(Pt.2) The UFO Secrecy Playbook – It’s Been Used Before: Chris Lehto

Cancer. You hope to never hear it. But if you do, you'll want a team of experts by your side. At Trinity Health of New England, we understand the stress that comes with a cancer diagnosis. Our team of compassionate oncology specialists provide the latest treatments to take care of the whole person. We know the importance of seeing the person behind the patient. Because we see all of you. Learn more at trinityhealthofne.org slash cancer. Central Connecticut State University. Master your future. Enroll in graduate studies at Central. Voted Best Graduate Schools by U.S. News and World Report. Apply today. Visit ccsu.edu slash apply. You are more than just a heart patient. At Trinity Health of New England, we get to know you, which can help us diagnose a problem and start treatment faster. Our cardiovascular team offers the latest imaging and device technology, testing, and surgical procedures you'd expect from a national health system. With the personal touch you want from local experts. We know the importance of seeing the person behind the patient. Because we see all of you. Learn more at trinityhealthofne.org slash heart. Central Connecticut State University. Master your future. Enroll in graduate studies at Central. Voted Best Graduate Schools by U.S. News and World Report. Apply today. Visit ccsu.edu slash apply. I'm Richard Dolan, and you're listening to That UFO Podcast. We'll dive into listener questions, Chris. And interestingly, the very first one was from Dan Lewis. And he wanted your thoughts on Beatrice Villarreal's recent announcements regarding the Vasco project and its discoveries regarding vanishing stars from photographic plates pre-Sputnik. Do you feel projects like these will lessen the stigma within the scientific community? Always enjoy watching Chris's channel. Can't wait to see the interview. And I'll just add, Chris, I was very fortunate to go a couple of months ago to see Beatrice Villarreal in person. She was presenting at a university, at the University of Durham, here in the U.K., not far from me, about a half hour drive. And she presented the pictures, you know, the initial papers that had been presented. So I got a kind of sneak preview of this. And really, basically, folks, I've mentioned this, I think, on a recent podcast. But Beatrice is essentially, and Chris, you can correct me, she is showing you a picture of stars that are taken, and then a second picture with the same stars, but some are missing. The stars shouldn't move. And they're trying to present, look, they're not saying these are aliens. They're not saying these are UFOs. But from a scientific perspective, Beatrice is presenting objects were here. Then in this next picture, objects are not here. They're the object, the picture taken months apart, you know, stars don't move in the sky. And she's saying, we should be looking to investigate this as scientists. What were these objects? Why have they moved? And what can we do about that? That should be enough to spark and ignite a conversation, surely, in the scientific community. You would think. But she's been presenting that for two years now, I think. You know, I originally saw that a couple years ago. I started chatting with her. And then I just haven't had her on the show, right? I tried to get her on recently, but it was like she was going to come on, and then I was busy. And then when I asked her to come on, she was busy. So I've been a big supporter of her work. I know she's been ostracized inside the scientific community because of her work and also who she worked with, right? There was a big scandal around one of the very prominent researchers that she worked with. But then there was a sexual assault claim against him. And so she was initially ostracized for that reason. And then she supported him because he hadn't been found guilty or anything in a court. So she thought it was wrong that people are ostracized without being found, you know, without going through to order. So I know it's been a long time coming. So I'm very happy to see that she's getting a lot of traction. Like I mentioned, she can be ostracized from conferences. But again, who is even looking at those conferences? You know, these mainstream science places, right? Where it's the halls of power, academia, who holds all the knowledge. Again, what have they actually delivered, right? And I would say jack squat. Like they have not delivered anything because they're too close-minded. Or they've been manipulated, which, you know, I think there's a good argument for that, that they've been manipulated to not make progress. Again, I think based on national security, you know, if there is an easy way to do lattice-confined fusion that doesn't require giant tokamak reactors, you know, if ultimately, if we just have a misunderstanding of how stars create their energy, right? If it's not based on their current standard model of the sun, which I think is probably incorrect, then there is a chance that any, you know, smart high schooler could create cold fusion in their basement. You know, for instance, let's say that is the case that we just misunderstand fusion. And it's actually much simpler than we think based on our misunderstanding of how the world actually works. Now you potentially give amazing, unbelievable power to all of our enemies, right? Anyone in North Korea can now have cold fusion. You could have rogue elements, any terrorist organization. If they could create cold fusion, lattice-confined fusion, that amount of power in a basement could be an immense weapon. And so I think it's not necessarily their fault that they're so close-minded. I think historically, as we've been talking about, mainstream science has always been close-minded. You know, like they're always going to criminalize the Galileos. There's countless examples. I put in my last video of many examples. Birkeland, you know, he found Aurora's. Recent examples, Halton Arp. He's found a lot of anomalies with quasars. And now most recently you have Beatrice Villarelle. She's found these anomalies with the stars. And I think that's the best way to look at it and to coach it and to market it as anomalies, right? And I think that's one of the main problems that we've found with these science educators. I think Neil deGrasse Tyson, his book, the first sentence or the last sentence, I'm not sure. But basically his argument is the universe is under no requirement to be understandable to you. I paraphrase it. But basically Neil deGrasse Tyson's argument is, you know, you're not going to understand the universe and it's too complicated. And this is kind of the scientific argument in general is it's quantum mechanics is too complicated for you to understand. You know, cosmology, astrophysics is too complicated. Let me tell it to you, you know, let me explain it to you because I'm so smart. I'm so educated and I have so much experience. But remember back to what we said at the beginning, he's just a dude. You know, you can think however you want. Again, he's just sitting in his living room and he hasn't done any real science in decades. And I argue these dudes aren't doing any science now. You know, if you're mocking some idea, an alternate physics model, or if you're saying all these thousands of people who see these UFOs are insane and you're just mocking them, that's the opposite of scientific thinking. You know, scientific thinking should be objective and you should be open to all solutions, especially if you have produced Jack and Squat for us. There's no quantum computers. We haven't produced Jack or Squat. There's no fusion. You have not created fusion. You have not created anything related to entanglement. You've created no actual quantum