars that blink on for a heartbeat under forty five minutes. Cosmically, that is so quick. Uh and then vanish no trace uh in follow up exposures. Uh, no matches in modern catalogs like sd S S or you know guya natural Uh meteors uh streak, meteors streak. Uh. These are static points. Asteroids move predictably.

9:19 Speaker 1: Yes, that's how I wrote it. So these yeah, these aren't typical. And I know, Uh, I'm not. I don't pretend to know what this all means, which is why I was going to say, I did grab the interview that she did with Ross Coltart's I want to play a couple of clips of that while we go through it. Uh, I actually are. I did talk to her and she did agree to come on the podcast. She has an answered sense. Obviously she's been been super busy, but you know, I really want her to come on and explode it, explain her hypothesis.

10:03 Speaker 1: But it hits like a Roague commet. You know, these are transient objects vanishing and appearing, you know sources during century of observations or VASCO for short over seven years, her team combed six hundred thousand plates on earthing over seventy thousand of those ghosts. But here's what's interesting and kind of what has kept to me interested. They cluster in linear alignments, hugging the geosynchronous Earth Orbit GEO that sweet spot thirty six thousand kilometers up, where as ats like weather birds loiter not random scatter soldiers in formation marching across the sky.

10:56 Speaker 1: You know, early skeptic scoffed and you know said it was play defects and shadow geometry is something I've heard as of recent But it seems that uh or or what what was the other one? Emulsion glitches from the analog era, and and her counter has been statistical rigor. They're not just kind of like fuzzy smudges. They're sharp uh sub This is where I did when I had to look it up like four times. Uh there's sharp sub arc second points with magnitudes that are deliberate and and they vanished too quick for known junk meteors.

11:45 Speaker 1: Planes even early balloons leave trails. And again this is you know, an an era, that is you know, pre the space program, so so you know, nothing's supposed to be up there. So I want to bring in this what is it called this interview that she did and we'll go back to the other part in a minute, but hopefully you guys can hear this. Where is it? Let me know if you can hear.

12:22 Speaker 2: It identified objects into a peer review journal, especially journals as prestigious as the ones you're talking about. Let me do a quick summary. So the study that you did, you were looking at pre satellite transient sky events and you basically stylize nearly three hundred thousand short lived transient events that were captured on red sensitive photographic plates from the first Poloma Sky Survey. And these exposures were all taken between nineteen forty eight and before humans put satellites up in the nine to late nineteen fifties, and each of these exposures lasted about forty five fifty minutes, and you focused on identifying cases where three or more transient points appeared along a straight line during the same exposure.

13:17 Speaker 2: And the reason why those lines matter is if a single flash appears on a skyplate, it could be a glitch, but multiple point like lights perfectly aligned and visible in one long exposure photo that hints at something coordinated, possibly spinning or reflective objects. And you can rule out natural sources like meteors, stars and asteroids. They don't line up and appear simultaneously. You can rule out plate defects because you were able to show, weren't you as you told us previously that when you go into the shadow of the sun, obviously it removes the reflectiveness, so it's it's not a plate defect, and you basically what the only plausible explanation is artificial reflections from flat highly reflective services in geosynchronous orbit.

14:18 Speaker 2: That's that's exactly what explains you're talking about. How many of these objects are we talking about, Beatrice.

14:27 Speaker 3: So we had two candidates that are highly interesting that the paper resulted in, and there's still one little caveat for these two candidates. There's a minuscal chance that it might be something called optical ghosting on the in the instruments.

14:46 Speaker 1: What when when that door keeps doing that, I keep thinking it's in here, So I'm like, what the hell is that? So I hope everyone I got this camera switcher and I'm just so obsessed with the t our feed so fun to do, but yeah, I'm so I'm sorry. I do have to stop it every couple seconds so we don't get copyright straight. But again trying too that was creepy.

15:19 Speaker 3: How do I speaks against it is because we looked at the blue sensitive images and you don't see anything there. If it would be optical ghosting, you would also see with the same setup of the instruments, you would see something there, but we don't. However, we always always leave that little caveat. But what even more talks about these things are little is because when we look at all the transients, not only at aligne ones, but all the transits in the Earth shadow, we do see this huge deficit of transience.

