(Not So) Deep Sh*t with Chris & Steve
(Not So) Deep Sh*t with Chris & Steve
(Not So) Deep Sh*t on Conspiracy Theories (Part 1)
Could conspiracy theories hold more truth than fiction? In this episode, Chris and Steve dive into government secrets, UFO coverups, and historical mysteries that challenge our understanding of the truth. They examine how marginalized ideas can become accepted realities, touching on cases like the JFK assassination and the Tic Tac UFO sighting with skepticism and open-minded inquiry.
This episode isn't just a look at past mysteries; it's a present-day exploration of human psychology and the pursuit of knowledge. We'll dissect courtroom tactics used to discredit conspiracy theories and the ease with which complex arguments can be dismissed. Prepare to have your convictions challenged and your curiosity ignited. From the technology of UFOs to unexplored scientific theories, Chris and Steve explore how new discoveries impact our understanding of the universe.
PART ONE
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 to talk about some more deep shit. Steve, how's it going? Pretty good. Chris, how are you doing? Not too bad. We're two shows in a row, we're on a roll.
Speaker 2:Here we are in soon to be three in a row. That's right. I'm pretty excited that we're going to be doing this with more consistency.
Speaker 1:Yes, that is the goal. So you will hear from us on a more regular basis, and that is our goal for 2024.
Speaker 2:All perfection requires consistency. That's right and that's our goal. That is our goal.
Speaker 1:So far, we have not done a good job of it, but we will get better. No, that's where their goal. So far, we have not done a good job of it, but we will get better. No, that's why they're goals. So what is going on? What are we talking about today?
Speaker 2:Well, we were talking about a few things in our pre-production discussions and I think maybe today we're going to talk about our thoughts on conspiracy theories overall, and maybe some of our ones that are more interesting to us. Uh, how are you? How are you feeling?
Speaker 1:yeah, we've touched on this a little bit now. This is this is not going to be a deep dive into any of these conspiracy theories, but one of the things we've started talking about, steve and I, is just the all the conspiracy theories, whether you're talking ufos, whether you're talking jfk, whether you're talking moon landing and others that we can, you know, we can discuss. There are certain parallels to how how those conspiracy theories just sort of develop or how people perceive them. It's interesting just the idea of conspiracies.
Speaker 2:Right, and I think we touched on this in our last episode. But I think that you know, if you look for conspiracy theories, you'll find them, right. If you think, if you're the type of person that doesn't, um, uh, prescribe to that, then you won't find them. But I think that, um, there are super interesting ones. I think there are maybe not so interesting ones, but I think they're all around us and I think that even in current type of events, what might've been a conspiracy theory at one time, you know, decades later, it turns into fact. So I just I've always find this type of subject very interesting.
Speaker 1:I've always had a problem with the idea of the term conspiracy theory, because if you think about it, conspiracy theory has that tone. Oh, it makes you sound like kind of a nut job, right. But if you dissect it, what is a conspiracy? A conspiracy is multiple parties conspiring to some end. Well, isn't that in every crime or every there's always people conspiring, yeah.
Speaker 1:Right, I mean as long as there's not just one person involved, then it's a conspiracy because there's two or more people working together. To some, I guess the implication is it's an illicit end, right, a conspiracy theory. But then that I mean generally. Yeah, that second term theory, you're theorizing that there's a conspiracy. Okay, again, if just taking the words at their own value, not what we've put into those words a theory that there is a conspiracy, we have that all the time. I mean, police operate on that all the time. Hey, there's a crime that's been committed. We have a theory on who committed the crime. If it's more than one person, then it's a conspiracy because they were conspiring together to commit this crime.
Speaker 2:Right, as long as it wasn't just some spontaneous thing they did together. If they thought about it ahead of time and talked to each other in any way, there was some communication ahead of time what they were going to do. That's a conspiracy.
Speaker 1:Right. So if taken on its own, the term conspiracy theory, there is nothing about that term that should evoke any kind of negative connotation. It's the meaning that has been put behind that term. It's the meaning that has been put behind that term.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, I've enjoyed conspiracy theories long before I thought enjoying them, saying conspiracy theory was somehow looked down on by some people.
Speaker 1:Now you could argue that being a conspiracy theorist is someone who's just paying attention. You could make that argument.
Speaker 2:I mean know, I mean what they took down, I mean it's super kind of current. I don't mean to cut you off, but they, you know, during 2020 I'm not going to get super political, but, um, and I'm not a super political person, so I'm just, that's why I'm not going to get super political, but, um, uh, you know, different, uh, uh, different sources of information, let's say, would put out there, maybe that during the coronavirus that emanated from a lab in Wuhan, well, those, you're racist, right, that's misinformation, that's this, that's that. Well, you know, fast forward a few years, years. We think it came from a lab in china.
Speaker 1:Now, if you say it, you, your comments, do not get taken down from social media and what's interesting too is that some of the people who who were so against that idea kind of talk now. Oh, of course, we already always knew that and that's a very common thing that you do to shut down. You know, talk of these things as you, you deny, deny them, but then when they're inevitably shown to be true to some, oh, we knew that that's not that's, that's not really important.
Speaker 1:And they do that with UFOs, they do that with you know any any of the conspiracy. I have always said that's one of the reasons why the UFO secret is held so closely by elements within our government intelligence agency. Because what would happen if they came forward and said okay, we, we don't want you to believe in conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories are bad, don't believe in them. Oh yeah, but this, this one, that, this, this one about ufos, that sort of launched conspiracy that happens to be true, but none of the others are. Well, the JFK one maybe, that I mean everyone kind of accepts that the CIA offed Kennedy, but none of the others are true. Well, maybe the coronavirus one, but none of the others.
Speaker 1:Once you get into that realm where you start oh, this one's true, but don't believe in conspiracy theories. You cannot let any of them be proven true, because there goes your best weapon of shutting things down Conspiracy theory still works. If you call someone a conspiracy theorist, the implication is immediately oh, they're crazy, right. So it's worth examining where that term conspiracy theory came from.
Speaker 2:I think we might have touched on it before. Um, I'm not absolutely positive where it came from and, like I said, I think maybe I'm a little aloof when it comes to some of this stuff because, um, for years that I've been enjoying this kind of stuff. It only dawned on me maybe 10 years ago or so that it was kind of I don't know, would you say people that enjoy this type of stuff.
Speaker 2:I wouldn't call it fringe, I wouldn't really call it fringe that's what it's been called, though I has but I just feel like, as time it's funny, as time has gone on in my life I feel like when I talk people some of the stuff I talked about 30 years ago and people said, steve, what's going on Now, they'll just they'll say oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, that could be.
Speaker 1:You know it's Gets a different reception. It really does. I think people are starting to notice that maybe not every conspiracy theory that's out there is true, but a lot of them have some weight and it's very easy to dismiss any topic if you don't look into it. I mean, that's one of the things that I always get annoyed at with people who instantly shut down a lot of these things, who've done zero research right, and they'll oh, you did research into that, how silly. I've done none and I'm going to tell you from up on high that all that's crap.
Speaker 1:And then you try to point out individual things. And I don't know about that. I didn't, I didn't look into that and it's a self-defense mechanism that people sort of have where they they don't want to look into something that they don't want to be true. So ignorance is bliss and you know they can deny it exists if they don't look into it. And um, I I see this with a lot of those. You know ufos, primarily because that's the. That's the topic that I most look into on a regular basis. It's amazing the amount of people out there who will be like there's nothing to all this. But I've not looked into any of it, but I'm going to tell you there's nothing in any of it. How can you say that?
Speaker 2:Well, I think some people with different, all different conspiracy theories, their ultimate I don't want to say defense, but I'll use that as a term that we can understand their ultimate pushback maybe to the conspiracy theory is well, if there was evidence of it, we would have seen it, right. Right, that's generally how it's proposed. Well, if there was a ufo, we haven't where how? Come it hasn't landed on the white house lawn right? Well, if there was big foot, how come he doesn't just walk out onto the highway right?