communication. You haven't discovered expanding space, right? All of their predictions related to the universe are completely wrong, right? Everything, like, all their, that's not a theory, right? If your theory is completely wrong every time, you're not predicting anything, right? When JGST is seeing galaxies fully formed past the previous distance limit and your predictions are wrong, like, that should be a slap in the face, you know? So, yeah, I'm not impressed by any of these dudes. I don't think they're real scientists. Paul had a question, and first off, he said, I love Chris's show. He's highly observant, and I like how he follows his own beliefs and doesn't mind calling others bullshit. And Paul was also one of those, Chris, who was asking how you are, which you covered earlier. So, cheers for that, Paul. But Paul also wanted your thoughts on Skywatcher. It's an organization that, for many, they've put a lot of faith into in producing results. Much of that, I think, Chris, it's fair to say, is down to what they promised early on, especially Jake Barber. Big claims of being able to attract Kraft and Landum. That seems to have been somewhat walked back in the initial months of Skywatcher, that actually we're going to try and do this, and we're going to try and demonstrate it. But the claims seem to be they could do it. What's your take been on the Skywatcher approach, their progress, and the likelihood of them producing results? Yeah, thanks, Paul, for the question and support. And also thanks to Dan. I met Dan. It's great. Yeah, I'm really still optimistic for Skywatcher. I think their first video that came out that really showed some great UAP imagery. You know, they came out with the nine types of Kraft, et cetera. But they did have big claims, right, that they were able to call in these Kraft and then have them land and capture them. They also claim that they have, like, a dog whistle, some sort of technological device that can call in these Kraft. I mean, I wish them the best. I don't know. Obviously, results will, you know, prove themselves. And if they cannot deliver, then does that invalidate the whole approach? You know, I don't think it does. I think just because you can't replicate a system, Jake Barber argues, you know, the system has been in place for many years. The retrieval capture program. It's certainly not good if they can't replicate it, right? I mean, that would be immediate proof of the technique and the Kraft retrieval program in general. But it's also if they can't replicate it, it doesn't invalidate it. So, yeah, I would love to see them actually have progress. I know Russ Coltart was on an event with them, and he told me in person he saw firsthand this blue orb after they did this basically call-in kind of technique. So, I don't know. Maybe it can only be done on small scales. You mentioned before, like, that guy claimed from the civilian sector that the technology can disintegrate itself. You know, if we really are dealing with technology that's, they say, hundreds of years, but why couldn't it be millions of years ahead of us? But, you know, is it possible that it can actually dilute detection by just disintegrating? I don't know, you know, but it doesn't prove that the technique is not correct. I'd love your take on there, kind of, two-pronged approach. Now, I've just had James Hodgkins on the podcast, who, great guest, wonderful feedback. And if you've got a chance to speak to him, Chris, I think he'd be great for your show as well. He is one of the psionic assets, as they're labeled by Skywatcher. He has a wonderful set of abilities he's talked about, essentially can connect to this phenomenon psychically, psionically, and call these objects in. So you've got that aspect of it. You then have the dog whistle, which is the, in my head, it's always a big rectangular box. I don't know what it looks like. But they have a switch they can flick, and it apparently works every time. Psionic, not every time. The actual technology they've got, whatever the frequency is they're sending out, however it works. It could be a bat signal, for all we know. It calls them in every time. What's your take on, then, that two-pronged approach? And again, for me, it does seem the claim initially was, we are doing this already. What's to stop them showing these results publicly? And is there maybe something more to that in the background? A lot of folks, Chris, are alluding to the fact that perhaps they've got a public-facing agenda, and perhaps they have a private agenda, which may not be a negative thing, but they're trying to give the gatekeepers, the folks in the background, the big technology companies, the opportunity who maybe have a hand in keeping this secret covered up, the opportunity to work with them and find a way forward. I could certainly see that. Like I mentioned, I've kind of changed my viewpoint where maybe this catastrophic disclosure is not necessarily the best thing. When I talked to, I interviewed Jim Semivan, and he relayed, I think, how Putoff had attended this conference done inside the government. And at the beginning of the three-day conference devoted to disclosure, everyone said, yes, we should have disclosure immediately. And then they basically gamified it. They looked into what would actually happen, what are the benefits, what are the negatives? And every one of them at the end of the conference said, no, we shouldn't have disclosure. And I think for what I kind of relayed before is national security, right? You would have serious consequences, not for you and me as a human. I think it would be, I would argue, better for us, at least knowing that we're not alone, knowing possibly, are we talking about life after death? Is this related to the afterlife? Do we find that we really all are eternal beings or we're all connected through some ether type of consciousness back to the source? You hear of this and all the online New Age movement, which I think we have amazing evidence for with near-death experiences. I think NDEs are really one of our best experiences or evidence for some sort of afterlife. And if you look at near-death experiences, it seems to correlate. There's many correlations, similarities between near-death experiences and UAP, UFO experiences or abduction cases. I just interviewed James Landoli on the show and he basically had, it wasn't a near-death, but he was in a car accident and he ended up above the accident. You know, like you hear the classic, just a point in space above looking down on the situation. And then the next day he has a UFO experience, telepathic communication, goes outside and sees these crafts. So I think it would be amazing for us at our level, at the human level, to find out about that and understand that we're not alone and we're not alone in the universe and we can feel better inside or fuzzy or whatever. But I think it'd be extremely detrimental or possibly detrimental, at least, for the nation states above us, right? All these systems who have put everything on the line to keep us away from that truth. If that is the truth, it seems that way or it seems we're going that direction. So I think it could be possible that people in the know, the reason why they haven't come out and told us explicitly and why they've done so many terrible deeds to keep it secret is there would be obvious negative consequences to the national security state. Cancer. You hope to never hear it, but if you do, you'll want a team of experts by your side. At Trinity Health of New England, we understand the stress that comes with a cancer diagnosis. Our team of compassionate oncology specialists provide the latest treatments to take care of the whole person. We know the importance of seeing the person behind the patient because we