15:48 Speaker 3: And that really speaks for that. What we are dealing with our solar reflections from very flat, very reflective objects in synchronous orbits.

15:59 Speaker 2: Doctor tellby what could this be? What are these objects?

16:04 Speaker 3: Well, these are objects before Sputnik one, when humans have nothing up there, and these things, no matter what they are, they need to be really frat reflective, like a mirror. And I personally don't know anything natural that produces and that looks like that that fulfills.

16:24 Speaker 1: I know something and I've had a vi lobe. Oh this is a good moment for Oh no, I'm already on that camera, so let me go to this camera and say, this is a good moment for a camera. So which I had a vi Lobe in that chair. I have not aired the episode yet, but I had Avi Lobe in that chair a while back, and I need to invite him back in. But a muamua what Avi was saying that oh mulla mula looked like and that it could possibly be a probe and I don't think we got enough data on it. And again I'm not saying that that's exactly what it is.

17:09 Speaker 1: But you know if three eye and that's why I tied three eye at liss In because three iye Atlas is giving that very that nickel with no iron. It's it's giving that signature which is we've never seen we don't see

17:27 Speaker 1: nickel without iron, and you know iron being very heavy and corrosive, we don't use it. We separate it and use that in our space program. So again this is pre space program. So again pointing towards an and uh I, three eye atlasts do I think it's an alien spaceship? Probably not. Is it interesting and could it be some sort of probe that does that that does hide itself as a rock or I think it's totally plausible and just I mean the de Bunkers are like even Mark D'Antonio is an astronomer and a good friend of mine, Like I kind of got a disagreement with them, and I'm like, dude, like stop downplaying it like it's super interesting.

18:16 Speaker 2: It's these requirements, so I like correct in saying there are literally tens of thousands of these objects that you've detected.

18:24 Speaker 3: We see that roughly thirty five thousand transients are belonging to this kind of category, but that is just for the northern hemisphere, which means that we would need to have around seventy thousands of transients around I mean for the whole Earth. And from that we can estimate that maybe tens of thousands, two hundred thousands of objects around the Earth must have been there.

18:49 Speaker 2: So now we know that they were there in pre spot Nick nineteen fifties, what do we know about whether there's still there? Can we rule out the possibility or the problem ability that they're still there in geosynchronous orbit.

19:04 Speaker 3: I have no idea because if these are what they think they are, I mean, if these are artificial object which the signatures are pointing towards, I have no idea what they could have done or if they are there still. I would assume they're there still.

19:21 Speaker 2: But it's a reasonable conclusion, isn't it, doctor, that if these are artificial objects, some civilization has constructed them.

19:31 Speaker 1: Yes, I would say so.

19:33 Speaker 3: I mean it's not ours.

19:35 Speaker 2: And when your peer review colleagues asked you questions, were they aware of the significance of what this paper is these papers are pointing to, I don't know.

19:45 Speaker 3: We were talking about the technicalities, not about the implications.

19:50 Speaker 2: It's interesting because scientists get bogged down, and obviously for good reason, in exploring alternative prosiaic explanations. But when you think about it and step back from them, occasions of what you're saying, this is massive. You are the author or the lead author of two papers which essentially suggest that there are artificial constructed objects in geosynchronous Earth orbit in the nineteen fifties before humans sent up satellites, and to this day we don't know if those objects are still there.

20:26 Speaker 2: But they are indicative of something constructed.

20:33 Speaker 3: Isn't that exciting?

20:36 Speaker 2: Good for you? I mean, the implications are this might be the first scientific evidence of a non human intelligence, and it.

20:44 Speaker 3: Subtainly is going to be. What they like about this is that we are giving exact methods and strategies for people to explore the UFO question and a question if they are here, through just easily available methods many astronomers over the whole world can work with because these play archives exist in so many countries, and you don't need to be part of some very expensive, big collaboration because if you have access to this open data, anyone can go in. They can analyze these data sets, they can download them, and they can check if there's a deficit in the Earth shadow or if they see alignments.

