(Not So) Deep Sh*t with Chris & Steve
(Not So) Deep Sh*t with Chris & Steve
(Not So) Deep Sh*t on UAP and the Upcoming Economic Paradigm Shift
What if we told you that credible witnesses, like pilots, have had bizarre encounters with unexplained phenomena and could soon be testifying to Congress about it? And that could trigger a chain of events that will change EVERYTHING?
Buckle up as Chris and Steve, take you on a whirlwind tour of UFO sightings, the enigmatic "object" shot down in Alaska and its frustrating indifference in public discourse. They explore the anticipations around upcoming Congressional hearings on UAPs with actual witnesses, where stories of these strange encounters will be shared, possibly shifting the way we perceive our universe.
Then, Chris and Steve talk about the groundbreaking Galileo Project, led by Avi Loeb. This initiative could revolutionize our understanding of the universe and stoke public curiosity about all things extraterrestrial.
But that's not all! They also probe into the concept of a universal basic income, contemplating a world where everyone pursues their passion, thus saving us from becoming irrelevant.
Capitalism, Communism, and the prospect of a new global currency - these are just some of the captivating themes Chris and Steve dive into in the latter part of the episode.
So, are you ready to take about some deep shit?
Contact Us:
Twitter: @NotSoDeepShit
Facebook.com/NSDSChrisandSteve
Instagram.com/nsdschrisandsteve
Email: nsdschrisandsteve@gmail.com
Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE, LIKE and LEAVE A REVIEW for the show!
I'm Chris, I'm Steve and we're talking about some deep shit. Yeah, what's very interesting is there is something to that first shoot down that happened in Alaska.
Speaker 1:Something very interesting. What is it? I don't know. That's what they're saying out there is. There's something. That was the first one and I watched this as it unfolded and I was following this closely when it unfolded that initial press conference about that first object. Second object if you count the Chinese balloon, the Chinese balloon was object one, but the first other object that was Alaska. Reports were really strange about that one, and so what I've heard various people intimate is that that was something. The subsequent two were not. They were probably hobby balloons that were shot down.
Speaker 1:The prevailing thought process is how do you muddy the waters? You muddy the waters by suddenly oh, we shot this one down and shot this one down balloon. Oh, they're all balloons kind of thing. Right. But if you go back and you actually pay attention to what they say, one is they wouldn't say balloon, especially with that first object. They would not categorize it as a balloon. The press kept saying the balloon you shot down and the Pentagon people would immediately correct them and say it's not a balloon, it's an object. So that's what I've heard about those is, you're right, we, that was all in our focus and we talked about that and then it sort of moved on, just like everything Right, but it's the key.
Speaker 1:It's the cumulative buildup of what has come before, and I think that's what a lot of people I get it If you've been following this topic for a long time. It is frustrating. So many times throughout the year we thought that this would be the thing that would trigger everyone's interest and get everyone looking. It is very easy to say you know why. Yes, you can see people just getting bored. They don't care, they're going back to it.
Speaker 1:I'm just saying that we've never been here where you have multiple like people in government currently coming out and saying things and then all it's going to take is a couple of intrepid reporters and stuff to start looking back at the stuff that's been ignored up till now. That is the biggest frustration when I hear people say well, if this were a cover up, how come it's never come out? Of course it's come out. There have been people claiming this sort of stuff all through the years. It's just usually we disregard them because I don't know why. Usually sometimes they're really people who are credible. But soon as they come out with this, we cannot underestimate how well they did it, conditioning us to laugh at this topic.
Speaker 2:Although it's funny you brought up that favor guy, the pilot, him and Dietrich, no one really disparages them. It's just kind of not, or.
Speaker 1:Ryan or Grush?
Speaker 2:No, the Pentagon has not come out and they have one word no, no, but I mean the general public, grush is to be determined, to be determined. The other ones is there's graves, not as much, but the other two is video evidence.
Speaker 1:You want to call it video, I call it video.
Speaker 2:So when you have things like that, those two together create something that's very difficult to take down. So you have a credible person, an intelligent person, a trusted person. Here is the evidence I'm talking about Now. When we get, I think if you start getting more of that, that is what will get the public attention things like that combined with other things. Yeah, no, you're right.
Speaker 1:Absolutely right.
Speaker 2:So if that guy Grush. If he ever says I don't know if he will or he won't, but if he ever sits down, let's say these hearings on the 26th he appears and he says he's supposed to be. And he says, by the way, here's something I was talking about and you can see it right here.
Speaker 2:He can't do that, though let's just say let's just say to me that is when now some people will be swayed by what he says. But when you combine the two things together, that's when people start saying, oh, you know, and there's not enough of the Fravor Dietrich, there's not enough of it, because I think once you start building on that, plus what the information you're talking about altogether, keeps creating that point of you know where you're getting.
Speaker 1:So what I have heard is that some of the witnesses will know, Probably probably people like Fravor and Dietrich, possibly Ryan Graves, pilots who are involved in these things, maybe even Louis Salizando.
Speaker 2:People love listening to pilots and things like that, but what if they?
Speaker 1:roll out a couple of pilots that you've never heard of.
Speaker 2:That's fine. That's what I mean. I'd like that. That's better.
Speaker 1:Like what if they do this? Hey, we're going to set the stage with a Louis Salizando and some people go. Oh yeah, I remember he was making the rounds and I may have heard a little bit of what he said, but suddenly they asked him some very pointed questions. Oh my.
Speaker 1:God that's really interesting, right. And then, to kind of bring the point home, they bring out Fravor and Dietrich and Graves, right. Okay, again, we've heard these before, but a lot of the public maybe has, but now hasn't heard in this venue a congressional hearing under oath, oh my God. Now they pull a few more pilots out, the ones that none of us have heard before. We don't even know the names, but they show us their credentials and, oh my God, these people are pretty high credentials and you know whatever, and they tell some amazing stories.