see all of you. Learn more at trinityhealthofne.org slash cancer. Central Connecticut State University. Master your future. Enroll in graduate studies at Central. Voted best graduate schools by U.S. News and World Report. Apply today. Visit ccsu.edu slash apply. And so I could see that, yeah, you could have entities like this that they want to prove it. They even start out on that path. But once they're shown the truth or once they come to grips with actually flipping the switch between disclosure and not disclosure, you know, maybe there's a reason they don't flip it. Yeah, I've talked about that idea before of this whole connection to the afterlife. And I think one of the really grim but obvious ones would be folks who are in manic states of depression or end of life care or going through some horrible disease or illness or just a really bad time in their life. Find out, you know, it's basically Super Mario and you've got infinite lives. Then you deal with that accordingly. And do you end up with mass suicides the world over for weeks and weeks and weeks on end? And how does that affect everyone on the planet? A little bit like, did you ever watch the series The Leftovers? No, no. No. So the whole premise of The Leftovers, I'll get the number wrong here, is that it's something like 6% of the world's population disappears in an instant. A little bit like a Thanos snap. Some planes fall out the sky, babies disappear from prams, but it seems so random as to who goes. And the whole story picks up, and it's filmed totally serious, very real. How does humanity deal with this going forward? There's no answers. Does people have hypotheses? Was it a rapture? Was it something scientific? You know, whatever it may be. And it's almost that idea of how would humanity deal with this new realisation just happening on an instant? You get cults. You get suicide cults. There's a weird cult in it where they just smoke and they don't speak to each other anymore. They decided not to speak. But I'd recommend it to folks. It's really, really good. It's only a couple of seasons long. Really interesting series with a really interesting idea at the heart of it as well. But yeah, I just wonder, is it something like that where actually the idea of we have a non-human intelligence we are aware of isn't actually at all the big deal? That's just that, okay, but here are some other things that come along with it. And that's the stuff where folks are keeping this secret because you might think they're the bad guys, but ultimately it's not the technology. It's something in the background where this whole experience for some might become more the whole human experience, whatever it is. But for others, it suddenly becomes less valued where actually I'm not having the best time of it. I'm going to move on to what's next because you then have that certainty. Yeah, I'm sure everyone's had that experience, right? What is it? Don't meet your heroes. We talked about that, where you build up this idea in your brain of some perspective and then you learn the underlying truth. There's nothing like you thought, right? You meet your alleged hero and you hate them or dislike them or something, you know? And so it crashes all your original views or perspectives. And so, yeah, I think that could definitely be part of it. I think the list of negatives or potential negatives is very high. And the list of positives to the systems, the nation states, the security states that have been propagating, you know, this, I would call it a myth, call it a myth. You know, the threats to them are great and the benefits are very small. So that's why I think it's probably not going to come from the security state, you know, the disclosure. It'll have to come from pressure from us, like people like us at our level. And do you think it makes the most sense then that any information that does come out would have to be drip fed over decades where, and I've often surmised that perhaps the easiest way, even for the governments of the world to bring this forward as to use like the James Web and acknowledge techno signatures of something very far away that we have to send a probe to. It's going to take hundreds of years, but that opens up the conversation here, at least. Okay. Are there things visiting here? Have things happened before? Then you can find something closer to home. Perhaps, you know, the conversation escalates then, but you have to maybe almost play dumb and go, oh, we've found something really far away and gradually bring it closer to home and you have that disclosure over 5, 10, 15 years. Well, most likely the information's already been released. It just hasn't been accepted. You know, we've had many whistleblowers and they have what we would call ridiculous claims. You know, but what if one or many of those whistleblowers claims are correct, then, you know, the information has already been disclosed. It just hasn't been absorbed, you know, or accepted by the mainstream. They would have to have it confirmed though, wouldn't you? And who would you listen to? Would it have to be a president of the US coming forward and saying, here's the information and giving you essentially a YouTube playlist to the public to say, here are the videos you need to watch. You have to go and watch Chris Leto with Mike Carrera. You have to go watch Andy McGrillen speak to Avi Loeb, you know, and great for us, great for viewers, but these are the people, these are the scientists, these are the academics. The interviews are out there. And then what does that then say about or do to the rest who maybe aren't named? I think that, yeah, the only thing that would move the needle in a lot of people's minds is, would be the president saying it. You know, your primary world leader of like China, the US, you know, if Putin said it, would anyone believe it in America, you know? Well, I was going to ask you that, Chris, what happens in the States? Because we always talk about this and I do as well. Like 60% of the audience that listen to this podcast or watch this are in the States. So, which is great. They understand what I'm saying. The idea that China or Russia, as we are speaking right now, Chris, one of them announces, do you know what? We have recovered a flying saucer. How does that impact the States and what would they then do? I don't know. That is a great question. You know, would they just continue to play dumb or would they say, yes, it's true? So maybe reach out an olive branch and ask to share the science and say, oh, that's incredible. Let's look at that together. I think nations are always going to do what they've done in the past. You know, look at mainstream science is always going to do what it did in the past. You know, it's always going to ostracize the new thinkers. It's always going to lock them up. I think all we have to do to see how nations would react now is to look at how nations would react in the past. You know, I think it's reproducible. So, and the best example I like is when I live in Portugal, when Portugal learned to go around the southern tip of Africa, right? They learned how to cut out the spice root, you know, because the spice root was controlled. It was over land. It was controlled by the Muslims, you know, their enemies, essentially. So they had to trade with their enemies to get the spices, which would keep your food good over a long time, et cetera. So they were all looking for a way to get to Asia, right? That's the reason they sent out Christopher Columbus, was to get to India, right? Without having to go across land. Well, the Portuguese figured out that if you go really far west, all the way across the Atlantic Ocean, you can zoom around the southern tip of Africa. So they understood how to get to the new world. And there's no