21:25 Speaker 3: It's a very open source way of working. So I think, yes, we're going to be able to really pin down a very secure answer very soon if more people try to replicate this and work with the same questions.

21:40 Speaker 1: So fast forward. Since this interview, we're going to fast forward to twenty twenty five and Beatrice is not hypothesizing anymore. She's publishing white papers and drops them as a preprint on a place called Now I'm not familiar with what this is a R is it x I V or x I N, it's some whatever, it's some group and she co authors. Uh. The co authors on the paper include H Enrique Solano and UH Cadre of International Eyes. The bombshell Uh a twenty two sigma statistical uh deficit. That's not a TYPEO twenty two standard deviations.

22:38 Speaker 1: Uh. So that's the kind of number that makes uh lottery winds look probable. Anyway, the transients during Earth's shadow hours when the plate's caught the night side sky, Uh, sunlight out of glints are off. Uh, They're they're completely off. So what that says, I guess is that these aren't stars or quasars. Their reflections, like she said in the interview, from these flat mirror like uh surfaces, and you know that really again that drives me towards the idea of something like Omuamuha, which Avi said was uh, you know, uh, flat like a pancake.

23:28 Speaker 1: And if it if it was made of you know, these like three iye atlis, which you know was was nickel uh or it has a lot of nickel and no iron. That's a metallic surface, I mean, and that would you know kind of shine uh shine off. But again this is the pre the pre satellite era. So it's that is what is so interesting. But the debunkers, like you know, and and and the debunkers uh are the ones that uh you you you would probably expect. H. I don't wanna. I don't. It's we don't have to name any anyone. But I did bookmark a couple posts and so so Beatrice submitted her paper.

24:19 Speaker 1: It's been peer reviewed, which is again something that we've been asking for in the community for for so long. That that and a VI lobe and Harvard and you know, they were doing their thing with the Galileo project. Uh. Then there's Gary Nolan and the Saul Foundation. They're doing their thing. And it finally seemed like there were real scientists, like they were real, real like brilliant minds coming into this field and coming into it with with really not you know, not not again. They're not chasing little green men, so to say.

25:04 Speaker 1: But they're also not afraid to ask the question what if? And I think every scientist should ask that what if? And I think Beatrice especially has put forth data a peer reviewed paper, a white paper, but then she submits it to this place. Apparently it's like it's where papers go to to live or die, you know, and and some of them aren't even published, but they get put on there so that other scientists can read them and go through them, and you know, so it it apparently gets rejected from this site, which is also a site that or or a server, so to say that had put up and maybe I think I know when it exactly was, but they had put up a paper that you know, was challenging of what Beatrice is saying or putting forth in her paper.

26:15 Speaker 1: And the reasoning they gave her, and I have it, I'll pull it up in one second on Twitter. The reason and they gave her is said one of them was that it was just not of interest. And but they ran in a paper that was in challenging, challenging it, so it was of interest. Then is that what made them not interested in her?

26:38 Speaker 2: You know?

26:39 Speaker 1: And again is that something we see where someone muddies the water right before before the real work can be done. We've been dealing with that in the UFO community for forever, literally, you know this the same time David Grush testifies. Uh, you know, a Miami or or the Las Vegas alien thing happens and it just muddies the water, so no one cares about any of it. Or the Miami Mall happens while you know, this thing's happening, and it's just it happens to us all the time. So anyway, with that being said, it seems like that could be a reason.

27:21 Speaker 1: But this plot, this server does not take her paper and let me share on X Yeah, share this tab instead. I don't know if you can see this. Oh it doesn't show me on the uh on the viewfinder. Oh there it is. Okay, So, dear author, thank you for one second. Let me get this banner. Thank you for submitting your work to Okay, so it isn't a V. I thought I'd mistyped it. H a r xi V. We regret to inform you that this place moderators have determined that your submission will not be accepted and made public on the website.