Speaker 1:Again, all testimony, no evidence, nobody pulling anything out, but they're telling these amazing stories and questions and being backed up because the Congress people are asking questions. Basically, the end of this hearing. You don't see a shred of physical evidence, because you know what You're, not necessarily, because that is contingent upon getting these things declassified, which they may not be able to do. But getting them all together, getting them all to tell their stories, it's going to be the first time that a majority of people who hear it it's going to be the first time they've heard, honestly, it's going to be the first time they've heard any of the stories for some people, but for a lot of them it's going to be the first time that it's all been together in one place.
Speaker 1:If it happens that way, and I think that's what they're shooting for, like that is what they said they wanted. This hearing NASA has pulled out of this hearing. Nasa was involved with this hearing NASA has pulled out.
Speaker 1:Why did they give any? They did not. It's just what's what's happening behind the scenes. There were some witnesses, apparently, that they had to remove because of background checks. Now everyone jumped all over that to say, oh my God, background checks, that means some of these witnesses are sketchy. What could mean it could mean that? Well, what I've heard basically is that politically, you know, when somebody's background it's not something really that bad, but you know it could be a thorny issue. And this is not. This is not like a real life example.
Speaker 2:Well, it's something that someone could sink their teeth in.
Speaker 1:Right, let's say you were trying to nominate somebody for a certain position and then you looked in their background and you said, oh, you know they, they had some distant criminal activity or something, some moral thing that they did. Whatever it is, so that's.
Speaker 2:Hitting their wife Exactly, I mean. And even if they later were found, that doesn't necessarily mean you're not telling the truth, but it's certainly not something.
Speaker 1:Exactly, exactly. So that's what I heard. That it kind of is is that some of the witnesses, and you know some, have speculated. Maybe Bob Lazar was in that. You know, bob Bob Lazar, he has some issues, he has some very real legal issues, but some of those could have actually been perpetrated on him, like there is yeah, I mean, you could.
Speaker 1:Again, but his past is so checkered that doesn't matter. You have strong opinion. If you know of Bob Lazar, you probably have strong opinions on him. Either he's telling the truth or he's a fraudster, and that's the problem, is you don't Kind of in the middle. I actually believe no.
Speaker 2:I don't. I'm not saying I don't believe him. I know you say no, I think that some of the things that he's I don't want to say has been involved in some of the things that have been circling around him. Yeah, I don't exactly. Great, right.
Speaker 1:But I also think that they're irrelevant.
Speaker 2:I mean, he hasn't pursued this.
Speaker 1:He hasn't profited off of his story. And now, with what's coming out now, it was in a movie.
Speaker 2:He had a movie. He didn't get any money.
Speaker 1:He does not know the movie was. It was a documentary. He didn't get anything?
Speaker 2:No, he does not. And somebody did a documentary about me. I'd want to make some money.
Speaker 1:He doesn't care about the making the money. As a matter of fact, he doesn't do most interviews. He has not talked about this for the most part, and when, usually when people reach out to him, he says go away, I don't want to talk about this anymore. He does not like what this has brought him, like he. That's why I watch that movie about him and it really hearing his own words Like this is oh, he's just doing it for fame and fortune. Are you kidding me? His life has suffered.
Speaker 2:No, no, some people, some people's motivations are very difficult to figure out.
Speaker 1:But also he's a human and so since then his life has done certain things, and maybe not all of them are great, but a lot of what's coming out now is validating original things. He said he was one of the first people to talk about gravity it being gravity powered and now that's information that is like being talked about. He was ahead of the curve on so many things. Go back and look at what he said back then and now. Compare it to what we know now. And he called a lot of things. The more time goes on, the more I think Bob Lazar's story gets vindicated over and over and over again, like he was saying stuff about how we couldn't figure out how it worked and how it was gravity related. Some of the things he talked about that element, the element 115, there was some element that he talked about that did not exist when he first talked about it.
Speaker 1:It exists now. I mean, they knew about it theoretically.
Speaker 1:They knew directly it could have existed, but he talked about it as being a thing and saying, no, they have this and now we have discovered that element. They just can't keep it stable, but it could potentially do exactly what he said it is. His story has gotten more solidified. I think the people who are dismissive of him I think are dismissive of him for either one of two reasons. One is back then they read it and some of it didn't make sense and they dismissed them back then and they've never reevaluated, even though more information has come out. Or two, they've written him off because again he has some sketchiness. There was some. I think it was some solicitation, a prostitution. There were some criminal things.
Speaker 2:I think something happened to somebody that bought some element of material.
Speaker 1:I don't know.
Speaker 2:But the point is when that stuff's clouding around you. That's why it's not the perfect person to keep a movement moving along.
Speaker 1:So, rather than be discouraged by that fact, I actually think we should be encouraged by the fact that they ejected some witnesses, that's not to say I think it's better Not to say that we won't ever hear from them.
Speaker 1:But right now this is the swing. This hearing has to be heard, make some heads move, some heads turn. So they're gonna try to roll out. They have been quoted the Congress people who are putting this on I think Luna said it's gonna be an all-star lineup Like basically saying we're putting our best out here because we've been given one shot to do a proper hearing and get this testimony in front of the American people and then we'll see what happens. So let's see what happens when these hearings take place and some things get said in it and some people out there hear it for the first time.
Speaker 1:They've probably heard it before, but they didn't really hear it, because getting it delivered to you from a friend or from somebody talking about it, or even on a TV on a documentary, that's different than having it delivered to you via a governmental hearing in the Congress. Like it's just gonna hit differently and I really think that there's a good chance that this, if not sparking it completely, this will be a major like what the fuck? Moment for a lot of people who will tune in suddenly and go wait, what's going on here? You can already see it happening. Check the news. You're seeing it little bits here, stories are starting to pop up, You're starting to see an interest in all this stuff and I, just like I said, I cannot imagine that it won't catch fire soon. I've been saying that for a little while, but I honestly think we're gonna be living in a different world possibly by the end of this year, like-.
Speaker 2:Jesus Christ.
Speaker 1:I think by the end of this year. I think it'll be not necessarily that like it'll all be out, but it'll be past that point. We've talked about this before. There's a point of no return. There's a point where you can't put it back. You can't take it back when you announce to the you can't, when you're not saying the United States people that there's a non-human intelligence interacting with us. Suddenly that news is not just United States news, it's worldwide news. You cannot put that back in the bottle.