Speaker 1:I mean I'm being kind of right facetious now, but that is, that's kind of how it goes yeah, it's funny too. I've heard that one about the the white house lawn. Why don't I just land on the white house lawn? Well, in the early 50s something buzzed the capitol, uh a bunch of story right, and it was in the paper. It wasn't just a story, that's what I mean.
Speaker 1:The story was it was right, what I mean. It. The story was in the paper. Ufos I'm talking about, you know was taken seriously by the people and it went away for years and then it became a joke and it's kind of come back, because now you will regularly see serious stories, but they're always couched in, you know, drones Drones is the new term that you use now to kind of you know, if you say drone, what do most people think of? What do you mean when you say the word drone? Oh, they're drones. What do most people think of? What do you mean when you say the word drone? Oh, they're drones. What do most people think of? They think of those quadcopter drones that we see.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's kind of the only thing I know.
Speaker 1:Right. So they use that term. Now with UFOs, they'll refer to them as drones, because they know that most people when they hear drones they say, oh, okay, so that's just a drone. So somebody has a drone, not a big deal. Um, okay, did they have those in the in the 40s, in the 50s, in the 60s? And really they had drones like that commercially? No, they didn't have them commercially available.
Speaker 1:And that's a trick of of shutting down conspiracy theories in general, but talking about the ufo one, it's a good trick is you isolate what you're talking about, disprove that little part and then use that to wipe the whole thing. So yeah, I'm sure you've seen that, you know in in court and you know people will use try to narrow the argument down, disprove that little piece of the argument and and try to imply that that invalidates the whole thing, when they're not really invalidating the whole thing. They're invalidating that small piece of it, but they're trying to conflate it all with that piece. So when you poke a hole in that, oh, it's all, it's all poked a hole in.
Speaker 2:Well, that's exactly how, at least in the civil side of law, I practice civilly generally and well, exclusively. Now that's exactly how it goes. So sometimes people say the defense has a little bit of an easier job because of it. So in terms of that, so my job is to build a case right and present that built case to the jury right. Here's how everything happened, and here's this and here's that right.
Speaker 2:The defense just has to get up there and poke holes in the case, which is easy to do. They don't have to have their own case right. So I understand that it's the plaintiff's obligation to prove their case, which is easy to do. They don't have to have their own case right. So I understand that it's the plaintiff's obligation to prove their case. I understand the way it works, but the dynamics of it. It's much easier to sit back and just listen to someone's story and say, ah, I know you said 10 things. I can show one of them might not be exactly what you said and so, because I showed one of them, maybe isn't exactly what you said, maybe you shouldn't believe the other nine. That's kind of how it goes.
Speaker 1:Right, and I think it goes back to something we may have talked about before the difference between arguing facts and arguing conclusions, Because facts, by their nature, should be unassailable. A fact should be a fact. That is a thing you know, that you know it to be true. Now the conclusion you take from those facts you can argue with.
Speaker 1:You know, just because what's that old saying it's connection is not causality. Just because two things are connected doesn't mean that they caused each other or that there's a there's a direct correlation there. It's just they're connected, right? You'd have to have a lot more to show that this thing is connected to this thing, right. And that's how you get to. Where you're talking about is, if you build up all these pieces and then they poke a hole in even one of them, then use that as an excuse to say the rest of them, rest of them fall down. But it's a common tactic that you use. I mean, that's what you do, right?
Speaker 2:So what is some of your? I know you enjoy, as I do, the whole UFO UAP, however you want to describe that type of discussion phenomenon. However you want to talk about it, I know you really enjoy it. Call it a conspiracy theory.
Speaker 1:I mean call it a conspiracy theory because it is at its core. Again not putting judgment into the word conspiracy theory. It is a theory that there is a conspiracy among some people in government to hide something which I think is the granddaddy of all conspiracy, which again is another reason why they don't want that one to to be proven true, because if the granddaddy is is true, then the rest um other ones that interest me. At the JFK one always has I think it has most people um, which is funny because I don't think you can find many people who will argue that the official narrative of JFK's assassination is what happened, like I think we all understand through the movie JFK and through everything that's come out. Maybe we're not sure what happened, but we're pretty sure something sketchy's gone on there.
Speaker 2:Is an interesting discussion only because, well, many reasons why. But one reason I'm thinking of is there's so many aspects of that whole situation that are very questionable, right. There's many aspects that are probably say okay, that's exactly what happened, right. And there's others you say hmm, how did?
Speaker 2:that happen, right? Or that's really weird, right? And most people just will. I think most people. If you just sat down or talked to people and said what do you think of this and that, the other thing with this story? Yeah, those two things. I don't know if that's true, you know, but overall it's probably true, right? So it's something that is just so ingrained in our society that Lee Harvey Oswald is the one that did it, right, that it's almost like you're, you're overlooking the bad qualities. When you meet somebody for the first time, you know, and you're like oh man, I really like her, you know.
Speaker 2:But you know, yeah, yeah, she might be kind of crazy, but you know I'm overlooking the things I shouldn't be overlooking.
Speaker 1:Well, that's the bias that everyone has and that's something you got to really be careful of when you're when you're advocating a position is that if you show any outright bias, then that can be used as an excuse and possibly a justifiable reason to then say okay, the weight of your argument is somewhat diminished because you're biased towards one of the things I'm sure one could accuse me of that with UFOs, that I am more inclined to believe that they exist than that they don't. Actually, that's a silly thing to say. Of course they exist. The government has that's part of the thing that has held us back on that topic specifically is not advancing the conversation. The conversation in the media is still frequently do you believe in UFOs? I think my brother said that to me at one point because we were chatting about it and he's like well, do you believe in UFOs? And I was like that's not a question you should even be asking. There is no belief in it. I was like that's not a question you should even be asking. There is no belief in it. Ufos, unidentified flying objects, something's flying around. Your government has come out and said yes, something is flying. Now they're downplaying it and telling you not to worry about it and calling it drones, but obviously something's going on, it's what. That's the question. And with the JFK, I think we all can, you know, agree that something went on, something fishy by.
Speaker 1:You know, the main thing is how come the documents haven't been released? You know we're talking 70 years. They release them in dribs and drabs, but there's a core amount of documents that years ago were cleared for release. But there's a core amount of documents that years ago were cleared for release. And what's funny is that every president, both sides, has pushed off the release of it. I remember hearing that George Bush Sr pushed off the release of those files and then, next thing, you know, it fell into the Clinton administration. They pushed off those files and then you had the George, you know, w Bush Same thing. So it's not even a party thing, it's both sides have continuing.
Speaker 1:Biden did it, again pushed it, trump did it too. I mean, a lot of people said, oh, trump's going to release everything. And then the JFK files came up and he agreed to push it off and push it to the next. You know, came up and he agreed to push it off and push it to the next. You know, whatever, I think. However, number of years pushes it into the next administration, right, right. And then biden did the same right. So I think anyone with a reasonable mind could say all right, there's something they don't want to get out? Well, it's in it's, it's um.
Speaker 2:It makes me wonder. Only because Biden, I think it was 2023, they released-.
Speaker 1:Another bucket of, yeah, a bunch of them.
Speaker 2:But there's still 4,000 something documents still haven't been released.
Speaker 1:And what argument could you use for not releasing those documents? I mean a lot of times. What argument is used is well, we can't give up sources and methods because that's what's classified. I think a lot of people don't understand with classification because that's what's classified. I think a lot of people don't understand with classification. Legally, the government is not supposed to classify things to prevent embarrassment to either itself or other entities they're not supposed to cover. You know, use classification to hide misdeeds. The only legal use of classification for the government is to hide sources and hide methods. Classification for the government is to hide sources and hide methods.
Speaker 2:So, reasonably speaking, there probably aren't any sources or methods from 70 years ago that are still relevant in today's world, right? Well, even that, that might even be a red herring, that kind of argument, only because I believe, chris, that when that, I don't want to say excuse, but I'll use the word excuse because I can't think of another one.
Speaker 1:Justification maybe.
Speaker 2:Justification. That's better. It sounds so much nicer.