28:14 Speaker 1: Our moderators determined that your submission does not contain sufficient original or substance sub why can't I speak substantative scholarly research and is not of interest to r xi V. For more information, YadA, YadA, YadA. Moderators strive to balance fair and this is key fair assessment with decision speed. We understand that this decision may mean decision may be disappointing, and we apologize that due to the high volume of submissions that we receive, we cannot offer more detailed feedback.

28:57 Speaker 1: Some authors have found that asking their personal network of colleagues or submitting it to conventional journal for peer review are alternative avenues to obtain feedback. And that's that. So what you're essentially, what that says to me is that it's so hard to say it without sign without sounding like a complete and utter asshole.

29:32 Speaker 1: But to me, that that is just so blatant, it's so on the it's it's so it's so exactly what you'd accept. I mean, I expect right being in the in the in this community. And you know, it seems whenever we take three steps forward, we're taking eight back at the same time. And there is clearly something that is gatekeeping and and some something, whether it's some individuals, an entity, the deep state as people call it, or just uh, you know, uh stigma alone, whether it's bias actual bias on a human level, there is no place for people who think like that anymore.

30:33 Speaker 1: It's like we we're on a rock flying hurdling through space, and our soul like not only are we as a solar system hurtling through space, but our galaxy is hurtling through space, and that is all hurtling through space. Like the the the fact that we are not chasing down the biggest story. And and as scientists when and I think what another person said, let me go to it. It's Astral. He's a good friend of mine. What he said was he thinks that because in the paper, apparently they get to where the hell is it?

31:22 Speaker 1: Uh, they get to talking about nuclear Newton like nuclear uh connection.

31:32 Speaker 3: Uh.

31:32 Speaker 1: There was also a connection that I know she talks about uh with there was the connection with the Washington d c UH flyover that that, by the way, that is profound to me, that that that that was a connection uh to it, because I find that to be super interesting, super compelling. And I haven't read the whole thing. But if what she's saying is that at nuclear testing, I mean, I don't know how it gets into nuclear. Oh here it is, Astrol said in his opinion the paper by doctor Villa Rouel likely got cut from the server for crossing into too many fields, those fields being astro nuclear physics and UAP data.

32:26 Speaker 1: Uh. The article is tough to classify, so it was rejected on scope. And I don't know if this is a I that he's pulling from here, but he gives some some reasons and moderator views on why he thinks it wasn't So I don't know there could be a rational explanation, uh, for for why it was not accepted. You know, maybe maybe I maybe I am letting my bias show. I don't know, but I thought it again, I find it wonderful. So here's this is Beatrice's post. So she posted wonderful news. Our two new VASCO papers are now peer reviewed, accepted, and published, and they reveal some extraordinary things.

33:18 Speaker 1: She finds statistically significant correlations between short lived transience. Again, this is a pre spot mix, a pre any space program, skyplates, UFO sightings and above ground nuclear tests. Wow. Again, nuclear tests, that's my area of interest. Especially we show a twenty two twenty two whatever that symbol is deficit. Oh that's what I had in the thing that I wrote out that I think I copied it from here deficit of transience inside Earth's shadow consistent And again that's a really interesting aspect of it in Earth's shadow.

34:02 Speaker 1: So they're not again anyway, so consistent with a fraction of these events originating from solar reflections from flat highly reflective surfaces in orbit before the Cuban space age began. Together with her earlier there, earlier U M n r a S paper. Uh these results from trip titch of new methods to investigate U A P using astronomical data. These they're independent HYE level journals and these independent peer review processes. These latest results raise a bold question. And yes, you know which, God, she's good.

34:47 Speaker 1: That was really good. If I had read it and clearly and concisely, that would have come off so much cooler hopefully. Uh So there what she's saying there is And then she explains what this organization is and it's where physicists and astronomers share pre oh pre prints. So if a paper isn't there, can you guys see this? Yeah you can. So it serves as the central hub. So this server serves as the central hub for open scientific exchange. We're unpublished, newly accepted, and even rejected manuscripts are shared so that other researchers can read tests.