Speaker 2:Here's an interesting take right. We talked about the gorillas, the silverbacks that weren't noticed for a long time in terms of, I guess, the way history says it is, the white people didn't see them right, so somehow that's history right, but the people that lived there did see them right, so they and anything they said about it was dismissed as their life history too.
Speaker 2:But when they would tell these colonizers, hey, be careful. It was kind of the way people think of Bigfoot now, right, so let me get to that. So if we are the silverbacks, let's say, and the non-human intelligence is the colonizers, how would have the colonizers have changed if they noticed the gorillas knew they were there and they noticed the gorillas were doing something about it? So I think it's gonna be interesting to see if that ever happens. Let me get to it as well, I'll say it just out there. If whoever let's just say there is this non-human intelligence that's responsible for these phenomenon that we're seeing, right, then they can see us obviously they're observing.
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:And then they say hey, you know these humans, they figured it out and they're getting ready, they're doing stuff. Does that change anything? Because I think it does right If we looked and said gorillas are kind of nowhere here and they're building stuff and they're getting ready, like we should do something before they get too powerful, like it creates so many questions and so many discussions, because if the people that are observing us aren't here for our best interests and they go, hey, you know, they're coming up with stuff, I don't like this.
Speaker 1:There's precedence for that. I mean, we have discovered things and not tell about. You know, like when we broke the Nazi code and we didn't say we broke the Nazi code, because once they knew we broke the code, they stopped using the code. So we pretended we didn't break the code. They kept using it and we listened. There is a precedence, for you know, when you're spying on, as soon as they become aware of you, that's when you strike. My argument to this would be, again, I think we're underestimating the degree to which they're advanced beyond us. They know, like they know.
Speaker 2:This is where, again, no, but there's the school of thought that it keeps increasing as our technology increases. So if we then get our collective minds together to get our technology to even a greater height, that might prompt something.
Speaker 1:Is what it? Yeah, no, I see exactly what you're saying. My only counter to that would be we have nuclear weapons. We have a weapon that not only could wipe us out as a people but it could actually cause radioactive the planet to make, basically make the planet not that livable either. So and it starts to sound crazy town. But then when I say that these are things that I'm not just saying where a congressman what the hell is his name? The guy he was from Wisconsin, he was in the hearing. I always play his Gallagher right. Congressman Gallagher was on a sports talk show. Again, you know it's sports talk but they're talking about UFOs and he postulated some theories about. You know that extraterrestrial isn't the only theory. Now this is on like a mainstream sports, primarily sports broadcast.
Speaker 2:They got on this topic.
Speaker 1:You know cause the host is interested and I can't remember what the guy's name is, but he's out there. He's a big sports guy we talking about. Millions of people listen to this sort of thing, right? Kind of same kin to Joe Rogan, but like in sports. So.
Speaker 1:But he actually postulated he's a sitting congressman and he postulated that one of the other alternatives is that they're extra dimensional. Another alternative is that they're ultra terrestrial, meaning that they've been here on this planet all along. They were here before us, they're here during us and presumably they'll be here after us. And the reason why we can't detect them is because there are aspects to this planet which we do not have access aspects of frequency and dimension. And there's a whole lot of concepts that if you had brought this up to most people 10 years ago, they would know what the hell you were talking about. But I will say that now, if you bring these concepts up, a lot of people will be familiar with them from Hollywood movies, the idea of dimensions and like those are kind of concepts that more people are aware of it, even if they're not aware of the fact that scientifically, those principles are actually sound. It's not all. It's not all speculation.
Speaker 2:No, it's scientific theory, right, but that's they haven't done it yet, but-.
Speaker 1:That's the other part of this that I always think is interesting is, I think everyone is on at a very binary. They're either they either don't exist or, if they do exist, they are extraterrestrials flying from a planet through space to get here. And then all of our objections start to come up about well distances and the speed of light. You know it would take them too long, but we only know what we know. You know what we know, right? So we're gonna have to get over that.
Speaker 1:That's another hurdle because you're not just introducing one disruptor to our way, You're introducing tons. We're not the only thing. Technologically, we're not at the top at all. As a matter of fact, we might be way at the bottom. Space and time don't work like we think they do, Like it's not just the hey, aliens are here. Why can't we tell the people? Because the knowledge train that that starts disrupts everything we've ever known or think we know. That's a lot. That's a lot to put on people and you can see how people are dealing with it. A lot of them aren't. Have you ever brought the topic up to someone and they just quickly change it and you get to set up UFOs and things, but you get the sense that they just can't handle it. They just can't handle the thought process because it takes them down a road that they just don't wanna go down.
Speaker 2:I've spoken to people and they've actually said that. They say you know what that's beyond. Now sometimes I don't know if they just be nice to me, Could be being polite. That is a polite way of saying they don't wanna talk about it, but I do think that out of 10 people that say it, a few of them really believe in their brain that you know what. This is a lot for me to be thinking about right now. Yeah, so sometimes I think it's a polite way of telling me to shut up, Steve.
Speaker 1:It could very well be, but sometimes I think it is being candid. Yeah, no, and I know I step over the line. I get excited about this topic I've been, you know and sometimes I get like crazy, you know, in talking about it, but it boggles my mind why more people don't see this as the most important. I just don't to quote you know something I now thought I'd do. To quote Marco Rubio if true, this is the biggest story in human history, like this story is more important than anything else we've ever discovered, because it has the implication to change our trajectory from now going forward. And you know, like if we didn't discover we were not alone, if we just kept on going like we go, we're on the trajectory that we are. Some would say we're on a trajectory to destroy ourselves, right Cause, if we just keep fighting over the same limited resources and never leave this ball of mud either, one of two things, I'll figure out how not to need those resources.
Speaker 1:Right. One of two things is going to happen Either we are going to destroy this planet, thus us, or something's going to destroy this planet Something we didn't see coming a solar flare, an asteroid, something which could have happened before and that's going to wipe us out, and then our story is over, did you?
Speaker 2:see, and it's a totally different thing. I don't know if you saw this news. This was a few years ago, maybe more than a few, but there was an asteroid that we didn't see, yes, until it already passed us.