way in hell they shared that information with anyone. They didn't share it with the citizens in their own country. And they didn't share with people on the boats. You know, they didn't tell the normal soldier on the boat how they were doing this. You know, they didn't have access to the maps, et cetera. It was only the captains, only the navigators. So that information was kept secret because of, guess what, national security. So I'd say what would happen if, you know, their enemy, Spain at the time, learned to go around the southern tip of Africa? My guess is they would not proclaim it to the world. So I think if I look at that, if I was to analyze that, I would say that China would not admit first that there is a crash retrieval program. They just wouldn't do it because they have an advantage. They know how to get to Asia, right? They know how to get to the new world and their adversaries don't. So just like there's no way Spain told Portugal how they were getting to the Americas. You know, there's no way they gave them maps to the Americas. I think it's the same thing. So I think David Grush is probably correct as you have this secret war going on, just like nations did in the past. And it's about a new world, right? There's a new world around us of another frontier. And I think the nations are interacting in that world. And there's no way they're telling us, the local civilians, because they give up this huge advantage. It's a great comparison. I like that. I appreciate that one. Dave asks, on the stigma, so he says, I've been spending some time on the Newfork website and some of the most compelling and documented cases are coming from pilots. Does Chris feel the stigma that has existed against pilots reporting events, which has existed for decades, is dissipating? And if so, can he elaborate as to how pilots are presently being told to handle events involving UAP? You are more than just a heart patient. At Trinity Health of New England, we get to know you, which can help us diagnose a problem and start treatment faster. Our cardiovascular team offers the latest imaging and device technology, testing, and surgical procedures you'd expect from a national health system, with the personal touch you want from local experts. We know the importance of seeing the person behind the patient, because we see all of you. Learn more at trinityhealthofne.org slash heart. Central Connecticut State University. Master your future. Enroll in graduate studies at Central. Vote in Best Graduate Schools by U.S. News and World Report. Apply today. Visit ccsu.edu slash apply. I think it's trying to be dissipated, but, you know, we're not seeing any real change in the reporting. You know, I don't think, at least I haven't seen any more evidence of UAPs being reported from military, and like we saw, the Navy said that no UAP stories can be foiable, right? They're not going to release any Freedom of Information Act requests related to UAPs. So if there is more accounts of UAPs being reported by pilots, we're not seeing it, at least I haven't seen any of it publicly. And then privately, I mean, at least they know the terminology now. I talked to an Air Force pilot. It was a few years ago now, a buddy, but he at least knew about UAPs, and it sounds like they at least had like briefing items. But the military is a slow-moving boat. You know, it's difficult to move the ship. It takes a while. So you can, the civilian world, you know, they try to get the military to accept homosexualities, right? And so they can impose whatever rules and laws they want, but the military usually tries to not accept them, you know? I mean, it's a strong culture. So at least we've seen Congress try and get UAP or pilots to report UAPs, but we've also seen Congress try to protect whistleblowers, and they've been unsuccessful. So I know there's been efforts to get pilots to speak about it, to avoid the stigma, but I haven't seen any actual results that it's getting any traction. And from pilots to journalism, Anonymous, and that is the name of the user, the state of UAP journalism. So what is the state of UAP journalism? What does meaningful journalism in the UAP topic look like? How should it evolve? There's enough being reported across outlets, large and small, that it now seems possible to ask such a question. On one hand, you have journalists following traditional best practices, Keane, Blumenthal, Nat. On the other hand, you have Geraldo Rivera-like talking heads. Does the field need to button up its game by dropping all the innuendo and the sources tell me type stuff and establish a higher standard in order to elevate the UAP topic in the public consciousness? A higher standard? Well, I think maybe thanks, Anonymous, for writing. You know, I don't know if there's a higher standard in regular journalism. It seems like the reporting I see is often one-sided. It's very often biased. It's been corrupted by organizations. I mean, the CIA's caught red-handed in the past manipulating. Even topics I follow, you can see blatant lies. So I think our main journalism is not to a very high standard. I would love to see a higher standard across all of journalism. And if you look at freedom and safety of journalists, the U.S. ranks extremely low. Last I checked, this was a few years ago, it was like number 43 in the world in journalistic freedom. So overall, I would love to see a higher journalistic standard, but that's across all of journalism. But I think what we're seeing is what you talked at the beginning or earlier about is that now you can have direct source access. So, you know, I don't think we can trust any single source anymore, if you ever could. You know, even a video comes out and it shows exactly a UAP or an alien. No one will trust it. It can't be provable. You know, I investigated a case in Australia. Ross Coltart helped me. He met with the guy, did a background check on him, interviewed him, said he was legitimate. The video was fantastic. Um, and no one believed it, you know, immediately they said, it's lying. We're all grifters. The guy's lying. Um, you know, and people asked, where's the HD video? You know, and I was like, and I titled the thumbnail, here's the HD video, you know, and immediately got just hammered. Um, so I don't think any single source is going to matter. I think the only thing that'll really move the needle is direct source of the same event from multiple different cameras, multiple different perspectives. You know, if we could get a Phoenix light events, Phoenix lights event again, but now we have a hundred different people, you know, from different places, videoing, live streaming it at the same time. You know, I think I would love to see that level of event, you know, so I take everything with a grain of salt. I trust people like you and me more than I trust anyone that works in a journalistic avenue or is paid by any sort of company. Um, so I don't know, how do you separate fact and fiction? I think it's very difficult. I agree that the overall standards of journalism, even from local reporting all the way to the very top has dropped incredibly. I think social media and engagement and the death of physical media, the, and that includes newspapers and whatnot has contributed to that. Um, yeah, there's, there's a huge drop off across the board. I think I tend to trust individuals who are comfortable using the phrase in my opinion. I trust more, uh, and people who are comfortable saying, I don't know, or even admitting when they're wrong to a lot of folks who report. And if you just want to use the UFO topic, who are very hard and fast, I am saying this and this is right. I, I have an issue with that because unless you're going to back up, it's difficult to get fully on board, but I'm always willing to