35:40 Speaker 1: So there you go. Debunkers who are saying that these need to be replicated, Well, that's what she's saying. Test and build upon the work. It's how ideas circulate rapidly and transparently, long before and sometimes regardless of ah true formal publication. Now, both of our accepted in peer reviewed papers in PASP and scientific reports have been rejected from the server in one case, she was told at least an older work in the other, and that's the one that I mentioned that research was quote not of interest to the server and a platform impeer girl results, peer review and publication in high quality journals are no longer enough to satisfy ooh the gatekeepers.

36:36 Speaker 1: Scientists are being prevented from reading new results. The UFO stigma remained strong, and again I think I talked about that as well. So she is chalking it up to UFO stigma and maybe a little bit of gate keeping. What do you guys think in the comments? Let me know, I really you know, we're gonna be diving in this tomorrow into the live show, h and I'm super excited about it. I really am because I think this is I have so much to say on this, and it's it's really fascinating to me, this whole thing, the transience.

37:18 Speaker 1: And I'll play a little bit more of that clip, but I want to get something to hear so vetted. So I have had Mick I almost said, Mick wasp Mick West. I've had him on the show multiple times. And I say that because I I I'm having Tim Phillips on as well, and people have been pretty upset at me for that one for some reason, and then asking me to, you know, get involved in other drama ish stuff not maybe not drama. Maybe it's not drama, but like, I just want to have my discussions with these people. I want to ask them the hard questions about stuff like the Wall Street Journal article and Malmstrom and this bogus idea that an EMP like the directed EMP was used to and so that was happening.

38:13 Speaker 1: And I'm going a little off tangent here, But so you're telling me that that hazing ritual was used against are uh, the hazing ritual was used against people that were entering special access programs. You fucking lie to them and tell them that there's UFOs show them pictures, right, and then never tell them, never tell them that it was a hazing ritual. Just forget that the best part of it is them finding out that it's a hazing ritual or or a joke. Like it doesn't make sense that part, right, because eventually the person that gets hazed becomes the hazer, so they get let in on it all, and that's not what's happening, clearly.

38:59 Speaker 1: Then to say that Malmstrom was a an e mp, like if you don't think I'm gonna ask him about that kind of stuff, like, then you don't. Uh, I don't know if I want to get involved with this other stuff. It's not my place, like it's it's not so you know, and uh, we had to move the date because of all this nonsense and that upsets me because you know, uh, it's it just upsets me. But I want to do what's right. So like I'll run it by and I'll ask, like, hey, do you want to talk about this? But if he says no, I'm gonna respect that, Like you know, I'll ask, but if he doesn't want to, then I'll respect it.

39:47 Speaker 1: I I I'm there for for total disclosure, but vetted

39:53 Speaker 1: vetted commented, So there's this thing. So Mickwest is saying that. So Mick West did get like attacked by a lot of the believers about And I don't think we should be attacking, uh Mick, because Mick Mick's doing Mick Mick. This is what Mick does all all the time. This is what he does. This is Mick, right. He tries to find the prosaic explanation and and that's what he does. Like if we need that kind of stuff, and it, you know, UFO X can already feel not like an echo chamber. I don't want to call it an echo chamber, but you know, if you're in spaces with the same people every night, you're you're going to create the same conversations and the same you know, then there's going to be the narrative split.

40:50 Speaker 1: And that's where I get, like I said, I get a little dicey because if we're defending you know, defending Elizondo, like he's your you know, fantasy football team, and I say this maybe ad nauseum that like that's a problem. Right, if you're defending Steven Greer, like you know, like if you're staking your mortgage on it, like that kind is like, if that's the hill you want to die on, Like it just doesn't make sense to me. Like we should understand that one person isn't going to drive disclosure. It's going to be a group effort, and it's going to take you know, the general public.

41:38 Speaker 1: That's what these hearings are for. That's what you know. People often get upset with these hearings that they're not going as deep as they could be. And yeah, I agree, right, but it's also for the general public to get involved and to see that it's being discussed. And that's why each one is so monumental. You know, we had one in seventy years, and then we've had four in the last you know, five or six years. So the needle is moving, the stigma is shedding, the scientists are getting involved, white paper like everything that Carl Sagan was asking for.