Speaker 1:Which is true of any asteroid that comes from the sun, the direction of the sun.
Speaker 2:We cannot see it, you can't see it.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:So people would just think, oh well, you know, we'll see it. No, you don't see it until it's already gone past.
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:Anyway, I didn't know that until I read that there is.
Speaker 1:There is a crazy amount of space objects that pass fairly closely to us.
Speaker 2:After they go by they say that wasn't a threat. Okay, you know, after we buy, it wasn't.
Speaker 1:There was one that missed us by like six hours, meaning that it cruised through and that location it cruised through. The earth had been there six hours before and had it hit it would have been a direct hit on us and it they just casually mentioned this, it probably would have been a planet killer.
Speaker 2:Like it. This is like driving down a road right Yep, with your eyes closed, and every time a car goes by you you say whoa, that was good.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:We're safe.
Speaker 1:So I think of what Graham Hancock has said about another analogy is that because the torrid meteor stream which we go through twice a year, in like June and I think in like October or something like that but twice a year we go through this stream and it's akin to putting on a blindfold and running across an eight lane highway and basically running all the way across and being like, oh, we made it again, and then the next time make it again, because literally this meteor stream there's, you know it's big, and so there's, you know there's. Obviously we pass through it all the time and nothing hits us, but it's one of those things where it's only a matter of time there will come a point where one of those objects will impact with us, and then what effect that has we'll see. So if we don't do something and get like to our next step of where we need to go, then if something happens to this planet, then we're gone. And I think that's our big concern is I think we need to. You know, I know that's very you know, elon Musk has said that for a while, but he's not wrong.
Speaker 1:I mean, maybe Mars is wrong, I don't know, but like we need to start getting out there, because until we do, we're confined by how much we can grow on this planet. I mean, people are talking already about, you know, too much population, which isn't technically true, but certain areas have too much population and other areas don't have any population.
Speaker 2:Well, because the land isn't as livable. Right, right, so the resources aren't there to sustain people. Right, so maybe that should be our first, and that's what they used to say about the West of this country Right when I said the West, not the rest, the West the. West In terms of water especially, which is now becoming an issue again.
Speaker 1:Right. So maybe that ought to be our first step. You know, step one is try to figure out how to better our extraction of resources on this planet to not destroy it, you know, to be able to figure out, you know, is there a way to, you know, pump water into? I don't know who knows, but we're gonna do something Because it's.
Speaker 2:Mars. There's the theory that we're from Mars, right, because there's a. There's their finding elements on Mars that could only be there if there was a nuclear explosion, right and now it could be a natural nuclear explosion. Could, be, but they say it could also not be a natural explosion.
Speaker 1:So what point if this UFO stuff is, let's just say, let's just go on a flight of fancy and it's all unreal to be true, like like that is the truth right? Oh, my God, it's, there are things, right. So at what point do people take the next step? You know how I said, there's a lot for them to wrestle with, with their mind, with, with the existence of a non-human intelligence. That's just that road. Now start to wrestle with your mind.
Speaker 1:Okay, this thing that I've heard about, that's always been said that it's crap. They were lying to us. What else? What other things have I been taught to laugh at? That? As crazy as this sounds, this is true. So what other things have I been taught to laugh at? Now that turn out to be true? You know, you have anything in mind. I mean Bigfoot. I don't know. I mean what if the answer to Bigfoot ends up being those are creatures who are on this planet, who exist in a different, you know, slightly different dimensionally that we only, which is why sometimes you see them, you know, sometimes you see them in the woods and they get, you know whatever. Somebody sees them or sees tracks, but then there's no, can't find them. Maybe they're under the ground. I mean, there's crazy theories out there that if you go down and you look at, somebody did a.
Speaker 2:Maybe if it's interdimensionally, maybe we see them because that's the way our minds and eyes perceive it, and it really doesn't really there was a whole way.
Speaker 1:How much of the universe do we not perceive because we can't pick it up, Like most of the universe is in a spectrum that we don't. You know Well, we could talk about.
Speaker 2:we could have a whole thing about that. I think people don't. Well, I think a lot of people understand, but some people don't understand that we only see the way that we can see Right, right, there's, there are just there's more.
Speaker 1:Kinds of light that we don't even we're not aware of because we can't perceive it, and they say our brain can only take in so much input, so our brain filters out a lot. So there's a lot of stuff that we we could potentially see, but our brain, just we filter it out because we can't take in all the input at once. It gets. You know, there was a theory a while back and look, you know, if you're out there and you, you know, google this how many disappearances there've been in certain parts of national parks and I have not looked extensively into it, but I saw a little bit about it. But apparently, according to I have not validated any of this, I just have seen the claim.
Speaker 1:But if you look at the numbers, there's an inordinate amount of people who go missing in certain areas of the world. Certain areas geographically, even the United States tend to be remote. Where is this? I don't want to go Like, like national parks, like again sounds crazy. But what if we found out that there was something here on this planet that we call Bigfoot? But it's like these things that occasionally take people, like how many people go missing? I think when you start to run those real numbers, that's where the questions start to go, where how many people go missing each year and how many people are never, ever, ever found. And then, well, okay, well, people, sometimes you know people, move, people, run away, people start new lives. Okay, sometimes you know people, serial killers. They just found a serial killer uncovered in Long Island that had killed a bunch of people and they just, you know, discovered who they were.
Speaker 1:Yeah, sometimes we're responsible for it. At what point, though, when you look at the numbers of missing people who never turn up again, their bodies are never found, no remains are ever found, no trace of them at all. Yes, humans do nasty things to other humans, but at what point do the numbers just don't make sense, and that's what I have seen reported. Again, I haven't looked into it, so I can't say up and down that. I just find it fascinating. Like what if there are aspects to even our daily existence that people haven't really been able to reconcile? Because it's too ridiculous. It's ridiculous. What do you mean is? There's things that live underground that take us? Those are the mole people. Again, these are all.