listen to people and take them at face value. But for me, there's, I think a lack of, I think across the board, the, the, the phrase in my opinion isn't used often enough. And I try consciously to do that myself and not force what I think or what I believe or what I've heard on other people. And they should always make up their own mind. I think it was, um, I've said before, wrestler Scott Hall, who was Razor Ramon back in the day, folks in WWF had a great, really intelligent guy. Um, he had a great phrase around, you know, listen to everyone's opinion or he said advice at the time, but listen to everyone's advice, but make up your own mind. And I think that should be the same across the UFO topic and everything else as well. You know, listen to who you want. Listen to Chris, listen to me, listen to Greer, Elizondo, Nat, Melon, whoever, but make up your own mind, you know, from the sum of the evidence that you see fit. Well, there's also this, there's this viewpoint that like the world is, is falling apart. And, you know, like you mentioned there, the, the standard of journalism has fallen. Um, but I kind of am under the belief in my opinion that it's always been that way or, or, or maybe even worse in the past, but now we just actually have insight to what's going on below the initial level. You know, I, I think you had more centralization in the past. Like I mentioned already, the CIA, you know, project mocking, uh, mockingjay. They had CIA, uh, operatives inside many newsrooms, you know, all, all sending out the same stories. You've had countless wars in the past, you know, all the evil things, uh, how many governments has the CIA overthrown? I mean, it's in the dozens to a hundred. So I don't think the world is necessarily any worse off than it, than it was. If not, it's even better. The difference is you and I have access to way more information. So now we know, like before we w we assumed that this is how it was, you know, like our hero was the state or, you know, growing up, my hero was mainstream science. And then I met my hero and saw it was a bunch of bullshit, essentially. Um, so I don't know. I tend to think that we're just getting, you know, we're peering behind the curtain based on decentralized information. Um, last couple of questions, uh, Kate asks for some advice facing ontological shock. Uh, what would Chris's advice be for those about to face their personal ontological shock coming across the many layers of the UAP field awareness? Um, well, it's good to know that you're in the, uh, aware that you're about to encounter ontological shock. Usually it's just kind of like looking in the rear view mirror of some sort of crazy event. Um, yeah, well, I would say that, uh, life is a crazy thing, right? What could, what could be a totally depressing existence waking up and you, you ask yourself why you're alive to just a few months later being extremely happy and grateful every time, every day you wake up, you know, it, it can drastically change and does drastically change, uh, your viewpoints. You know, if, if your viewpoint stays the same throughout life, I would say that's very boring. Um, and that's kind of depressive. Um, so I, I'd say now I'm much happier being on the other side of ontological shock. Um, yes, it was difficult going through it, but I would say more knowledge is better and changing your perspective is a good thing, right? And if, if you're wrong, you can always change your perspective back. It's not like it's some sort of permanent condition. We always assume that we're in some, uh, permanent condition, but we're not right. You're, you're, you're going to change. You're going to be a different person in a year than you are now that you were a year ago. And so just based on my own personal experience with this crazy topic and going through crazy experiences and Kundalini awakenings and everything. Um, I'm very relaxed, uh, very optimistic. Um, I have zero fear of death. Uh, I have zero fear of loss. You know, I don't, I, maybe I've just, uh, I've gone to a neutral, boring existence or something, but, um, no, I think we don't understand reality. And I, and I, I'd say anyone that says that they fully understand reality is, is wrong. And I think it's, it's grander. It's certainly for me, it's much grander and deeper and more complex than I assumed it was growing up. Um, and so I, I don't know, I get the impression I've been here many times before and I'll be here many times again. And, uh, if the, if the, if the U S falls, which it surely will write, every nation will fall, every nation will die. It'll be fine. And if the, you, if the globe, if planet earth fails and dies, I'm sure it will write. Every planet will die sooner or later. It's a part of this universe. Um, that'll be fine. You know, there will be other planets, I guess. So I would say I'm much happier on the other side of the ontological shock. Um, and, uh, final question is on your overall hypotheses. So from purple rain, um, watch both of you more or less since your beginning. So thank you for that. I'm always most interested in what kind of working hypothesis you and Chris has as of right now about the entire phenomenon and the universe at large. I know this is a work in progress. Thank you. All the best from Austria, Mira. Yeah. I love that question, but I'm curious on you, Andy, what, how would you answer that question? I guess before, before me, um, the, the, the, the phenomenon and the universe at large. So I'll take that in two parts universe. We don't understand that. I don't think it's a big empty space largely with some planets and galaxies that just fill it in now and again. Um, I, I, I, I don't pretend to understand the whole simulation hypothesis thing, but I certainly, I don't think we're plugged into the matrix if people think that in terms of simulation, but the idea that this is all just a really complex system. Um, I think things are there deliberately. I don't think it's God with a capital G. I don't think there's a magic man creator that started it all, but I do think there's a lot of weird and wonderful science. We don't know and might never know that created it. There are probably different universes. If you go down the Marvel route of things, probably something along those lines that intersect. And I think an element of what we see to then cross into the phenomenon side of things as we've got a whole load of different phenomenon. I think now and again, we've had alien races from other planets come here. I think that's probably been far less frequent than people might think. I think we've had drones or probes from other planets crash here, which have been recovered. Um, unmanned, which are probably more frequent. And then I think we have an element of different dimensionalities and whatnot coming through to here that keep an eye on us for various reasons as a third and the fourth one. I imagine a lot of what the U S is encountering in terms of the tic-tac and everything else are potentially remnants of something that either was here and left or disappeared a long time ago and left behind technology to kind of keep an eye on things. A little bit like WALL-E was left behind to clean up earth, um, except something left behind more than likely under the water. Um, the means to manufacture probes and drones von Neumann style. And perhaps that's what some of these tic-tacs and such are a bit waffly, but I think that's kind of where I'm at with things. Yeah, that's cool. Uh, yeah. Well, to the asker, thanks for watching us for so long. Um, yeah, I think, well, um, and I keep mentioning it, but I am really in the final, final draft of, of my book, I'm calling it the Fractal Universe, um, how patterns repeat from cells to galaxies. And so I've mentioned it a few times before, but