Video summary
The discussion begins with a critical examination of the nature of UFO evidence, highlighting a significant disparity between the vast number of firsthand reports and tangible physical proof available to date. The speakers note that while there is an abundance of hearsay and sighting lists, concrete data such as recordings or verified crash sites remains scarce. A key point raised is the limitation of optical sensors like FLIR, which operate within the visible light spectrum (400–700 nanometers). Because anomalous aerial phenomena often move at speeds that cause them to crunch or stretch light, they frequently appear in infrared or ultraviolet spectrums rather than standard visual recordings. Despite this technological gap, photographic evidence exists; notable examples include the McMinnville photo from Oregon in the 1950s and the Calvine photo involving hikers in Scotland during the 1990s, both of which possess verified negatives that support their authenticity. Beyond optical imagery, the conversation shifts to physical material recovered by witnesses, specifically focusing on debris allegedly found near UFO crash sites. This evidence was reportedly forwarded from witness Jacquell Valet to Gary Nolan, a tenure-track professor at Stanford and Nobel Prize nominee who has conducted mass spectrometry analyses on these samples. The results indicate that certain isotope ratios within the materials do not naturally occur on Earth and fail to pattern-match with known asteroid compositions, suggesting an anomalous origin. However, when addressing large-scale saucers or a potential "hanger" scenario, the speakers argue against definitive proof of extraterrestrial origins in favor of probabilistic thinking. They reference statistician Thomas Bayes' model as a framework for scientific inquiry that avoids rigid adherence to null hypotheses, instead cataloging evidence based on probability levels rather than absolute certainty. A central theme regarding large-scale UFOs is the necessity of epistemic humility and an acknowledgment of geopolitical secrecy. The speakers posit that even if advanced technology or anti-gravity craft existed within a military hanger, it would be highly improbable for such assets to be declassified publicly. They argue that defense establishments prioritize tactical advantages and weaponization over public enlightenment, meaning any revolutionary technology discovered by the U.S. government—such as stealth bombers like the F-22 or F-35—is likely to remain classified indefinitely to maintain a strategic edge. This perspective suggests that while we can be 99% sure of the reality of unexplained aerial phenomena distinct from known aircraft, claiming absolute knowledge about their extraterrestrial nature requires accepting that some facts may never be publicly revealed due to national security interests and technological suppression similar to current AI developments. The dialogue also addresses skepticism regarding conspiracy theories versus genuine anomalies, using examples like Bigfoot or historical false flags such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the sinking of the USS Maine. The speakers distinguish between easily debunked hoaxes and complex phenomena that require a "horseshoe" theory rather than a simple disc shape to explain observations. They emphasize that believing in the reality of an event (like Bigfoot or UFOs) is not mutually exclusive with identifying specific conspiracy narratives as false; these are positive-sum concepts where one can accept existence while rejecting fabricated details. The conversation briefly touches on how certain high-profile conspiracies, such as those surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, have lost credibility because they alienate both political left and right simultaneously, whereas the UFO phenomenon maintains a unique space for belief despite intense scrutiny. Ultimately, the summary concludes that the current state of UFO research involves balancing probabilistic evidence with an understanding of institutional secrecy. While physical samples analyzed by experts like Gary Nolan provide compelling data regarding non-terrestrial isotopes, the absence of a public saucer in a hanger is attributed to deliberate government classification rather than mere lack of discovery. The speakers advocate for a nuanced approach that accepts the reality of anomalous aerial phenomena without demanding absolute proof of their origin or expecting immediate declassification of military assets. This balanced view allows for scientific investigation into sensor modalities and material evidence while maintaining humility regarding what can be definitively proven about our place in the universe versus what remains hidden behind layers of national security protocols.
Read the full video transcript
How is it the case, you know, that's a
large cohort of people from different
backgrounds all talking about things
that they've seen or seen that they've
seen or heard that someone's seen or
been a so on and so forth. How is it the
case that there is so much which is
hearsay?
>> Mhm.
>> And so little which we have. Yes. to
like the where is the actual tangible
evidence? Not a recording that's on
Fleer, not the story that somebody said,
not a list of sightings. Like surely we
should if there are this many we should
have something
>> for it. Yeah. Well, you again you do you
have a massive database of you know
firsthand reports. The fleer I think is
important. It's a sensor modality that
you know we see between 400 and 700
nanometers of the electromagnetic wave
spectrum. Just because something's at
the 800 nanometer mark or 300 nanometer
mark doesn't mean it's fake, you know,
like that is a real thing. So I think
the fleer thing is is really important.
And it feels like with UFOs they either
crunch light or they stretch light
because they move so fast. And so
optical is not actually a good modality
for them. usually they show up in
infrared or in certain cases UV rays. So
like uh the the ends actually of the
visible spectrum. And so I do think
that's like a really important question.
Uh but then also there are photos like
there's this McMinnville photo that was
taken in Oregon in the ' 50s. There
there's the Calvine photo which is you
know from Scotland these hikers in the
'9s and you know somebody from the
British Ministry of Defense guy Nick
Pope says that the Calvine photo is
absolutely real. You have the negatives
in both cases. Um, so
you know, I do think you do have a
decent amount of evidence. Now, what
you're asking, I think, is why don't we
have a a saucer unveiled at a hanger or
something,
>> piece of material that can be verifiably
proven to be from something that's
otherworldly?