Speaker 1:I'm not saying any of this is true, and I'm not saying I believe any of this. I'm just saying these are these crazy theories that have been around, but so have UFO theories. So if the UFO theories turned out to be true, could any of these other crazy theories have some validity to it? You really, to be intellectually honest, you have to ask that question. You can't just dismiss it, and I know there are gonna be people listening to this. We're gonna say I believe in UFOs, but I don't believe in any of the alien abduction stuff. Well, you know that where the crops are, so the cattle mutilation.
Speaker 2:The quote unquote crazy theory that the poles are going to shift. The shifting. Yeah Well, have you seen? Then there's a new story out that there's a study that says we've pumped so much water out of the earth that the axis is shifting.
Speaker 1:Wow, so the crazy conspiracy theories that you hear one day become mainstream news articles sometime later and nobody ever calls attention to it. There was some article other article I saw about they discovered a sub-ocean deep under our ocean. There's a sub-layer of they call it water, but I don't know to what degree and the volume of that exceeds all the oceans on our surface. I'm looking at a new story right now, all right, what do you get?
Speaker 2:It says that a University of Toronto team had created an algorithm to organize telescope data to weed out interference. This new algorithm has found eight new radio signals from five different stars and they say it's probably not extraterrestrial, but they don't know why they're receiving these signals. It's just one story after another.
Speaker 1:Yeah, there's a whole. There's gonna have to be a lot of questioning of our SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence radio signals. We as a society don't use radio signals as much as we used to.
Speaker 1:We use them to some degree, but we certainly don't use them to the same degree that we did 50 years ago, and there will come a time that we won't use them at all, and one can presume that an advanced intelligence civilization does not use radio signals. So I really question the whole. Well, first of all, seti's looking for life radio signals out there when there really seems to be evidence that something is here. That's one aspect of it. But also you're looking for radio signals, which means you're looking for a signal that would have to be from a civilization roughly in our mode of development, or behind, or behind and how long ago? I mean roughly, meaning like us, from the time we created radio to now.
Speaker 1:And then, of course, with the how long it takes there to get there. When we do detect them, it's such an old signal that it doesn't reflect Right. You know, if someone, if our television signals are going out there into space and they hit some planet and they say, oh geez, what is life like on Earth? So apparently it's like I love Lucy Well, not anymore. So there's that aspect of it. You know, something we didn't talk about which is to touch on briefly, is the whole Avi Loeb Galileo project like that. He scooped the bottom of the ocean for that meteor have you followed that at all, somewhat.
Speaker 2:He didn't really find anything that you could point at and say whoa whoa. In terms of what? Grand public attention? Yes, I mean well, he's potentially found some Scientists could feel differently about it.
Speaker 1:Well, all the analysis hasn't been done. They're going to do a peer reviewed paper. If he's doing it right, he's not just like putting out claims.
Speaker 2:You know what I mean, though it's not like they said. Look at this what I found.
Speaker 1:Right, you know, but there's the potential that they think they found something anomalous.
Speaker 2:Yes now, but it's little pieces, you know, but I'm not disagreeing with you, I agree. I know you're saying like it's not like some they hold up and they go. Oh my God, it's an alien helmet.
Speaker 1:But if he does find something anomalous, this is going to give him the funding. He'll have the funding to go back and do another search where to find the object itself, because there's a quarter of that object that hit. So what we're talking about basically is 10 years ago and a meteor crashed into the Atlantic Ocean and it was picked up by sensors and they know that the United States Geospatial you know the organization that keeps track of all that they know how fast it was moving, they know a lot about it, basically, and so, because of how fast it was moving, it came from outside of the solar system, because it was moving faster than anything in the solar system. So it came from outside, so it zipped in and it crashed into our ocean about 10 years ago. So Avi Loeb, who is a professor at Harvard and he has been raising money, he's this Galileo project and the Galileo project has two aspects. He built an entire suite of sensors on top of the Harvard Observatory to detect everything in the sky. You know, infrared ultra sensor, basically detect UFOs and said we're just gonna duplicate this and then scan the sky. And you know we don't have to depend on the government releasing top secret files, we'll just collect our own. So that's the first aspect of it.
Speaker 1:But the other aspect of his project is that he wanted to raise money to go out to the ocean to scoop the bottom of the ocean floor with a magnet and pick up any residual. He also scooped the bottom of the ocean floor outside of the zone with a meteor crashed so he could make sure that anything he got the sphere spherules, which are the tiny little metallic things that they got they didn't pick any of them up outside of, so they're. They did it like a test case to say you know, this is where the meteor isn't. We're gonna scoop the bottom of the ocean floor, and they did that in a few places, I think. Then they scooped the bottom of the ocean floor in the place where they thought the meteor had been and they had good information about that and they basically found something and they brought it back and it's being.
Speaker 1:There's gonna be by the end of this month again, by the end of this month, end of July. There's gonna be something information coming in about that. But initial analysis is that it is not something usual. What that means, we don't know yet, but that's huge as well. So again, I keep saying it, it's the accumulation of all these things that's gonna hit. Is that? You know, at what point does all of it kind of connect? And it doesn't need to connect with everybody, it just needs to connect with some, especially those who are like influencers and people who are gonna like step out and go hey, all my followers, I'm taking an interest in this thing. Maybe you should too. And that is the thing to get people interested. What do the people they admire show interest in? And that is what you're gonna hit is these people with huge followings who are gonna be saying I think there's something here. And the next thing, you know, everyone's gonna be asking the questions.
Speaker 2:It's gonna be fun, like we talked about before. Right, you know, use the analogy we use today about it. When the Gorillaz, when the Silverbacks, finally realized what was happening, it wasn't good. Yeah, you know what I mean, so I hope we're not the Gorillaz.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's. We will see what happens with that. Actually, I'm pausing for a second because this volume has been down all am.
Speaker 2:I we're on two and three.
Speaker 1:Oh, thank God. Okay, we're on two and three, all right. All right, we had that issue before. That's right, that's right, and actually we haven't even had these on no, so we don't even know what we sound like. I've got to hope we sound good. Yeah, I mean us discovering that there's something there could trigger a next step.
Speaker 2:It might not be triggering it, it just might be. You could, I mean that's. That's the pessimistic view, but it's certainly a view that might have some credence to it. You know, if, if somebody is somebody, something has much more power than we do, right, what, what? Whenever you figure out who they are? It's not, it might not be the best thing, that's all.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, whatever we go through, next?