I take a systems approach, um, to this. I think the, I think we'll find that the universe is, um, is fractal in nature. I think people have mentioned that a lot. And I mean that by as above, so below, like the ancient hermetic principle. Um, so I think we found related to the UAP phenomenon, um, when we originally found microscopic life, that was in 1683 when it was proven by this, this Dutch guy, um, Antoine van Leeuwenhoek. And he, he ground these little lenses and he could see the first little anim, an immacules, they called them, but little cells, you know, in, in pond water, just took a drop of pond water and he could see, you know, tons of little, uh, animals moving around. And so that's when I really knew there was life below our dimensional level and microscopic life. And, but still, and I mentioned how long it'll take for us to, to understand and get disclosure and all that, you know, from that, it's from that time, 1683, it took 200 years before doctors started washing their hands. So they, they knew there was these tiny little animals. You could, you could see them. So. Cancer. You hope to never hear it. But if you do, you'll want a team of experts by your side at Trinity health of new England. We understand the stress that comes with a cancer diagnosis. Our team of compassionate oncology specialists provide the latest treatments to take care of the whole person. We know the importance of seeing the person behind the patient because we see all of you learn more at Trinity health of N E dot org slash cancer, central Connecticut state university, master your future, enroll in graduate studies at central voted best graduate schools by U S news and world report. apply today, visit CCSU dot edu slash apply. They should have put this together. Um, but for 200 years, they still attributed all these strange effects, you know, uh, all the sickness, uh, infection, um, you know, what the human body's actually made up of, right. We're made up of little cells. We learned that so all of that stuff, they attributed to spiritual things, you know, um, miasmas, they said there were like, it was bad air or it was, uh, evil spirits. Right. When someone sneezes, you, we still say, God bless you. Right. Cause you know, the idea is no evil spirit will enter you and make you sick. Um, so it took 200 years. Right. And during that time we attributed normal things that were the real physical, uh, meaning, uh, to supernatural things. And so I think my argument is, is that we don't stop at our dimension of life. We just continue up. So I said systems approach. So the argument is, is we are actual little tiny cells in larger living entities. Um, so I think any alien non-human intelligence that we're in, we could possibly interacting with now, there's no reason to believe it's at our dimensional level, um, in size, meaning human size, you know, even David Grush, when he said, uh, biologics, he talked about biologics and said that they're, he doesn't know if they were ever alive. Right. So that gives, gives me the impression that they could be just like animatronic dolls of some other entity, right. Some other dimensional, um, intelligence or consciousness. A lot of them have said like the ship's alive, you know, Matthew Weygandt, and he said he always thought the ship was actually communicating with him, uh, or Jake Barber's carrying around that container and he has the, the NHI encounter with like the goddess or something. Um, so I argue that, um, it's, it's quite obvious to me, at least that there's macroscopic life on our planet. It follows the same rules of evolution, uh, killer be killed. I've made a couple, uh, references in this talk about, you know, what, how would a nation react? And we even talk about nations as entities, right? How would China react? How would the U S react if China did this? Um, so we even refer to them as organisms, um, in their own right. Um, so I think from my perspective, uh, it's obvious that there's macroscopic life, that we're a part of it. Um, and I think we could be seeing those same type of strange interactions, you know, that they saw with microscopic life and they attributed to some weird supernatural effect that they didn't understand. Um, and so I think the UAP phenomenon is related to that is a deeper understanding of the reality of the universe, um, that we are part of a fractal nature. And in that sense, where is consciousness, you know, where does consciousness live in that? If, if I'm conscious and you're conscious, if that's true, right. I, uh, all I can prove is that I'm having an experience. I, you could be fake for all I know in the simulation. Um, but what about the cells in your body, right? Or you're, we talked about pets, um, you know, is your dog conscious? Uh, I believe my dog is having some sort of experience. You know, he's, I see him dreaming and kicking and licking in his name. Um, I believe that, um, he has a conscious experience. So where does that stop? You know, does a cell in your body, is it having a conscious experience? And then is, is the U S having a conscious experience is Gaia, the planet having a conscious experience? Um, so I, I say we can't even answer that. We can't even begin to answer that question. Our current science has, they don't even have an experiment. It's like string theory. I mentioned before. Uh, our current science has no experiment to test for consciousness. We have no way, we have no definition of pain. Um, we see it as receptors, right? We, we know that, oh, this, uh, this nerve ending is, uh, is firing. But why does that transition to actual, uh, experience of pain in our current science has no understanding of that. So I see in the near future with AI help of AI is that we're going to have many breakthroughs across all these different fields. Uh, and we're going to realize, uh, in my opinion, that we're actually a part of a, uh, a spectrum of life, uh, that goes up and down in our universe and we're connected. And the reason why these UAP events, um, or NDE events, they talk about, oh, it's a connection. It's someone I knew somehow we're related. Um, I think somehow they're, we are a part of them, um, through big or small. So I don't know, that's my general thinking on the subject now. I like it. I would almost call it a little bit of magic school bus theory for me to understand it. You know, I like the idea. Remember the end of men in black where the, the long enough for spoilers now, aren't we? We're 30 years out from the original, like the galaxies on Orion's bell and then it zooms in and the cat's got the galaxy and then it goes into the galaxy. And we're just part of a marble, some aliens playing with elsewhere and we think everything's massive, but really we're just tiny little organisms inside something else. And it just goes up and up and up. So yeah, I could, I could totally buy into anything along those lines. And even the idea of some of these objects are in some way, shape or form, a defense mechanism like antibodies potentially. And are we the disease or are they just coming to check on things? I don't know. There's one final thought I had today is, um, I, I mentioned, uh, the evolution, right? Um, well, if you look at a seed, right, if you plant a seed into the ground, um, will that seed sprout right away? And I'd say no, right? Uh, you know, if, if a seed sprouts, uh, and the conditions aren't perfect, right? It doesn't have enough water in the, in the region right around it. There's not enough resources. It's not close enough to the, to the surface, then that seed will not be, will not turn into a tree, right? So over time, the seed has evolved to where it will wait, right? It has certain control mechanisms involved to where it will only sprout when the conditions around the seed are correct, right? It