Speaker 1:More syllables is always better.
Speaker 2:Yeah, but justification sounds more serious, right? So when that justification is made regarding UAPs, ufos, whatever is the acronym of the day, I can say, oh, okay, I can see the national security argument. Oh, definitely Right, because we're dealing with something maybe that is being seen, that is in the air, right, and there was a time and it still, I think, is true that a lot of times it's on the coasts. So, yeah, all right, how you're detecting them, that could be national security, a whole bunch of things, right, right you?
Speaker 1:don't want to give the enemy, and the enemy being you know, let's just say Russia, china that's considered our enemies right, or anyone, any, any. You don't want to let them know the full extent of you know what our sensors pick up and what they don't.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 1:You don't want to let them know. You know, necessarily everywhere where we can detect stuff Right, necessarily everywhere where we can detect stuff right. Um, you know there have been cases where we've detected stuff but we pretended we haven't in order to. So you know, I know there's a story with world war ii where the allies broke um the axis. The nazis had a code and we broke it, but we didn't let them know we broke it, so some things were allowed to happen that shouldn't have been allowed, because if we had intervened, it would have given away that we cracked the code because they're waiting for the bigger prize, kind of bigger prize, right. So you're right, there is a justification to that. But again, 70 years on the jfk one.
Speaker 2:There's nothing. I here's where I have a problem with that being used as an excuse. I just think there needs to be some explanation, because who are you talking to? Where were you getting information from? If your investigation led you to a lone gunman, right, that was living in the area and decided by himself to shoot the president, what were you doing and where were you going to get information and why were you going there?
Speaker 2:If it's a national security threat Because there's not many crimes that I can think of I understand this is a high, high crime, but at the end of the day it's a murder, right, and if it's just one person alone, it's not a conspiracy, so you're dealing with one person. There's probably no investigation in this country that dealt with one person killing someone. That is talked about as national security. Now, I understand it's the president, right. But if we're to believe the story as we're told, lee Harvey Oswald had no national security interests with JFK. He was just a nut that decided to kill him. They've never told us anything that there was some kind of that. Lee Harvey Oswald was somehow on the same level as JFK and figuring things out.
Speaker 1:No, but they were odd. Again, it's the facts that make that build the case right. There's a lot of facts and I'm not a scholar on the JFK assassination. I you know this was one of those things I looked into years ago. I read some things on it. There's been some recent developments but I haven't really followed it and I'd love to do a show at some point, you know, on jfk and really go deep into into the newer information. But there were some really interesting connections with with oswald and rush. They like there were connective tissue there that he wasn't just a random nut who had no connection to anything else and just decide, hey, I'm going to shoot, like hinkley was who shot ray. I agree with you know, hinkley, what seems to have been an individual who had a weird obsession with jody foster and decided to shoot reagan, uh, to get her attention, which is just weird anyway. Um, it doesn't seem to be a conspiracy around that right, it didn't kill him.
Speaker 1:First of all, he survived and in you know, um hinkley actually went to jail and he's out now, which blows my mind. Yeah, you know, he shot a president and he got out from some years back, but that's different than oswald, who there was other connections with cuba and with russia. It was a weird mix of things. This guy wasn't just rando. And the fact that he was killed right after and oh yeah, and we all have watched tv shows where I mean I think we all have where that something like that happens, where an assassination takes place and then they immediately kill the assassin because that that that cuts the chain right, right, hey, this guy shot. Well, let's get some answers from that guy who shot him.
Speaker 2:Oh, he's dead now you're not getting those answers oh, um, jeffrey epstein committed suicide.
Speaker 1:You know the number of suicides, not you know, oswald was obviously shot, but the number of suicides in different conspiracy theories, just that alone. We should look at some things and go, wow, do the number of suicides match up with the numbers of just in general, if you're taking the general population and suicides, does it match? I don't know, I've never done that, I've never done that calculation, but it'd be an interesting calculation to do and say, okay, here's the general population and how many people commit suicide. Now here the pool of people from these various conspiracies and the number of people within that who have committed suicide. Are those numbers higher than the general population? Oh, or are they in line?
Speaker 2:What is the number? Okay, you take any large group of?
Speaker 1:that's a good question. I wouldn't even know how to begin looking at that, but that's a direction to come at and say, okay, does this break the mold of what we're used to seeing, as far as people killing themselves both at the same time fuel additional conspiracy and, let's face it, people do often do that and cause harm to themselves and others without any grand reason. It's just I don't know. It seems to me that in the case of a lot of whistleblowers and things like that I don't know the number of them that go that end up, you know, at their own hand ending their life it's just enough to go. All right, that's weird, like the second you know Boeing whistleblower. I don't know, it's just true.
Speaker 2:He didn't kill himself.
Speaker 1:He died of a sudden disease that came on suddenly to a very healthy person and died in a short period of time. So yes it's, it's a different death than the first one. I don't know what he died of, but it's just weird because that's another one that was like causing them. One could say, like we talked about the first one, right, if that, look, if the first whistleblower really did do that to himself, it was very fortunate for Boeing, like very fortunate, like if they had nothing to do with it.
Speaker 2:It was just a fortunate thing. Let's say it this way it's fortunate for Boeing in terms of the case.
Speaker 1:Well, in that right.
Speaker 2:If the whistleblower is to be believed. I don't want to make like we know that this happened, but I agree with you.
Speaker 1:I mean his, his information he was given was not, was not it?
Speaker 2:was not in question. I want to talk about that Boeing thing, but what I meant on the Oswald one, Chris, was that the story the government tells us has nothing to do with anything. National security, Nothing, right? So okay, the first question I would have is let's just say they were investigating something that could have national security implications, right? Why were you even doing it? Like, what were the reasons for you to even be investigating those things? I think the American public deserves that answer. Why were you looking into things that could be national security? If your official story is, he was this nut that just wanted to shoot the president? That's the question.
Speaker 1:What were you wasting all these resources on if those turned up to nothing, those who were involved in the warren commission.
Speaker 2:You know some have said, you know the the they already had decided what the result was going to be and then fit the facts to to there's an interesting phone call and when we do our episode I'm going to get the uh audio of it. We can play it, right, and because the Warren Commission was some judges and some senators right, it was all Washington people and I'll get the name. But there was one of the senators that was very friendly with Lyndon Johnson, right, so they record all the phone calls in and out of the White House, right? So he calls Lyndon Johnson just after one of the meetings and they're talking. They're like hey, what's going on? He says yeah, they keep trying to say it was just one guy that killed Kennedy or the president or whatever. However they said it. And Lyndon Johnson says, well, I don't believe that. Right, he says me either, it couldn't have been just one person. This is, I'm kind of paraphrasing.
Speaker 2:But that's how it went. And they said well, you know, they're just going to push this forward and I don't really think there's anything we can do except agree with it. This is the. That was the conversation, right. So even back then, the guy that became the president is saying yeah. So even back then, the guy that became the president is saying yeah, I don't really believe it was just one guy, right, and that has a lot of weight to me and some parts of that of the overall conspiracy theory, even link Lyndon.
Speaker 1:Johnson with yes, I don't know about that he's made and things that he said about the Kennedy boys. It's an interesting time, too for this one to circle back around only because Robert F Kennedy Jr Right Is out there doing his thing.
Speaker 2:And I think you can go on different trails on the Kennedy thing, because there were a lot of people that didn't like them.
Speaker 1:Right when I say them, john, and Robert, they didn't like the family.
Speaker 2:But there's people I don't like. That doesn't mean I'm involved in a conspiracy to kill them, right. So I think sometimes you get off the trail. But and I know, yeah, there's, there is some. There is stories that John F Kennedy and Johnson didn't get along um, famously Um, and that Johnson was pretty much used by Kennedy to carry certain parts of the country, this whole, but that's always. But I mean, there's one thing about not getting along with somebody and trying to do that?
Speaker 1:Yeah, I don't think it's not getting along. I think if, if there were a conspiracy to to kill him and a conspiracy to kill his brother, which both, both of those gentlemen, another guy killed by a lone crazy guy.