Speaker 2:I don't know. I just don't know if, after all this, we're going to say, hey, we're collaborating with these.
Speaker 1:It's just. I just don't know if that's going to happen.
Speaker 2:I'd love it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, whatever we go through next, it's going to be. It's going to be tough, like it's. It's not going to be an easy ride. No change ever is. Think of any change that we have encountered in our, our society. You know the printing press, like you know things that change the world greatly the automobile, those things that change the world, how we're reacting to social media and the internet. We're just really now discovering that not everything about the system we put in place for social media, not everything about that system, works great and it has some unintended consequences. And I think this is one of those lessons that we, as humans, have to learn is nothing is ever entirely good or entirely bad. Most things are some combination, depending on different circumstances. There are some events that are very good for some people and very bad for others. Even war war is really good for some people really bad for others.
Speaker 2:Well, you're looking at everything in the context of just humans, right? What animal on this planet, except maybe dogs, are better off that way here?
Speaker 1:True Right. Probably none Right, most dogs, no planets are better off that way.
Speaker 2:here no fish.
Speaker 1:No, nothing, they're just right.
Speaker 2:They just they, if they could. Their life would be better if we didn't exist.
Speaker 1:It's probably a reason, but there's probably a reason why we exist and I think we need to.
Speaker 2:we now, the answer to that could be very profound, and I think it would be, but it might not be as profound as we think it might be Maybe not. You know what I mean. That itself, like we talked about what could shake people to the core finding out we're really not as important as we thought we were to this universe could seriously have an effect on people's psyche.
Speaker 1:Yeah, well, yeah, once you, once we don't, once we realize, or possibly realize, that we're not even that important to this planet, right, like, let's be honest, this planet's been around a long time. We've only been around for a very, very small fraction of that. If this planet continues on and we don't, then what are we? We're just a footnote, you know, like. And then, of course, there's obviously a question of were we the first and was there anything before us that we don't know about? You know, is that have any connection to what we're encountering with these things today?
Speaker 2:Right, you were alluding to the missing link and all that stuff earlier right. What made us start? What if? What if let's say, let's just say, because there are theories that we are the result of some sort of genome experiment or something like that, right, what if that was the case? And whatever we're seeing now they're coming and saying because they're saying to themselves it didn't work, right, look, you know what guys? We gave you a chance and we keep giving you chances, and look what you're doing.
Speaker 1:You know what? I wouldn't blame it, and it's too bad because I feel like we're missing this opportunity to be. There's a reason why we exist. Whatever that reason is, it's not just to accumulate shit and shuffle pieces of paper towards each other. You know, like that's really all we do. We accumulate shit and we move little pieces of paper around, call it money or call it whatever. We just shuffle it around, goes here, goes there, goes there, and that obsesses our whole life, and our whole life is built around this idea of this.
Speaker 1:And now, all of a sudden, you have a disrupting agent artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence suddenly makes a large portion of that thing that we thought made us special. Yeah, it can do it as well. It can think it can do this work. So maybe we have to figure out something different. That's why I keep going back to this is that we need to have a really serious thought about what we've been doing with accumulation and production, and consumption has been necessary to get us on the path to here we're here now. I think we gotta figure out something different. I think and you make a very good point human nature, greed, yes, the only thing standing between us and a better future is us, and it doesn't look like that's gonna change anytime soon.
Speaker 2:But we have to hey, listen, I'm a Trekkie.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:We need to look at the Federation. They figured it out.
Speaker 1:They did figure out and you know what?
Speaker 2:you know, but again, it didn't come. If you follow that stuff, it didn't come until it was disaster for humanity. And I know I'm gonna get this and the Vulcans.
Speaker 1:Of course, I'll get some shit for saying this, but I have this vision. Can you imagine if people got up every day? Right, we already do that. They get up every day and from the point they've done nothing and from that point they've done nothing. But in that nothingness they have a place to sleep, a place to eat. They ain't gonna die. You're good, you get everybody on the level ground where nobody's gonna die. But what if our lives existed of getting up? Yeah, we're gonna die. Our lives existed of getting up and doing something we love and somehow that makes us enough resources to be able to live the life we could, meaning that everybody got up and did everybody's thing that they enjoy.
Speaker 1:Somebody else is willing to pay for some aspect of it. You know any hobby in the world, you know you like to fish. Well, there's some people who like to eat fish, but they don't wanna go catch it. There's some people who like to, you know, be taken out on boats. Like anything that somebody enjoys can be monetized to some way, to some other group of people in some way shape or form. So there is a world where everyone gets up in the morning and everyone does something that they actually enjoy, that they actually feel strongly about Enjoying it?
Speaker 2:you can. Why don't you monetize it? It makes it not as enjoyable Possibly.
Speaker 1:but I'm saying like in the larger sense. I guess those are all valid things, but I'm just saying in a larger sense. People got up and did things that they who's gonna work on the Suez for us. Ai and that's oh okay. This is why I was gonna say, because I don't know anyone that probably says they enjoy it. We are at a very unique position where potentially in a very short period of time machines could do all of the unpleasant tasks in society. Machines could do it in many cases.
Speaker 2:So what would your solution be for those people that had those jobs?
Speaker 1:We need to re.
Speaker 2:No in this context.
Speaker 1:In this context, we need to just say your job does not define you anymore. That's why a universal basic income, that's why that is like, not only is it a good idea, it is the only thing that can save us. The only thing to save us from our own like irrelevance is to say up until this point, what you did to make money to find you defines all of us right From the moment you become an adult. That is the main question what are you going to do to make money to live? And that is a question that occupies most people for their entire life, some people retire.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it goes back to you know, when before there was any of this you had to get up and go get something to eat.
Speaker 1:Maybe now we're at a point where that question needs to, that needs to change and we need to say okay, we can't define ourselves by what we do anymore, because we could do that when we humans were the only ones who did those things. Of course, everything needs to be done by a human. Everything that needs to get done needs to get done by a human.