has enough moisture, it has enough soil, you know, it has enough access to the surface. There's enough pressure from the dirt, et cetera. Et cetera, and then the seed will sprout. And so I kind of think of that as the disclosure movement is that it could be that we're one of billions of worlds, right? And that as it feels now, the, the, the world is going through some, many people have said a great awakening. It's certainly rapidly changing, rapidly evolving. I think for the first time, the whole planet is in communication of some type with the internet. And now we have AI and all these new technologies coming on board. So I think people can feel that amazing rapid change is going on. So it could be that we're not meant to know about the disclosure. We're not meant to know about the technologies. Um, meaning we're not going to see a big breakthrough. We're not going to see a real sprout of the planet, uh, until the system, um, the environment is correct. And I think that could be why we're kept in the dark is that, uh, the environment is not yet ready, even though we're ready, right? You know, but the seed is ready. It feels like it's ready to burst. Um, but I think the environment is just not letting it quite yet. Cause the system, um, there's control systems that say, no, not yet. If, if, you know, if you have disclosure right now, you'll destroy yourselves, you know, um, right now you're not ready. You'll blow apart the planet. The environment's not correct. So I kind of feel like maybe there is a system holding us in until, uh, we're ready. Yeah. I like that good answer. And just to finish off, Chris, I mentioned before we recorded, I just want your thoughts quick as you like on a couple of issues we've not touched on here. One of them is a story that I've not followed, but I know you have on your channel. Um, the, the whole pyramids hidden structure underneath the pyramid story. Can you give us a little bit of a, what's going on there and why it's something you feel is worth following? Um, yeah, definitely. I'm very excited about the story. Um, so basically Filippo Biondi, he is a SAR scientist, which is synthetic aperture radar. He's a specialist. Um, he's from Italy and he's been working on this technology for many years. Um, and they use it from space essentially to sense little micro vibrations in the ground. And he's been able to sense, use the technology for bridges. So they can tell there's little cracks in bridges before they fall. You can also tell from volcanoes. Um, so you can actually use the micro vibrations on the surface to listen, if you will, acoustically below the ground, which is what they do for earthquakes, right? You get seismic. When there's an earthquake, actually you're listening to the waves, the P and S waves, and you're, uh, triangulating where the earthquake was, et cetera, and the strength. So in 2022, he wrote a paper where he converted this technology again in his basement. Okay. It wasn't from mainstream science. It was this dude in his base and his garage, actually in his garage doing these tests, uh, to where he wrote in this paper that he could see into the great pyramid and actually map out all these little, um, structures inside the great pyramid. Um, and so there, he argues there's many more rooms than what we know about, uh, that was peer reviewed science and ignored essentially. And then this year he said, okay, below the pyramid, actually, we can use this technology to sense up to two kilometers below the ground. And so they sensed all these pillars. I'm sure your audience has seen. It did make mainstream news about these pillars going down 1.2 kilometers below the pyramids. Um, and he was ostracized, right? Immediately mocked. So came out with that and Sabine Hassenfelder again, another science educator. Uh, I don't know how much science she actually does. Um, I know she makes YouTube videos just like I do. She said nine out of 10, it was bullshit. And, uh, Philippa was, was, you could tell he was offended, uh, by that. Um, uh, I think he respects her or he met his hero, I guess, in that instance. And so now they're just continuing on. And the best part of this is the technology's out there. So he, he already relayed, uh, the basic how to of the plan. You know, he showed it, he showed the experiment in his garage. Um, so if it's true and from a physics perspective, there's nothing to say it can't be true. Okay. They've used this technology to listen to windows with lasers and during the cold war. And so the best part is it can't be hidden. So it doesn't matter. It's going to come out because it's, it's too lucrative. The technology is way too lucrative to the oil and gas industry. Uh, it's too lucrative to mining. If you're able to determine where actual minerals are underground easily from space to space, um, uh, radar, uh, it's definitely going to come out. So we'll know sooner or later if it's true. And even if, if they've already shown it in many examples that it's, that it's correct. Right. And people still think it's not true. Um, but if they can prove it in, in, uh, other places now, it doesn't matter. We don't need to go below the pyramids to learn what's underneath there. You know, we'll be able to see right now. And the same is true, which I'm sure national security, uh, is going to be affected. You'll be able to see below area 51, for instance, there's nothing holding anyone back except for the U S government. Um, but those scans have most likely already been done. So the, the data's out there and you, uh, you can't stop China from SAR analyzing area 51. Yeah. Um, but even then, you know, avoid that issue. Cause that's very prickly. Uh, you can scan Gobekli Tepe. You can look under that. You can look under, uh, pyramid, uh, Peru. Um, so there's many places around the earth that if you could scan accurately two kilometers below the ground, I mean, you're going to rewrite our whole understanding of the ancient world and ancient history. So it's very exciting from my perspective. Would that work under ice as well? If you wanted to go to Antarctica, say, and scan below the ice, I asked on ice. He said, he wasn't sure there are limitations. Like, um, it won't work right now below a big city. Um, you know, it works because any little vibration is going to cause interference. So that's why it works really well on the, on the Giza plateau. If you actually go and look at the scans, um, over Cairo, which is right next to the pyramids, it's like a mess. There's a ton of noise. And then if you look at the pyramids, it's flat desert. Um, so there's minimal noise, but he also said he can see through the water table, although it attenuates it. Um, so in the scans that go below the pyramid, I don't know, maybe like 200 meters down. He said, that's where the water table is because actually it's attenuated. So above that, he was getting more signal and below that he was getting less signal. So I think there's certainly a possibility it can scan through ice, but I wouldn't be surprised if they couldn't either because of, I don't know, the lattice structure of ice or something. So he said there are limitations. I know there's folks interested in that. And it's one I kind of keep an eye on from a distance. Um, quick thoughts on Ross Coulthart recently saying that the Tic Tac technology was Lockheed Martin and he knew that for certain. Um, yeah, I kind of agree with what you say. If anyone says they know something for certain, um, I'm skeptical, you know, um, and I mentioned David Fravor as well, where I, I tend to agree directly with David Fravor. Um, if he says at that time, there's no way that could be created by man, uh, any technology he knew about, then I would tend to trust, um, David Fravor, obviously. Um, and if Ross Coulthart says