Speaker 1:Right, it's not because of that, it's. It's usually boils down to moneyed interests or, oh right, ever. And there's a lot of evidence. A lot of evidence, including what rfk jr will will frequently say, is that you know his dad and his uncle both had said at various times that they were uncomfortable with the degree of autonomy that the intelligence agencies had.
Speaker 1:And it was the Bay of Pigs and there was a whole bunch of stuff with Cuba that basically our government, an arm of our government, was doing dirty things in other parts of the world that the president found out about and said I shut some of them down and said no, no, no, no, we don't operate like this and I need to do, I need to clean up the whole intelligence agency. They have way too much autonomy to do things that aren't in, that are in their interest, the national interest in their mind, but are not really things they should be doing. Oh, and then they get killed, you know. And so that's the theory, the overall theory, and I think it's supported by most people who look into this, say the CIA or elements thereof, when you talk about an organization as big as the government.
Speaker 2:The largest employer in the world.
Speaker 1:Exactly. Most of us are familiar with larger organizations, organizations maybe we work for, a big company or whatever or even a small organization. Any amount of people together, there always ends up being subgroups, right, I mean, I've anyone listening to this if they're involved in any organization that has a lot of people, whether it be you know scouts, whether it be, uh, you know scouts, whether it be you know a trade organization, there's always going to be these little pockets. There's going to be you know this group over here who and you know sometimes, most times that they are able to gel and everything's good, but that's just what happens.
Speaker 1:So, obviously, with an organization as big as the United States government, there are going to be pockets. There are going to be this group over here who tries to get their agenda through, but they have to do it in a way. They can't just ham-fisted do it because they have to operate in the parameters of the organization. But that's how it works. And, believing that a subset of the intelligence agency, we know our intelligence agencies have done dirty things Like historical they're not even they're not conspiracies, they're historical facts. Oh, we threw over this government.
Speaker 2:Well, they were at one time.
Speaker 1:Well, of course, right, the number of times like the United States has overthrown democratic governments and supported non-democratic for our own purposes, like, should make us pause and go wait a second. We always hear, oh, we're the champions of liberty and democracy around the world, and it's like, well, all right, you say that, but our actions don't seem to support that. But if you never looked into those things, like, I could even hear people out there hearing this right now Well, you're crazy. That stuff doesn't happen. Yeah, it does, it's, it's, it's in the history, like, it's not a thing that's, uh, argued about at this point. Right, it's ignored, ignore the facts that don't line up with your view of things, and ignorance is a weapon. Oh, I don't know about that. You always hear that when, if you ever watch any government spokespeople talk, I haven't seen that. I haven't seen that report. Oh, there was a report that came out that said A, b, c and D. These are damning things. Can you answer them? Well, I haven't seen the actual report, so I can't speak to it.
Speaker 2:Ignorance is a weapon you, you, you know and and um, just for uh informational purposes. In the last um the most recent year I could find, uh 2018. Out of all the deaths in the United States in 2018, 1.7% were suicides. 1.7%, so not a not a high number. Now it could be still be a lot, but in comparison to how many deaths there?
Speaker 1:are. So the question would be in the numbers. I think to, to, to look at, and I don't again, I don't even know how one would do this, but if you took all the conspiracies where people have ended their existence and it looks shady, does that number like? Is it higher than one point? Like, is it oh God, that's weird. You know, 5% of those investigating this particular conspiracy let's just say UFOs right, 5% of people involved in that have ended up dead. Okay, that's way over the 1.7% of the general population. Is it proof of anything? No, it's a data point, right and back. You know we're talking about facts and conclusions, right?
Speaker 1:one of the things that dr gary nolan he's a uh, immune immunologist at stanford and he uh he is involved in in the ufo topic and one of the things that he preaches frequently is don't argue conclusions, because conclusions are way too easy to poke a hole in. Establish the facts. The facts that cannot be, you know, cannot be countermanaged, right, these are the facts. Like I get you to say this is true. Right, this fact is true. Yes, okay, at that point it's no longer on me to give you a conclusion. It's once I've proved to you that the data is real, it's on all of us, or both of us, to postulate what could account for those facts. And when you build a certain case, like the UFO case, if you take the established facts and again, you know, if you haven't looked into them, you're going to say well, who says those are facts? I don't know, man, I can't tell you that, like these are, there are certain things that are events that actually happen, things that are actually on record.
Speaker 1:Well, I mean these are things that actually happen. Now you can try to ascribe a reason to them or like a source. Like objects flew over the Capitol in 1952. That is like it happened. It was reported, it was detected.
Speaker 2:What those objects were.
Speaker 1:And what their intent was.
Speaker 2:It's not. Nobody can say for sure, but I think what you're trying to say maybe you are, but kind of a nice way of doing it is, when you build those facts right, there is no other conclusion to come to, and if there is, let's talk about it and how does it work with this set of facts? So sometimes that's a good way of discussing it too, because somebody that says, well, you know, I don't believe it could be that, Okay then what do you think it could be and how does that work with these facts? Yes, and the only way that says, well, I don't believe it could be that, Okay then what do you think it could be and how?
Speaker 1:does that work with these facts? Yes, and the only way that works. The only way that works is when you can agree to the fact.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, Other than that, it's just.
Speaker 1:I frequently will notice that people are arguing past each other because one person is arguing facts, the other person is arguing conclusions, and they're just talking past each other because one person is arguing facts, the other person is arguing conclusions and they're just talking past each other because they're not talking about the same thing. You have to set the parameter. What are we discussing? What are the ground rules? What you know? Where do we agree? Do we agree on this part? Okay, we agree on this. Let's move up a level. Do we agree on this? Find the the exact place where you disagree and then between those disagreements. Ufos is usually the thing and they don't have any of the basic history, like they don't know about it. But yet they'll argue with this fervor about how it's all nonsense or all this or all that, and it's like, well, all right, that's your take, but don't tell me your gut feeling with established facts that we can both agree on. Can you offer up an explanation that fits the facts? And a lot of times they'll say well, yeah, us tech, right. Secret us tech, that obviously fits the facts. Secret US tech, that obviously fits the facts. Okay, it fits the facts, I guess, if you start at 2004. That's what will frequently be done.
Speaker 1:To cap the subject, I noticed with the UFO subject in particular, what the government has cleverly done is they've cleverly made it seem like we're going to start talking about this as of 2004,. The Nimitz let's talk about the Nimitz and everything that happened after the Nimitz, because if you talk about that, then you can build a case that it's secret. Us tech Doesn't really hold up when you really start to look at the details. But you could at least make the case. You could say, oh well, 2004,. I mean, it's believable that we or Russia or China could have technology like this? Okay, if you go from 2004. Now let's go back to the 60s or the 50s or the 40s. Now your pool of possible answers is going to get smaller. If you're talking about the 40s and 50s, you really can't argue that it's Chinese technology, china did not have any technology in the 40s and 50s.
Speaker 2:Well, you know, that whole argument too I have a hard time with.
Speaker 1:Only because, if that kind of technology exists, right generally technology hard to believe it would come out in some way yeah, it would be somewhere.
Speaker 2:And um, let's just say russia right now fighting ukraine. Why would they not use something like that?
Speaker 1:right, that's that's the question, right, I mean something like that. Right, that's the question right. I mean Something at least. There's the thing about if it's our technology, us secret technology why, why would we ever fly that around our own active service people and not tell them? Like that's a recipe for disaster. You're flying some top secret tech that you haven't told anyone about around where they're doing active air drills, so that doesn't make sense. And then you say, well, it could be Russia or China or some other agency. Okay, so that's an issue, right.
Speaker 1:I mean, if a foreign nation is flying stuff in our protected airspace, it's kind of important. Have you ever heard a resolution to any of those things? Like, we found out it was Russia, we found out it was no, just drop it. But if you circle back around you say, well, what happened with that? Like it's important. If you take the whole of all the UFO data, all of it, you could certainly make an argument that it's not aliens, that it's not this or not that, but man, it's very hard to find something that fits all the facts.