Speaker 1:Over the last bunch of years we've been removing more and more things. You know, just every time we enter a machine that's something that a human once had to do, that a machine now does. And now we're hitting this point where most tasks, certainly most unpleasant tasks, can be done by machines. So rather than say, well, you who did that job, guess you don't make money anymore, I think we need to just upset the whole Apple cart and say you know, none of what any of us does matters. In that sense, let's just get us all on the even footing. And if people want to do beyond that, like, I think, everyone who ever says that, somebody who like Universal Basic Income I hear this all the time they wouldn't, people would be lazy.
Speaker 2:And some people would Some of the two would.
Speaker 1:Of course, some people would. But also, if you've been working your whole life and you finally get a break, oh, I'm all for you being lazy, but why is it that nobody ever questions the millionaires and billionaires who work 12 hour days Like, technically, nobody who's rich needs to work. They could all stop tomorrow and just be like, well, I'm rich, I don't need to work anymore. But very few of them do, right, I mean? So what is it that makes them keep going when theoretically, they could right what is the person who has who makes $50,000 a year? Why do they just kind of stop at some point? They could just stop and say, well, I make enough money. No, they always want. There's something in most people who want to make more. They want more.
Speaker 2:They want something different? Yeah, because it's inherent in a person, right?
Speaker 1:But that's all been built around our consumption system. You want stuff, you must work for stuff, and now that's all breaking down. You know Trek, or I have to say, have you ever seen the Orville, which is the sort of the Star Trek kind of. People say it's good. Highly recommend you watch the three seasons of it that are on Hulu. I highly recommend it because it's very Trek, it's very idealistic.
Speaker 2:Trek. They just keep coming out with new Star Trek shows.
Speaker 1:Yes, but what I thought was interesting is and I think Trek is kind of the same way. That's why I haven't watched it you know what their currency is Reputation, Like that's their currency, kind of in a way Meaning that why do people get up there?
Speaker 2:I get it on some level. Why do people get up in the morning?
Speaker 1:In currency. Meaning that, why do people get up in the morning, why do people go become stuff and do stuff in the fiction of that in that world Is because people want to be known as the greatest or a great chef or a great composer or a great this or a great that or a great Starship captain or whatever it is. Because we as a people find our meaning in stuff Because that's, it's impressive. But what happens when stuff's no longer impressive, like in Star Trek, when they can just hit a replicator and say make me a this.
Speaker 2:So on some level, on some level, the key to humanity moving forward is that we all and I'm not saying this isn't a bad way, I actually think it's a good way we all become hippies.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, really, and already I can hear people's, you know, heads exploding and immediately yelling words like communism, right, and this is where I just say communism and capitalism, there's two sides of a coin. We've always been some level of both.
Speaker 2:I mean, you know, or social, let's say capitalism and communism doesn't work only because you can give the same effort and get the exact. You can give a different effort and get the same result. So, that capitalism is supposed to be the opposite of that, but you're talking about something different.
Speaker 1:And I shouldn't even say let me correct myself and say capitalism is socialism, right? So there's the idea of the capitalism, you know, and then the socialism because, communism. Communism isn't the flip side of capitalism, it's not that different. But no, communism is probably the flip side of like, because capitalism and socialism are kind of, but capitalist, communist is connected to socialist but not Well, I mean we're not gonna get big theory but in this country we don't generally have pure capitalism.
Speaker 2:We have modified capitalism because we have regulations, because if you didn't have regulations, that's why we all know capitalism doesn't work in its purest form. Because if it did work in its purest form, businesses would need to be regulated. Because they have to be regulated, because they'll fuck us when they get a chance. So you won't. If you have to regulate it, that's government intervention. So you do not have pure capitalism For anyone out there. The things we do, we don't.
Speaker 1:No and also we have actually, you know, business socialism. Whenever businesses run into problems and the government comes in and bails them out, that's socialism.
Speaker 2:So it's like nobody.
Speaker 1:Nobody ever complains when the banks are like having trouble they come in and they say you know right, the banks don't complain. So that's what I'm saying, is is that we don't, so why does it have to be one or the other? It isn't now like, it isn't pure capitalism. It pure socialism, doesn't.
Speaker 2:I don't think pure capitalism exists on this planet in any socialized way.
Speaker 1:Why do we even need to get into a discussion of of which is better? Cause I think what happens a lot is when somebody attacks capitalism as being like not really working anymore, that attack is perceived as capitalism never worked, and then their defense will be well, this country wouldn't have been built without it, they're right.
Speaker 1:Why can't we just say you're right, Like the system we had. I'm not saying it was bad. I used to defend that system, voraciously defend that system. I feel like that system was good when it was good and it worked great to get us here. But be honest, look around. Can you not see it's breaking? Can you think of one experience that has gotten better? I always say this airline travel. Technologically speaking, airline travel should be a hell of a lot more comfortable and enjoyable than it is. The reason why it's not, the reason why it's being diluted, like most things, is the constant profit motivation. How do you keep the profits going up? At some point you gotta get more people to fly, Okay, but everybody's flying, who's flying? And costs are going up. How else? Oh, I guess we have to cut staff. I guess we have to, we have to trim what makes that thing enjoyable.
Speaker 2:We can all be excited about getting a bag of trail mix instead of a meal.
Speaker 1:That's the sort of right it used to be. You get on a flight, you have a nice six course meal for a three hour flight. Now it's like you get a bag of chips for a 12 hour flight. It's that kind of thing. It's making the experience less enjoyable for all of us. We're all punking ourselves. Everything has gotten less enjoyable.
Speaker 1:So can we just see at this point and look and go, wow, wouldn't it be really great if airlines ran because people need to get places and the goal of running that airline was not to make money? The goal of running the airline was to run a really good airline and you got people and, in some cases, ai, doing certain jobs. But however many humans, or however many the humans that work in the airline industry are really well compensated because they bring value. But where humans aren't needed, machines do the work Maybe machines, ticketing agents and things like that but pilots some people still like to fly with AI assistance. Like you could create a world where the people who worked in that industry were really well compensated and that anyone who used that industry had an enjoyable time and, like I, fly all the time. It's awesome and everybody could say that, not just people who are super wealthy.