he's certain of it, uh, I still had questions on why they would be operating in, in that area. Why did they have 18 to 20 Tic Tacs in the area as well? You know, was there a squadron of Tic Tacs? Um, why would they operate that close to a known carrier group? You know, the carrier group, you know, is there. Um, there's just so many why's it, it doesn't make any sense to me that I've said from the beginning, it doesn't make sense to me that it's a, a U S craft. You know, my big question is why would you, you could easily just operate it at night. Um, whatever operation you had to do or do it further away, or, you know, when the, when the, when the aircraft are approaching, when David Fravor's F-18s are approaching, just leave the area. So none of it makes sense to me from a, from a Lockheed Martin craft, but I, you know, I'll listen to what he says. I'm curious what is, was it, what his evidence is, and it certainly puts pressure on Lockheed Martin. Hmm. And finally, have you followed the Nazca mummy story closely and what are your thoughts there? I haven't followed it closely. Um, because I felt the only way I could really learn more about it was to see it in person, investigate it really boots on the ground. And it's just on the other side of the world. You know, it's in Mexico. I'm in Europe, um, with you, but I did interview Jesse. Michael's and he, he went and saw the mummies in person. And he, he said, he's actually coming out with a documentary in the near future. I think he's finalizing it and there is new information being released. So I, it's a very interesting case. I'm, I'm definitely interested in it. Um, right when it came out, I asked Leslie Kane, what she thought, and she was skeptical of it only because, uh, it's Jaime Mausson has a very bad, um, reputation in the UFO world. I know when, when, but when Jesse met him in person, he didn't get that impression at all. He said that he thinks he's dedicated. He thinks he's, um, truthful. He may just put out whatever information he finds without being discerning, you know, that may be one of his, um, one of his issues, but overall, I'm happy that there's people looking into it. I just, it's not me. Um, yeah, it's one, again, I've got someone coming on tomorrow, but when people listen to this, the interview will be out and recorded that someone who's been documenting and filming and been able to see the, the objects as well. So, um, be interested to get another perspective on it, but, uh, listen, Chris, been wonderful speaking with you, uh, and your final minutes left here, uh, what, uh, can people do to check out you, your content and where can they find you online? Yeah, the best place is, uh, on my YouTube channel, uh, Lado files. And I also put those, uh, YouTube videos out on audio. So competing with you on your, uh, very successful audio podcast. Has Lado files so they can find that out. Um, and as always support, you know, Andy on Patreon and me on Patreon as well. Like I've said this whole time, we're the dudes in our basement. Um, I think we're beholden to no one but ourselves. And so I think if anything, you're going to get what we think is truthful, right? In our opinion and not anyone else's. So please support us. And that's good or bad because we've got no one editing, chopping things up or telling is what we can or can't put out. So yeah, any mistakes are on us and all the good stuff's on us as well. So you're going to take the good and the bad, don't you? You definitely do. Yep, exactly. Awesome. Listen, thank you so much, Chris, for your time. Great speaking with you again. We'll try not to leave it two years till the next one. And, uh, thank you everyone else for tuning in, for listening, for watching. And I'll speak to you very soon. All right. Thank you, Andy. Great to chat again. Thanks, mate. That is all for this episode. Thank you very much for tuning in. Don't forget to leave the podcast a review on your chosen platform. Apple and Spotify do make a huge difference to the algorithm. If you're checking the show on YouTube, please don't forget to like and leave a comment on here as well. Any sharing you do is very much appreciated on any social media platform. And finally, you can listen to shows ad-free and sponsor-free in their glorious full versions by subscribing for less than the price of a coffee on Apple, Spotify, just search That UFO Podcast Premium, YouTube, you can sign up and be a member, or you can do that through Patreon.com. Thank you very much for listening, folks. You are more than just a heart patient. At Trinity Health of New England, we get to know you, which can help us diagnose a problem and start treatment faster. Our cardiovascular team offers the latest imaging and device technology, testing, and surgical procedures you'd expect from a national health system, with the personal touch you want from local experts. We know the importance of seeing the person behind the patient, because we see all of you. Learn more at trinityhealthofne.org slash heart. Central Connecticut State University. Master your future. Enroll in graduate studies at Central. Voted Best Graduate Schools by U.S. News and World Report. Apply today. Visit ccsu.edu slash apply. Do you suffer from back or neck pain? Trinity Health of New England has the latest methods and technology to help. Our team looks at many treatment options to create a plan that's right for you. From physical therapy and pain management to advanced spine surgery. Say goodbye to living with pain. Reach out to Trinity Health of New England today and get back to enjoying your daily activities. TrinityHealthofne.org slash spine. Trinity Health. We see all of you. Central Connecticut State University. Master your future. Enroll in graduate studies at Central. Voted Best Graduate Schools by U.S. News and World Report. Apply today. Visit ccsu.edu slash apply. This podcast is sponsored by Nurture Life. Hey, it's Danielle Fischel from Podmeats World. And as a mom to two growing boys, I know how chaotic mealtime can get. No matter how confident I am with what I'm serving them, my kids will always find a way to call the meal gross or stinky or yuck. It's true. They can be wildly picky about new foods. And with my busy schedule, I don't have the time to become America's next top chef. And so that's why I love Nurture Life. It's a meal delivery service that actually caters to kids. Ideal for ages eight months to eight years. Fully cooked and ready to serve in just one minute. It's the problem solver I've been praying for. It's the top meal delivery service for babies, toddlers, and kids. And everything is designed by registered dietitians so you can sleep safe knowing your kids are getting the protein, veggies, and nutrients they need while still eating favorites like mac and cheese, spaghetti and meatballs, and so much more. Plus, it's allergy friendly, which we know is clutch. And when it comes to options, Nurture Life has you covered. There's more than 50 nutritious meals and snacks on their menu, from soft finger foods for babies and toddlers to balanced kids' meals for when they get older. Nurture Life does the cooking, they deliver it straight to your door, and then you might even have time to eat something for yourself. So now is the time to head to NurtureLife.com slash P-O-D and use code POD for 50% off your first order, plus free shipping. That's right, 50% off plus free shipping. Once again, that's NurtureLife.com slash POD. And make sure you use promo code P-O-D. Even if you aren't a parent with young kids, you might have parent friends. who struggle with mealtime, make sure to share our code P-O-D with them. Remember, put your little ones first with healthy meals from Nurture Life. That website, one more time, is NurtureLife.com slash P-O-D pod.