Speaker 2:Well, I'll tell you, with that Nimitz thing, the part that boggles my mind is if it's well, first of all, we don't know what that is, so it's perfectly, I think, okay for anyone to call that a ufo and anyone that even doesn't believe in ufos, right? I mean, I'm kind of doing my air quotes here, right?
Speaker 2:even if you don't really believe in that I guess that's what you'd call it, because you don't know what it is Like. What else do you call it Right? So my thing always was okay, this is off the coast of California, right? Okay, where did it come from? Because if that thing could fly from China, oh my God, how did it make it all the way over here? Right, there was no. Is there a carrier around somewhere From China? Oh my God, how did it make it all the way over here? There was no. Is there a carrier around somewhere? How did this thing get to where it is?
Speaker 1:That would be, to me, the national security thing and those are those bits of facts that when you have them it makes the difference, but when you don't have them, it's easy to believe an alternative, like I'll hear people very seriously say well, that's probably, you know, foreign tech spying on us. First of all, why aren't you more freaked out by that? Right, you think that we'd get pretty freaked out by that. But OK, it's foreign tech spying.
Speaker 2:Well, we don't get freaked out by TikTok spying on us From where, though?
Speaker 1:From where, like you said? Where is this coming from? Our best fighter jets can only go up for so long they need to refuel, like they cannot fly endlessly for hours upon hours, upon hours. They have to be fueled.
Speaker 2:As far as we know, we don't have anything like like was being seen by our fighters right right, as far as we know, not even close, though.
Speaker 1:no, you know, one of the interesting thing is military technology, they say, is generally I've heard it everywhere from 30 years to 50 years ahead of commercial Right. The military has it 30 to 50 years before everybody else has it.
Speaker 2:And they have it in a way that's not a marketable way of doing it.
Speaker 1:Well, remember when we first heard about drones Right, when did we first really start hearing about drones? Kind of during the iraq war, right. That was kind of when drones yeah, I was gonna say the 90s, yeah, right, but they were like military, like there was no individuals who could afford any kind of small drone technology no, like you see all the time now, like literally, I see it on the beach constantly.
Speaker 1:I'll see people just setting up and having their little thing and I mean you can, drones are a couple hundred bucks, well, you know, the one thing that I've always really enjoyed was the Bob Lazar thing, and I liked that when I was younger.
Speaker 2:But the part that always blew my mind was when he put it. He said he had this technology, put his hand on something, right. And so how many years later? Right. And so eventually it was said, yeah, okay, we did have that technology. They came out and said it right, and it was a long time. The. The first type of thing I could think of like that was when you, you could use your, your thumbprint on your iphone, right, and that was within the last 10 years, right. So you're talking again 30, 40 years later.
Speaker 1:The biometrics stuff I remember in the 90s I was at. I don't even remember what the shows I was at. I want to say they were sci-fi shows when I used to work that circuit and selling swords back in the day. That's a whole story in itself. But there was a booth there of some technology company that was setting up early biometrics like voice-activated stuff.
Speaker 2:Do you ever hold the sword up and just yell out loud that there can be only one? Oh yeah, I'm frequently going to tell people that they look like Highlander if they get a sword.
Speaker 1:Yeah, this was back when you could do that. But what I'm saying is in the 90s there was this company there that was marketing very basic biometric voice-activated stuff. That was cutting edge. It didn't work very well. I think I played around with it. I think I may have gotten a demo or something, I don't know. I have vague memories of this and it didn't work. It didn't work great, but years later it's become a very standard thing.
Speaker 1:So you can believe now that there are drones out and you can say, ok, you go back 20, 30, 40 years, all right, I could see the military having like the early versions of this, and now, some years later, we all have it. But some of this technology that has seemed to been demonstrated, we've never had anything even close like not even close. And the interesting thing about the Tic Tac is Dave Fravor said I have not then or now seen any technology that measures up to this. And the reason why that statement is important is because his current job although they haven't disclosed what it is, they've said that his current job has him interacting with the most cutting edge of technology, flying technology that we have, so he's aware of what's in the realm of possibility. He's in, he's aware of what's even militarily possible and he says outright the technology that I saw demonstrated in 2004 in front of two of our aircrafts, with four individuals watching it. He said this under oath in the congressional hearings. You can go watch those.
Speaker 1:I still cannot believe people don't pay more attention to that. It's crazy. That technology. I have not seen anything then or now that even comes close. So think about that. That was 2004, 20 years ago, and he's working in what is the cutting edge of technology. I've seen nothing like that. That should cause us to pause and go oh, that's something Right. In the very least, we should say, okay, let's accept that it's our technology. Well, damn it. Why aren't we seeing the benefits of any of that? I get you want to use it for military first, but if there's vehicles that can exert that kind of energy, don't you think that would have a big effect on our energy crisis? You know, maybe burning oil, I mean. However those vehicles operate, they certainly don't burn gas.
Speaker 2:Well, you know, if we had technology like that, wouldn't it be easier than spending all this money on Ukraine? Just send one of these over and we could take care of everything.
Speaker 1:You know, there was a story I heard once. Care of everything. You know, there was a story I heard once. It might be apocryphal, but I I remember hearing it and it and it, um, I thought it was interesting.
Speaker 1:There was somebody and again I don't know the full details on this, so I I'm paraphrasing, but it's along the idea that it was possible that the roman empire could have invented the combustible motor, because during the Roman Empire there was an inventor of some sort that he proposed something to water the fields.
Speaker 1:That was akin to a motor. It wasn't quite there, but it was on the path that if that had been developed, you could easily see that evolving into what we later became combustible engines. Okay, right, but the idea was scrapped because they, the roman empire, had lots of slaves and one of the things they used slaves for was to water the fields. And they said, well, if we replace, then we're we're freeing them up, that That'll cause more chance of rebellion because we're taking away their productive activity. And now idleness is that idea. So it was shelved and it was forgotten and moved on right. And I think about how would our world been different if the Romans, or soon after, had invented the combustible motor. Like what? What would have spun out from that? That would have changed everything about the way our world works right.
Speaker 2:Well, it's interesting. You said go ahead, I'll let you go.
Speaker 1:But what I'm just going to say is they shelved it not because it wasn't't viable, but because it was a disruption to the current day system. It was too disruptive and that is a very much a you know, a corollary of of the ufo issue in my mind is that if, if technology exists, yeah, that can generate that much energy and take a note, calculations have been done by the data of that Tic Tac how much energy it would have had need to expel to do the things that it did, and the calculations are the amount of energy it would have taken is more than all of the nuclear power plants on earth generate. Really, it's so massive amount of power that that's the mind-boggling part like no, we wouldn't have enough energy to do that. It just wouldn't work.
Speaker 2:So obviously it's not burning gas right now, does it have to be energy in terms of um using, like when we send a rocket to space, it's energy that is being used as a countermeasure to the forces of gravity and the atmosphere. I mean, is there a calculation that can be used to make?
Speaker 1:those maneuvers, that's the calculation that they're using, is if it's using the same physics that we are, we couldn't do it Now taking that off things. Maybe it's using something different. I happen to think in a lot of the talk is gravity.
Speaker 2:You know it's a simple fact and that's again something bob lazar talked about and I know I know he's a he's a very divisive and I know he is looked at because there are things in his life where you say, oh my god, this guy's wacky right, but there's certain things that he said back then that have come true. So he right, and we talked about it a little bit. That cone of blue thing, this guy in 1980, whatever was saying I'm reverse engineering ufos. Basically that's his whole.
Speaker 1:That's his whole story the way he talked about how they operated, the way he talked about how now he's saying now?
Speaker 2:now cone of blue says well, we had a program, but you know nothing.
Speaker 1:Well, the cone of blue. Those are documents that recently were released. It was a program that was never actually. It was a proposal. It never actually became a program. It was supposed to be what osap, and that was the program that um became atip. That was. That was the program that evolved into where lou elzondo came from. But the next iteration of that when that kind of got the plug got pulled on that in 2012, I believe the next iteration of that program was this cone of blue thing in which they were going to take, uh, captured non-earth vehicles or something, the aerial vehicles that they knew to be out there.