Speaker 2:I agree with you, I think the issue would be, practically speaking, theoretically, I agree with you. Right, practically is where it always breaks down, Right practically my opinion is it will never happen until it sounds so dire.
Speaker 1:You gotta take everything away. Society has to collapse.
Speaker 2:Has to collapse.
Speaker 1:Which it didn't start track.
Speaker 2:Right. If you look back in history, no society ever fundamentally changed until it collapsed, right. And then it's not really. That society is not really changing, it's just a new society, so it's effed up if you think about it. Right, we still haven't figured it out. That's what I mean. You go back in time, the beginning of civilization as we know it today, which, on this podcast, we're always open to new views but as we know it today, no society ever fundamentally changed on its own, true? So that's why I really would love to see some traction to what you're talking about, right.
Speaker 1:Who knows? It's really gonna require a paradigm shift, but do you know what might be enough of a paradigm shift to actually make us start thinking?
Speaker 2:big ideas like that.
Speaker 1:Is what we're talking about. That's why it all ties together. That's why I think I don't know.
Speaker 2:That could be a reason why. What if we discovered this point to it, if you wanted to be cynical, which I think if you are a critical thinker, you have to be cynical sometimes Right. Optimistic is a Pollyanna of. But that could be a reason why the powers it be. We always like to say the government, but just to sit here and say huge corporations do not influence the government, we'd all be kind of naive, right? Having a paradigm shift is not profitable.
Speaker 1:No, you're right. You're right and we are. It's very easy to keep people like keep our minds from thinking big ideas. And Noam Chomsky, in manufacturing consent, had a very good point about you don't need to control everybody's thoughts, you just need to build barriers, certain areas, that response the respectable people talk about certain things and consider certain ideas and other ideas and other concepts and other things are outside of that and respectable people don't talk about it, and that's all you need to do. And once you make that framework, you say, okay, big ideas like is perhaps are we capitalism and communism and socialism? All these structures are artificial. They're all created. They're not again, they're not gravity, they're not time, they're not you know things that even those are actually. Time, especially, is an artificial construct, but they are. They're not something that is an immutable force like gravity. Right, they could be changed. They were made up in the first place. There's zero reason why we couldn't make it up. But you're right, we're not just gonna come to our senses and do that.
Speaker 2:I mean, at the end of the day, money is fake, everything's fake, right? And I, when I'll say that to friends of something they'll say what are you talking about? I say how can it be real If you can just print more of it? It's not real.
Speaker 1:There was a quote, and I cannot remember where it came from, but I thought it was such a great quote. It was something like us, like a society is a group of people who have agreed to forget certain things.
Speaker 1:And it's kind of like we're, you know, we're all the social contract is we all kind of agree to let some illogical things like the fact of money, like here is this thing really? It's just a concept, this you know, and sometimes, sometimes we have something physical to represent of it. But now we don't. A lot of times we don't. It's just in our bank account, it's just it's this thing that gets moved around. That's not really real, but it's so important to our life and we all just kind of accept it. And then when somebody like really brings it up and goes it's fake.
Speaker 2:You see that initial Well, versus resistance, because, of course and I get it people can have different theoretical ways of looking at things, you know. But the real way they say you're supposed to look at money is money comes from value, and it doesn't matter how much money you have. There's still just one kind of sense of value, Right? So if something is which we all agree, to.
Speaker 2:If there's a billion dollars that can be spread around, it doesn't matter how many dollars you make. There's still only a billion dollars to spread around, and people keep thinking you can make more. Yeah, people are making money, but that means someone else doesn't have any. So that's the way it works. If I have more food, there's only enough food. There's only like 10 hamburgers. If I take five of them. I don't care what you if I, how many I cut up. There's only five left.
Speaker 1:Right. And that's the only reason why something works of being a value there has to be a scarcity to have it for it to be valuable Right.
Speaker 2:Because originally it was gold.
Speaker 1:Right, and here's the gold. I have some gold. You don't have the gold. I gave you the gold. Now I don't have the gold.
Speaker 2:You have the gold, but it's a physical thing.
Speaker 1:Then gold became money and it represented it, and then, of course, then the gold slipped away. And so at what point? We agree that the money has a meaning. But I could print my own currency up. I could go home and create a really cool looking $100 bill and if I go out and try to spend it I could swear up and down that it's real currency. But I'm the only one who believes in it and nobody's gonna take it. But yet there's other $100 bill that has been Franklin on it. We all accept that that one is valuable. It's just we all agreed to a certain sense of delusional thinking.
Speaker 1:We've all disagreed and go this piece of paper has value and everybody would look and go well, clearly it doesn't. It's just the thing, yeah, but can we all agree that it has value? All right, I guess we can agree with that, and that works as long as we all agree. Once we don't, once we start to doubt, that hurts. Once we reject, it all falls down.
Speaker 2:So that's it's which, in real time this, you know this powers to be the trying to do that it's. Have you seen? China, russia and India South Africa was part of it. They backed out. They're all those three countries which are large countries economically and population-wise. They are gonna start trying to have their. It's called BRICS or something like that. Bri, they are going to have their own dollar system backed by gold.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so that's Competing systems. There's already been lots of movement as far as, like, the dollar and oil is a whole, like it's all-.
Speaker 2:No, that's intertwined Right it's.
Speaker 1:We're at a very weird inflection point and, yeah, it's gonna be fun to watch it roll out, but I really just don't think people are cognizant of how much the world is gonna change and even if some of the stuff they feel like they can ignore, it comes a certain point where it's gonna affect them. Oh yeah, but all right, so we have gone way off topic, but this I think we still had a good episode here. But, yeah, I think that's a good place to wrap it up and we will be bringing you more, because we have AI to talk about, we have the hearings to talk about, we have a lot going on and I think we need to find ways of even if we do like a remote broadcast and stuff, we gotta figure a way to do more, because there's gonna be a lot more for us to cover.
Speaker 2:Yes, we're falling behind, I agree.
Speaker 1:But for now, I think that's where we'll wrap it up, so until next time, I'm Chris and I'm Steve and we've been talking about some deep shit, yeah.