42:16 Speaker 1: Right, with great I almost said, with great power comes great responsibility. Oh, it's been a day. It's also late, and I this is I gotta go soon. We'll be talking about this again tomorrow. But yes, with great power does come great responsibility. However, uh, I honestly can't remember the real saying right now, does anyone have it in the chat for me, no extraordinary proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't like that saying personally because evidence is evidence. But the claims and Mitch Yukaku, where's he gone?

43:08 Speaker 1: He like disappeared? Where the fuck that that guy go? He was in like every UFO thing, and then all of a sudden he just disappeared. And I haven't seen him since, but he's he said something that I always really liked, and that was the burden of proofs as has shifted to the non believer. We've got the videos, We've got the pictures. Right, it's getting a little bit more challenging with the videos and pictures with you know AI and you know the advent of of like really really good special effects at a very accessible uh and anyone can learn Blender and and anyone can learn how to do like it's like the Cousin Brothers for me, are a good example, like a bunch of their stuff, like come on, like they made a whole career off of it.

44:07 Speaker 1: And you know, don't hate the player. I hate the game, right, hate. I hate that every time I'm on UFO X or or on some Facebook group. Yes, I do sometimes peruse the Facebook groups because I'm apparently old. Someone said, but I I was using the Facebook or scroll in the Facebook group and it just it was really it gets really like toxic. And I came from the world of movies in Hollywood and that was toxic. This is a little bit less toxic, believe it or not, but it's it's still highly like people are at each other's throats.

44:58 Speaker 1: And you know, it's like the Star Wars fan base, like they can't ever seem to agree. And maybe that's just something, but I think that you and I I what I The point for what I'm saying is, I don't think the UFO community should be something like the Star Wars community because what we're dealing with is real. It's real, like we this should be the cutting edge. It's one of the most like basic fundamental questions as as an existentially capable being, right, what happens after death? Are we alone in the universe?

45:37 Speaker 1: These are things that we ponder because we're conscious. What is consciousness? Why can I sit here and have this conversation with you? Why can I reflect and make noises out of my mouth that are sent through digital waves to right now? One hundred and ninety six people total on Accent and YouTube that are able to hear me. You know, maybe with a little delay because the internet in the studio, we have to have the guy come out, so there could be a little delay. See I work that in, but pretty much instantaneously.

46:14 Speaker 1: Like look at the fact that we're here as a fucking miracle. The fact that we're not like on some like we didn't, we weren't just born into some apocalyptic fucking hellscape is because of love. It's because of compassion, It's because of structure, you know, religion and society and you know, love it, hate or love it. But I mean we got it pretty good. And you know, u pho disclosure. It shouldn't be like a movie community. It should be like, uh, you know something that's again And I think we are getting there finally, where real real experts like a VI Lobe like riswan Vik, like uh, Brian Keating, like Jesse might Well I don't know if Jesse's an expert so to say, but he's a genius when it comes to research and retaining information connecting dots.

47:15 Speaker 1: So yeah, Jesse, I mean I think Jesse does a great job. And yeah, so I mean, I think we are getting to a place that's that's awesome and it's amazing, but it's it's not coming without its challenges. And I think the digital age is really it's something that I mean, when you give everybody a voice, you give everybody a voice. So that's just the way the Internet's always going to be, I suppose, but it can be. And that's why I really advise people like the UFO community. It's intoxicating because again we are talking about like real real the implications are so outstandingly paradigm shifting, right, So I understand that, you know, when we talk about these things, it's it's it's easy to become enamored and to like this is the only topic that people just throw themselves into and they just never come up for air.

48:20 Speaker 1: But like, go on a hike, Like I know that the cliche like go touch grass, troll comment, but actually go touch grass. Like go out on a hike, go out with your friends, get away from UFOs for a while and go try to you know, maybe you'll see one and then you know, I don't know, something amazing will happen, but you have to have you have and and Chris BLOODSOE at the time got ridiculed for saying this. But if you're not looking, and if you're not willing to see, then you're not gonna see. And I do believe that.