Speaker 1:One of the things I actually have the some of the documents here oh, you do. And what I think is interesting is that one of the things it says in the opening is it's like the intent is to locate oh, I'm trying to find where that says it. It was such a good quote from it that was really kind of like we know to exist in the halls of somewhere in our government. We know to exist in the halls of in in somewhere in our government. We know to exist this material and this is going to do it and everybody signed up on it. It's like oh, yeah, yeah, let's, let's do it.
Speaker 1:And then they couldn't get the material, and so that the excuse they'll use is well, the program was scrubbed because they, they there was no material to be found. And the implication is oh, it didn't exist. And my thought is nobody develops a full plan for something that doesn't exist. Show me the government documents where they plan to breed unicorns and they did this whole plan where they where they came up with a study about how they were going to breed unicorns.
Speaker 1:And and then they. You know what? Unicorns don't exist, damn it we spent all this we spent all this time making this, this program we were hoping they did exist, right, we, we you don't do that yeah uh, somebody told me that right that unicorns might exist, right?
Speaker 2:so we decided to um put together this entire government program to disprove that.
Speaker 1:It's just idiotic, exactly and so. But it's a very easy thing to say. It's like oh well, we dumped it because it the stuff didn't exist. No, the reason why it seems to have been dumped is because they couldn't get their hands on it.
Speaker 2:Well, here's the thing, right, hey, there's a guy, or there's more than one guy or woman. They say they worked in this place that does reverse engineering of UFOs. That's baloney. You know what is this? This is just crackpot stuff, just crackpot. Years go by, hey, what about now? Come on now, right? Then, well, hey, look, we just realized we had a program, or else we are. There's some, there are aspects of the government that say there was a program, and then I think it's the dod that said there was a program, that it, but it never went anywhere. And then the, the, the um, who is it? The other group you just said said it was just a thought of a program. All right, why are you even telling us this? Right, like what is this?
Speaker 1:I think. I think it was released. Uh, actually, my understanding is it released early that this, this document, this was not supposed to come out. Now, this was a mistake that this was released. 2036 mistakes and there's a lot of. But they're using it, as you know.
Speaker 1:What's a very typical trick, um arrow, which is the all-domain anomaly resolution office right set up by the Pentagon. They just came out with their historical UFO report where that headline of the report is basically there's nothing to all this. It's Blue Book again. It's basically saying don't worry about it. Saying don't worry about it yeah, some small percentage of events cannot be explained, but we're confident that if we had more data we could solve them. So the unsolved ones are just because we don't have enough data. But that was in the heading of the summary of the report. If you actually read the report, it was like two to 5%, something like that. There was still a decent percentage of ones that you know no new amount of data was going to get you. The Tic Tac one made no attempt to explain it. Really, what the the um criticisms of that arrow report were was that they made a lot of claims but they didn't show their work. Well, we disproved this one and we disproved this one and we disproved this one. Okay, can you show us how you? Oh, we disproved this one and we disproved this one and we disproved this one. Ok, can you show us how? Oh, we can't show you how we did that, but we did, don't worry about it, we disproved it. There's still a small percentage that's not disproven, but they're not important.
Speaker 1:Move on, and that's the thing is, is that most people, most media, most they don't read the report. They reported on what the headline said. They read the summary and they said and that's where all the headlines is. You know, government report says there's no evidence of that's what they always say. No evidence of alien, which is another red herring, right, is if you use a specific word and then say, oh, it's not that, then you invalidate the whole thing. So, is there evidence of aliens visiting? No, there's no evidence of aliens from space visiting. What if they're not from space? You could conceivably say no, there's no evidence of it. You said evidence of aliens from space, there's no evidence of that. There's evidence of something else. But you know something like that. Even though the legislation the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023 used the term non-human intelligence. They never use that term when they're debunking it. They'll just say aliens, space aliens, because again you can be, you know, you know that trick.
Speaker 1:Right, that's probably a common Well, because there, use the right word you can say there's no evidence that you know that I did this particular thing and it's like, yeah, but you did this other thing and there's evidence of that, and they both get to the same point. But you're trying to get us narrow on that, to say there's no evidence of this particular thing.
Speaker 2:Therefore, we can take it all Well, because there is evidence, if you look at it in a certain light, right? So the Nimitz issue with the way that that tic-tac could maneuver itself it's either that you know that technology exists for that or that if you do have no reason to believe that that technology exists amongst humans, then it has to be a non-human technology. So that's the dance around.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean non-human is the best way to say it, because we don't know. When you say space alien, you're automatically denoting origin, you're saying it's from space we don't know that I mean, and that's the thing is a from space.
Speaker 1:We don't know that I mean, and that's the thing is, a lot of people don't realize that there are other options, like when they mention ufos, they'll say, oh, space aliens, there are other options, like what? And most people don't realize that there are other discussions. And I'm just telling you what's discussed and this is like discussed among government people, which is bizarre. They'll discuss things like ultra-terrestrials, meaning like somebody who's been here longer than us. They talk interdimensional, but that's kind of like a red herring, because most people who say interdimensional, people who know physics, kind of roll their eyes and say that's a meaningless term.
Speaker 1:People who say interdimensional, people who know physics, kind of roll their eyes and say that's a meaningless term. You know, um, alternate dimensions could be some aspect of travel, but the idea of it being like from another dimension, most people say that, but they don't really understand what it means. So it's kind of a meaningless term. But you know there's. There's other options time travel, that's another one that's been thrown out there. That this is not. Some of these things are us from the distant future coming back for some purpose. Maybe they'll warn us, you'd think. If they well, I don't know, and if you go through all the history, of UFOs.
Speaker 2:Well, listen, let's say it's us. I love this theory called the Silurian if I'm saying it correctly theory. If you've ever heard this, you probably thought of it or heard about it in a different way. Maybe I'm not saying it correctly Silurian S-I-L-U-R-I-A-N. What's the basis of it? The whole thing is that the planet of Earth has regenerated itself over and over again.
Speaker 2:So it's kind of interesting in terms of you talked about the Romans if they built an engine or this. There are countless. Under the theory is there are countless civilizations that have been on this planet. We don't know about them because there have been cataclysmic events that have happened and pretty much wiped everything out, and then so many years later, the humans pretty much just start over again, right, right. And so that theory has always been kind of fun to me, because it's almost like this alternate history kind of theory that you know, like if you, if the Romans, did look into the engine, how would our civilization have been Right? So if you think of it that way, you say, oh man, what if 100,000 years ago that's what happened and there was all this technology that they had by a certain time of their civilization that another one didn't, because they went a different way on the same branch.
Speaker 1:It's a fascinating topic and it's a conspiracy theory. Of course, Not really a conspiracy theory, but they lump it in.
Speaker 2:It's an alternate.
Speaker 1:Yeah, they lumped that in with conspiracy theories, even though there's no conspiracy theory.
Speaker 2:It's not a conspiracy theory, it's like no, there's no conspiracy, it's just a theory of history.
Speaker 1:Right. But it's funny how there'll be, like you know, academics who will tell you in no uncertain terms that's impossible, because we know 100%, we know this, we know that didn't happen, right. I just saw an article about and I don't even quite understand this they discovered some ocean under the crust of our current ocean that has more water. It's like in the earth, it's another layer of ocean, but they say it has more liquid than our ocean. Is that true? Than our ocean? Like it's that true? The articles I've been reading have been saying like this sub ocean that they just discovered under the crust, like we're still discovering things about our own planet that we don't know. Like it's. It's very.
Speaker 1:It's arrogant for people to always kind of indicate oh, we have it all figured out. Like now, we know that. We know. Like, when they make these bold assertions like the earth is this many billions of years old, and they say that with such certainty, I don't know enough about those particular topics to to, you know, refute them, but something about it smells weird. Like really, how do you know that? But you didn't know about the sub-ocean. Like, how can you say that, like you are, like you are sure that the, the universe is this old or you know. And they'll say, well know, we detect these rays and they move at certain speeds and like they'll give you this calm, convoluted explanation and we trust the experts and we say, okay, sounds, sounds right. The one thing they don't want you to do is question the experts, cause when you question people they get upset.