>> So, the the it's an interesting
question. I don't think you can
definitively prove that something is
necessarily otherworldly. You have to
look at a fact pattern that you know is
this anomalous enough to say that it's
not from here. And there's a guy named
Gary Nolan who's a a Nobel Prize nominee
every single year. He's a tenure
professor at Stanford and he has crash
materials in his lab. I've seen them.
I've shown them on video on my show.
They're small, but the, you know, they
were basically given to him around UFO
crash like like UFO crash witnesses
mailed them to this guy Jacqu Valet. And
Jacquell gave them to Gary Nolan. He's
done mass spectrometry on them. He says
that they have isotope ratios that don't
naturally occur on Earth and they don't
pattern match to asteroids as well. And
so you have evidence like that. When it
comes to like largecale saucers, I think
you have to think probabilistically. So
I there's this English statistician
named Thomas Ba and his model is it's
it's a way of scientific thinking but
it's not necessarily like the Francis
Bacon style where you go and you have
this null hypothesis that you cling to
at all costs. His is more you think
about everything probabilistically and
so you catalog something as low
probability and you build up evidence.
And so what I would say for the UFO
phenomena is like everybody asks are
UFOs real? I'm 99%
sure that aerial phenomena in the sky
that don't pattern match to you know
planes like you know prosaic
explanations where there's a nuclear
link it that is that is fully real and
then is there a conflation going on
between that and like a saucer and a
hanger like maybe I can't say in good
faith that there definitely isn't
because I haven't seen the saucer and
the hanger right
>> um so it's like you know it's this David
Hume style quot you need the like
ultimate like epistemic humility when it
comes to that saucer in the hanger. Now,
I can give you a million good reasons
why if the American defense
establishment I mean we haven't
declassified an aerial uh program
basically since I think the B2 stealth
bomber like we you have you know F-22
F-35s I think those were uh uh uh
unclassified upon their you know
manufacturing 12 out of the 15 locked
skunk works programs now are still
classified so say you had this kind of
ace in the hole crazy, you know,
anti-gravity craft or whatever and it
was in a hanger. I can give you a
million different reasons why you would
never let that see the light of day. You
don't care about enlightening the
public, inspiring them about other
worlds. I mean, it it all go technology
always gets weaponized and it's always
used to confer a tactical advantage
geopolitically and that will always take
the day. That will always trump wanting
to enlighten the public. It's going to
do that with AI and all these other tech
trees. So I think that would be the
other reason.
>> How do we know this isn't just a scop?
>> I think it is a scop. I think there are
scops. So So this is this is the real
mind.
>> [ __ ] horseshoe theory of UFOs.
>> Not it's not a disc. It's a horseshoe.
>> It is. Well, here's the thing. The the
fact that something is real and it's a
scup are positive sum, not not negative
sum. So this is the total mind [ __ ] for
people. How many if if Chris, you're a
smart guy. If I were like, um, okay,
Bigfoot, you know, exists. I promise it
exists. And I tried to come up with some
fact pattern around how it exists and
like all this, you know, evidences, how
would you ever believe me about Bigfoot?
>> Uh, if you gave me sufficiently
compelling evidence, I guess so.
>> Well, most pe I don't know. I think the
Bigfoot thing, you know, is is like
pretty unlikely. They were like I can
give you like other most scops are easy
to figure out like the Gulf of Tonkan or
something created the opaces around you
know invading Vietnam where like I think
it was like the first thing was like an
attack on the USS Maddox and then
there's like a second attack um under
LBJ and it was just like a weather event
and they claimed that it it was
basically this false flag operation or
the USS Maine. These these sorts of
scops get figured out very quickly. Like
does anybody believe the Epstein thing?
Like, does anybody you talk to believe
the Epstein? Nobody believes that. It's
I don't The government doesn't believe
that.
>> I'm [ __ ] fascinated by that, dude. It
is. The only person I've seen who
appears to be happy with the outcome of
it is actually Ben Shapiro.
>> I was going to say that, too.
>> The only guy that it's, you know what,
one of those rare occurrences where both
left and right are pissed off equally.
>> Yes.
>> You know, left pissed off because this
sort of powerful banker appears and the
reversal of the Trump administration, so
on and so forth. the right's pissed off
because they're like allergic to
pedophilia and and and you know kind of
want to stand up for kids and do all the
rest of this stuff and you go
>> everybody's pissed off. Is that Ben?
>> Always one
I don't know.
>> He goes, "Guys, it's a it's we've
decided you're a conspiracy theorist
now." Like, what are you talking about,
dude? Yeah, before we continue, if you
haven't been feeling as sharp or
energized as you'd like, getting your
blood work done is the best place to
start. Which is why I partnered with
Function because they run lab tests
twice a year that monitor over 100
biomarkers. They've got a team of expert
physicians that take the data, put it in
a simple dashboard, and give you
actionable insights and recommendations
to improve your health and lifespan.
They track everything from your heart
health to your hormone levels, your
thyroid function, and nutrient
deficiencies. They even screen for 50
types of cancer at stage one, which is
five times more data than you get from
an annual physical. Getting your blood
work drawn and analyzed like this would
usually cost thousands. But with
Function, it is only $500. And right
now, the first thousand people can get
an additional $100 off, meaning it's
only 400 bucks to get the exact same
blood panel that I use. Just go to the
link in the description below or head to
functionhealth.com/modernwisdom.
That's functionhealth.com/modernwisdom.
Thank you very much for tuning in. If
you enjoyed that clip, you will love the
fulllength episode available
right here.