48:58 Speaker 1: I do. I think that's why a lot of children see these things. I was a child, you said, you could say when I saw mine at ten or eleven years old. But we're in a new place. We are in uncharted territory right now as a species with AI and the advancement of AI and the scariness of the existential crisis that you know that it's like we're facing down the barrel of a gun, but we're also pointing the gun. That paints a weird picture to sketch that. But you know what I mean, We're about to create God, not we.

49:42 Speaker 1: I'm not about to create God like some other conscious being. It probably is AI already sentient. I don't know. Maybe anyway, I'm going off on tangents here. So what was the last thing I wanted to say was so vetted? Was bringing it an up. Mick West was saying the gold standard of science is not peer review, which really does fucking frustrate me because now so he says it is independent replication, and of course, of course, like that's part of the process, but why why come at it from that angle. It's a peer reviewed paper with really compelling data in it.

50:32 Speaker 1: It's everything that people have wanted for so long. And this one isn't like some crazy weird like you know, interdimensional galactic federation. Like this is literally you know, as cut and dry as it gets, accounting for error. And I think that's great, you know, I think the fact that this is even happening, that Scientiss certain involved, and we're getting to these points, these things that twenty years ago, if any one of these events happened, and we seem to be getting them on a weekly basises, these big whistleblower things or and again I don't I use that term loosely whistleblower, but these great witness accounts from the military and you know, private sector and contracting and special forces and you know, yeah, so on and so forth.

51:25 Speaker 1: We're getting these amazing accounts, some of them. Of course, take a grain, take what a grain of salt. These amazing events are happening. Any one of these things twenty five years ago would have been the highlight of the ten year period. And like so there is a lot happening. It's a lot to keep track of. But that's again, that's why we did the live show on Thursdays now and we'll we'll dive deeper into this. But I wanted to uh just watch like maybe like two three more minutes of the Actually no, I don't.

51:58 Speaker 1: I don't want to. I don't want to get copyright striked or anything like that, So I'll just probably end it there. I really, uh impromptu kind of threw this together. It was like, let's just do I want to get more engaging with the audience, the video audience especially, you know, I want to play with the camera switcher. Uh, admittedly I want to play with the camera switcher. But anyway, and that's why I bought, you know, the studio is to to do these things, and uh yeah, so I expect more of it the debunkers.

52:39 Speaker 1: I guess the moral of the whole I probably said that three times. The moral of this is we should be really happy that serious people are involved. And don't attack Mick West. Don't don't attack Mick for having the the Mick West like it's that's what Mick does. Don't get mad at him over it. Just like don't engage with them if you don't want to. But also don't engage with the other people that are you know, uh echo. You know, don't surround yourself with an echo chamber. And you know, if someone has opposing or conflicting you know, views, bounce ideas off of each other, right, you don't have to agree and and they get you know, no one's perfect, no one, no one's perfect.

53:40 Speaker 1: So you know, I liken it to the neighborhoods, the neighborhoods I grew up in. It was like open door policy. Right from the city I lived in a city to living in the suburbs. There was an open door policy in both of the areas. And that's without saying it takes a village came from. Now people don't know their neighbors. They hate their neighbors, you know, one as a Trump sign, one as of this sign. And like there's no kids outside playing trick or treating is like less every year, Like we are headed and there's so much isolation going on that it doesn't scare me.

54:27 Speaker 1: And and we can maybe we can get into this one day on the podcast or at the live show. But like the way things are going needs to change, like ready player one. We need to all like the I think the Internet needs to shut down on one day a week, like you can have access to basic functions like calling anything that would require like like an emergency like that. But we should be I think the Internet for the most part, like all everything should shut out for a day and everyone gets unplugged and we just societally we agree to that, like just unplugged.

55:10 Speaker 1: All right, guys, thank you so much for being here. Pretty good turnout for like no but no promotion. Thank you, guys. I appreciate it. And again We're gonna be live tomorrow at six thirty with my co host Corey Lindsay also is the editor of the of the podcast like the actual weekly podcast with a you know, a great guest that we have every single week. The episode coming up is a special one. Yeah, it's a special one, so definitely look out for it. We'll see you guys on the other side. And att