Speaker 2:Yeah, but you know that's the only way you get to anything is by questioning. That's the basis of democracy, that's the basis of human nature.
Speaker 1:Questions should not be feared. If there's an answer, right. Only the questions that don't have an answer are the ones you want to avoid. Like if someone asks you a very uncomfortable question and you don't want to answer it. But if someone asks you, you know, hey, what'd you watch on TV last night?
Speaker 1:You're like, oh, I'll tell you because it's not that serious, but it's funny how certain questions we frown on, like there's certain things if you question it, even if you make good nature, just like, hey, I'm curious about how this particular thing oh, don't question that, you're a nut- I actually that's.
Speaker 2:I love that.
Speaker 1:What if so?
Speaker 2:here's that story. You were talking about Massive ocean discovered beneath the Earth's crust containing more water than on the surface. Yeah, Wow.
Speaker 1:What's the source of that? What's the? Oh? It's all over the place.
Speaker 2:I'm just clicking on one of them, and this one is called Indy 100. This one is called Indy 100. I don't know, it's a new, it's Indian, out of Indianapolis. It's in a rock called Ringwoodite. It's like a sponge soaking up water, so it's a mixture of the rock with water together, but it's crazy.
Speaker 1:And the fact that it has more liquid. What does it say?
Speaker 2:More liquid than all the oceans combined on the planet. Think about that.
Speaker 1:And it's under the surface. Yeah, it's like a subsurface, right.
Speaker 2:I wonder how big it is. Well, the question, I guess you know, and that leads itself to this whole thing that we're just we're talking about right now. You know what if, what, if, whatever life um has something to do with this Nimitz thing. Let's say, right, what if, right, what if that is just um, somehow um related to that theory. I'm talking to the hypothesis of the Silurian hypothesis, that there was a civilization, but that civilization flourished differently than us and maybe it's a different, even different, kind of life form.
Speaker 2:I mean, we know that on different planets, we know that on different planets and on this planet there's just all different phases of life. So what if one phase just kind of kind of just grew faster than another phase? Right? So we're seeing now. I don't know if you saw this story recently, maybe between five and ten years ago I'd have to look it up, I don't have it in front of me but they started noticing certain apes, like orangutans, were fishing with spears, using tools yeah, using tools and they just found an orangutan that was treating a wound With medicine, with a plant medicine yeah yeah, right.
Speaker 2:And you know, some people say well, yeah, okay, well, no, they've never seen this before, never seen that before, okay, so Like that's it, that's it's either they've always missed it, or there is evolution happening right in front of us, right?
Speaker 1:it's interesting stuff, it's and and you know the, the conventional wisdom is that we evolved from primates, right, like you said, maybe there was a time when something, I mean the thought process, is what if life evolved from a different source to a certain point and then the slate was wiped clean? I mean, we talked about this in our ancient civilization discussion, but basically people underestimate how much trauma this planet has been in through its existence. You know just like things have happened that theoretically could have wiped the planet clean. One of the one of the little facts that I always find interesting and it's just I don't one is I don't know how they know this, but I've heard avi lobe kind of throw this off today.
Speaker 1:He's the um harvard um, his astrophysicist or astronomer. But he basically said that Mars seems to have had an atmosphere and lost its atmosphere around the same time that Earth gained its atmosphere. Now, my first question is what do you mean around the same time? Because, like you don't know, oh, this was on February 25th and this was on February 26th its atmosphere. Now, my first question is what do you mean around the same time? Because, like you don't know right, this was on february 25th and this was on february 26th when they say real time.
Speaker 1:I think it's within the realm of, like you're talking like thousands, possibly tens of thousands of years, and when you're looking at time, that big a small, you know it. So I'd love to know that and I also love to know how they know that, because he said it as if it were like an established scientific, like whoa science knows that this happened and I always question that, like, how do you know? Like you say you know, or are you just? Is that the conclusion that you've come from, from the facts that you've gathered thus far, gathered thus far? And if there are facts missing, does that change the equation? For instance, does the existence of this sub uh, what do they call it? Sub um ground what? There's a word for it?
Speaker 1:uh subterranean ocean that exists below our ocean that we did not know about until just now. Right, this is a new story. Nobody had an inkling this. Does this change any of the other calculations? Do you know, like when they were calculating the age of the earth, or the age of this or the?
Speaker 2:age of that they say well, some people are writing that it can upend things.
Speaker 1:Supposedly the Webb telescope right. The data that's coming in from the Webb telescope is upending some long-held beliefs Like what About the age of the question? And it's not completely upending but it's adding complications to things like the Big Bang Theory and the age of the universe and things like that, because have you always had a problem with the Big Bang Theory.
Speaker 2:I have.
Speaker 1:You mean the show or the-?
Speaker 2:No, the show was all right although I don't know if I watched all the seasons or not. The theory in general the no, the show was all right, although I don't know if I watched all the seasons or not. The theory in general the theory in general yeah, Only because no one can say, well, okay, it started in this little whatever right, I just don't understand.
Speaker 1:Where did?
Speaker 2:that little, whatever come from.
Speaker 1:I don't understand how they can say that, right, they'll say everything.
Speaker 2:you know, the theory is that we all develop from one single cell organism, right, right, well, where did that single cell organism come from? Yeah, like, where did it start? Like, I'd love to know. If you have a theory, it should. It should at least contain how it originated. In telling me that it all started and I know it's the conventional way of looking at it, but you know, our discussions are supposed to be about things that are not conventional. But so, if you look at it that way and say, okay, we all started in this little speck of whatever, and then there was an explosion that created somehow this, this thing that is still expanding, right, okay, I have a little bit of a difficulty with that myself, but I'm not, I'm not one of, I'm not a big brain, um, physicist. So, um, and I, I can still say, okay, this thing, what, what was going on right before it blew up? What was happening? What was going on right before it blew up? What was happening? What was going on? Why was it in existence? Why was there anything existing?
Speaker 1:The problem is is that with a lot of this stuff, you got to have a certain grounding in certain sciences to really be able to discuss it intelligently.
Speaker 1:Right, and I'm not claiming we're doing that- here I mean you and I, we have a surface knowledge of a lot of things. And that surface knowledge we talk, and I'm sure there are some statements we make that an expert in the matter would roll their eyes at and go. You know, that's kind of make me go. Well, there's other things we've spoken about with certainty that have proven false. So doesn't that ruin your track record and I'm talking like the human species, right, like there was a point where people would have argued and put you to death if you argued otherwise that everything revolved around the earth, that the sun revolved around the earth, because they had evidence and later that was proven to be false and they said well, we're so much far technologically now than we were then, and that is true, but we just discovered an ocean, a sub ocean under on our planet that we've been on the whole time, that we claim to know everything about and we claim that there are no secrets to the planet.
Speaker 1:And they talk about things in the molten core, like we know everything that's going on in the core of the earth and how it all works. Oh wait, there's this ocean that's underneath that has more water what liquid that all of the earth oceans combined. We didn't know about it. Does that not change the calculus of things? Like a lot has to right. Doesn't it change the mass of the planet, like if they calculate what the mass of earth would be and use that in some other way to say, well, if the mass is this, then this, that and the other thing, and it all connects together, and now it's well, you got that wrong because there's an ocean that you didn't know about and all this is liquid in here changes everything, I think do we just throw out everything, like, oh well, we gotta start over I think that we, um scientifically, as a human race, have a pretty good understanding about why things are the way they are right now decent.
Speaker 1:Why?
Speaker 2:we. We interact with the world the way we do. I think they have a good understanding of that.
Speaker 1:Certainly more than they did. Yeah Well, they don't have anything about gravity.
Speaker 2:No, no, no, gravity's not one of them what I'm saying is they know why it works.
Speaker 1:They don't know what it is.
Speaker 2:They don't know what it is, but they know why it works, they. So we have an understanding, a working understanding of the universe, of the universe, yeah, and especially of our planet, right. But I think that, and I think if you look it up at all, you'll see for yourself that we don't really have anything except working theories as to why it works. We don't. We don't know why there was a big. Nobody knows why they have theories. This is why it happened, supposedly, and they'll even tell you it's a hypothesis or it's an educated guess. Nobody knows why. And I think that if we actually started thinking, hey, wait a minute, if they don't know any of this stuff, if you're going to build a house, you got to have your foundation done first, right. So if your foundation is done faulty, the rest of it's going to be faulty, right. So if you say, well, all scientific arguments are based on this theory.
Speaker 1:Well, if you don't know that theory is correct, everything else that we're proposing off of it is off an incorrect assumption. Right, all facts have to be included and if you omit some facts, that changes the conclusion. Whether you omit the facts by deception or ignorance doesn't matter. Whether you omit the facts by deception or ignorance doesn't matter. If you know and this happens frequently, like I also think there's an issue that people like simplicity, right, simplicity is generally I do, you know, everybody does it prefers simplicity to complexity, because simplicity is obviously easier to understand, right? So we tend to want to attribute single causes to things like what caused b well, that would be a, a cause b. Well, it caused c, b cause c.
Speaker 1:When in reality it's like things are caused by multiple things, like it's not one. An example I heard used in a court setting or the idea of this is a car accident. Three cars come to an intersection and crash into each other. Right Now, you're trying to find the reason those cars crashed. So you're trying to find the one. What caused the crash? What is the one thing that caused the crash? Because that's our immediate thought. Something caused this crash. Could have been multiple things. One car could have been somebody who was not paying attention. They were chatting on the phone and they were speeding. Could have been someone else in the other car was trying to beat that yellow light. They thought they could beat that yellow light and this person over here was, you know, was texting. So the accident wasn't caused by a single thing, it was caused by multiple things. That's important, because if you try to attribute the cause to one thing and you run out of gas and you go okay, you know, run, I guess. But like yeah, okay, it's this, this car caused it. Oh wait, but you know, then something breaks down that argument and then you go, go, well, can't figure it out, you know it's, it's we. We like to simplify it so. So, that's to say, you know.
Speaker 1:My general theory in a lot of this stuff is is that I think we are convinced that the world is more figured out than it really is, and I think that's done to kind of. You know, unknown is scary, the known is, you know, comforting, and I think that's done to kind of. You know, unknown is scary, the known is, you know, comforting, and I think I don't know. I just have this theory. I'm not saying in all things, I'm not saying to some, you know, crazy degree. I just think there are certain areas where there's this assurance that we have it all figured out, don't you worry, we got it.
Speaker 1:But they don't. They have a theory, they have facts that they've built into a case. But again, if they're missing facts, it changes the whole complexion. Like, I'm interested, this sub-ocean, what does it change? What established facts does it put into question? Now? And is anyone interested in upsetting the apple cart? And the answer is like no. Can you imagine if some fact came out that would would necessitate them throwing out all of our accumulated assumptions because some key piece of data came out which called it all into question? Do you think that's readily what they would do? Do you think it? Do you think they'd go? Oh, you know what? Um, the theory of this just got blown out of the water. Guess we'll have to start. Or would they find every possible way to shoot holes in that new fact, to remove it from the board? And the human answer is that's what they would do what do you mean exactly?
Speaker 1:well, if there's a fact that, like, like you, have the theory of let's just take an example right, we know this planet enough to know how long earth has been around, we'll say with confidence that, because of all the work we've done and this, that and the other thing, we can say with confidence that the earth is this many billions of years old. We say that with confidence, right. And then some new piece of information comes out, like the Webb telescope, and brings some new data to it which calls that into question. Do you think the scientific community will readily embrace that new data and say, well, we got to throw our whole thing out and start from scratch? Or do you think people who are invested in their theory of how things are are like? You know, I don't want my theory to get thrown out, so I'm going to poke holes in those new facts, so we throw those out. It's easy to throw out the new fact that disrupts the theory than it is to draw out the whole theory, and I think that's just human nature. I mean, I think you can see that on other levels. It's just human nature. I mean, I think you can see that on other levels If somebody has a firm idea of the way things are and you introduce a key fact that will disrupt that. The first instinct of everyone is well, how do we remove that fact? How do we get that? Oh, it's fake, it's made up, it's crazy, they'll dismiss it. It's made up, it's crazy, they'll dismiss it. I think people underestimate our human nature to want to deny reality when it doesn't suit the reality and we don't like that to be disrupted. And I think people misunderstand the degree to which people will protect their reality. And I think it's the problem with a lot of these conspiracy theories. It's quite frankly. I think a lot of these conspiracy theories disrupt people's view of the way things are.
Speaker 1:Let's take the most obvious one back to the Kennedy. If the government or a section of the government, a section of the intelligence agency, a section of the CIA, conspired to some degree to murder a duly elected president of the United States, what would that do to everyone's psyche? As far as the degree to which our government is like solid right, I mean it's like well, they could remove a president and get away with it. That's crazy. We don't want to believe that there's no world, that we want to believe that a part of our government could destroy another part of our government, the head of our government, publicly and get away with it, so saying it's a lone person who had their own agenda and did it and we caught them and oh, they got shot. Oh, let's put that to bed and just move on.
Speaker 1:It makes everybody feel good, because how many people would feel good if they found out that, that, that that were true, that that our government, that you know, the cia killed them. You know, let's say that that's the, that's the thing, or another government killed them. Oh, my god, russia conspired with this to kill our president. Are you kidding me? Like that's? That's cannot be denied, you know, and you can take any conspiracy, like any of those conspiracies. If they are true, they disrupt it's, disrupt everything about what we know.
Speaker 2:Like I said, that's why I keep saying to not tell people what at least is the aspect that could can be construed as national security, and the fact that everybody just says, man, what are you gonna do?
Speaker 1:I mean, that people are far too accepting of the wrong that we see going on and we see it all the time like we see things that make us, you know, I can ask people and go, you know. Hey, do you think this about what goes on in the world? You know it's right and everybody goes. No, it's not. So do you think this about what goes on in the world? You know it's right and everybody goes no it's not.
Speaker 2:Well, I mean, this isn't a conspiracy, but it kind of is okay. But it's current events, right, I'm not going to get into the wrongs and rights of what's happening in the Palestine-Israel thing, right, but the demonstrations that are happening the protests, whatever you want to call them at different colleges around the country right, I actually think protests are good. I think that people should have a right to do that right, inevitably, and yeah, they're not breaking any rules.
Speaker 2:It's part of the fabric of our country, right? So I have no problem with it at all. Right, it's part of the fabric of our country, right? So I have no problem with it at all. But I'm noticing interviews lately of some of these students. They're being interviewed and at least half of them they're saying now are not students that are involved. Right? So who are these people and why are they there, right? I'd like to know.
Speaker 1:Who are they? Be careful of what they are saying, because that is the problem is that if you watch cable news or conventional news let's just call it the commercial media right, You're getting a picture, but you're not getting the same picture that other people are getting.
Speaker 2:I think, because you know what I like looking at when I'm trying to get a clearer view. It's not easy, right? I know? I know what you're saying. Everybody has a bias, right? I'll try looking at a news source from outside of this country. Yeah, it's very instructive, right? And even like BBC is saying that a lot of those kids are not students but supposedly out of the ones?
Speaker 1:are they the ones that were arrested in new york, though? Yeah, I think they said only two two of them were not students okay, most of them are students, okay, and I think that's an inconvenient fact that they do.
Speaker 2:That's one of those inconvenient facts like you don't want to think that, but but that's the thing is.
Speaker 1:If it's outsiders, I think people can understand that when you say well, I can say students it's like well it's.
Speaker 2:I can understand anything, Uh um but?
Speaker 1:but what was your point as far as as that is?
Speaker 2:for just the fact that that the truth, that you're not really getting the truth, um, I think my point was that, um, what exactly you think is the narrative could have a different reason to be. We'll be you next time.
