Raw Transcript: “I Found 100,000 UFOs Above Earth!” (ft. Beatriz Villarroel)

The short flashes and not streaks, [music] they're associated with things that are extremely flat and extremely reflective. >> Wow. >> Like mirrors. [music] >> Like mirrors. >> This is [music] from the Palomar Observatory before we had satellites in space. How many of these transients [music] did you find? >> Our original sample is around uh 105,000 transients from just the northern hemisphere. Dr. Beatatrice Voriel holds a PhD in astrophysics. [music] She's won the L'Oreal UNESCO prize for women in science. She's currently an associate professor at Stockholm [music] University where her research runs the gambit from active galactic nuclei to transient phenomena in the search for intelligent life. >> If I look at everything that I learned in the last years, I I will be fair. I don't think we are alone. I think we have company. In other words, Dr. Vrial is someone who really knows her when it comes to the night skies and cosmos. >> My name is Beatatrice Varel and I'm a very curious person. >> And it's precisely these illustrious mainstream astronomical accomplishments which make her latest paradigm shattering results all the more shocking and threatening to the establishment. >> Dr. Let me first say that your reputation >> actually first. Could you ask the gentleman with the firearms to wait outside? >> Dr. V Royale has found over 100,000 light reflecting unidentified objects on the plates of the Palomar Observatory, the most prominent observatory in use in the 1950s. The only thing is she detected these objects before the first satellite Sputnik ever orbited Earth. You heard me right. A conventionally renowned astronomer has detected over a 100,000 UFOs before humans ever put anything in space. And the debunkers are flailing in their attempts to take her down. Do you feel like the world is ready to accept this? In this exclusive long- form interview, we address it all. We stress test her results and even speak to a PhD from Vanderbilt, Dr. Steven Bruell, who's followed up on Beatatric's study and correlates these UFO appearances with nuclear tests. [music] The transients correlate not only with nuclear testing, but also show a small but statistically significant correlation with UAP reports from the general public. Whoa. If you've seen our show or read the work of the great Robert Hastings, you'll know that the Nuclear UFO Connection is widespread, ongoing, and global. We've even interviewed a top presidential adviser at the end of his life who admitted to holding UFO material that came from a nuclear detonation in the Marshall Islands in late 1963. >> Hler, that's amazing. But this is unprecedented. We've never correlated those anecdotal sightings with the astronomical record. What's even more is that all of this work has received peer review in mainstream astronomical journals. In other words, she has finally caught the white whale in UFO science, academic validation. >> And then they can get their own ontological shock. Why? Why should only I have it? So, strap yourselves in, leave the Earth's atmosphere behind, and prepare to never see the night sky the same way again [music] as we welcome this week's returning Swedish alchemist, the amazing Dr. Beatatrice Voral. Beatatrice Valale, thank you so much for being here, a return guest on American Alchemy. I couldn't be more excited to have you because you had discovered some amazing things the last time we spoke, but this time you have discovered things that I think are so onlogically shocking and are hard to kind of compute for the average person because they wholesale change our worldview and our understanding of the earth, its place in the cosmos, objects surrounding the earth. And so I'm just so grateful for you. Uh thank you for for being here. Thank you for for spending time with us in Stockholm. >> It's a pleasure and it's a pleasure to have you here in Stockholm. >> Walk me through the day that you saw that there were maybe, you know, all these transients, these objects that were basically calling UFOs surrounding the Earth. What what what happened that day? >> Um well, I've been working with transients for a while. But I think a lot of people know about this transient work where where we have been looking for like multiple transients in images. Sometimes you can see multiple of them appearing and vanishing within half an hour. >> What is what is a transient? >> So imagine a light flash or something that changes in the sky. You have all these stars in the skies. You have galaxies. But some things change their luminosity and sometimes they change it on a short time. And in our case, we saw things that appeared and vanished within half half an hour. And we had two such examples that were statistically significant. >> One is uh five objects on a narrow band and it's from the 27th of July 1952. >> And then my colleague Enrique Solano in Spain, he discovered another such really beautiful example with three super bright, beautiful stars is the most beautiful example of all we have. This one is from the 19th of July 1952. And then my colleague Dave Alman who is the manager media manager for Vasco. He said, "Do you know what happens or what happened on 19th of July 1952?" No, I wasn't around. >> So he introduced me to the Washington uh flap. >> In Washington, ghostlike [music] objects dart across the radar screen at the CIA traffic control center at National Airport for several hours. >> This was a national event. It was a It was all over the press. It was in, you know, newspapers saying white, you know, saucers on the White House lawn. It prompted a call between Truman and Edward J. Rupelt, who was the head of Blue Book at the time. And it was, you had this Washington invasion or DC flyover where there were saucers all over DC at the time. And it was spec, it was July of 1952, but it was specifically two weekends. It was the 19th and 20th, and it was the 26th and 27th. So, I find that absolutely remarkable. So there I started understanding like there is something more to these transients >> and at the same time I I've been having all this discussion for several years with people who thinks no it's just plate defects you're trying to see systematics in plate defects. >> Real quick just for the audience what is a plate and why are other astronomers saying that you're only seeing plate defects when you're looking for these flashes of light >> in the old times in the 50s. H in order to make a picture of the sky with a telescope you used big [music] glass plates big that were big and heavy. They had an emulsion on top on on top of it and then they tried to observe the sky and they made a survey [music] observing the sky like the Palomar Observatory for example and Harvard they they took images of the skies with these plates and um these images they have been [music] digitized >> so even if they're somewhere in an archive then you today can access the digital images >> and um it was u assumed assumed or known. I don't anymore know if I should use known or assumed that many of these dots that could be there could be some kind of emulsion defects. >> And people thought, okay, so in order to select a star or something like that, people normally took uh two images and only selected those that appeared on two images. But if you do that, you're missing a lot of short-lived phenomena that might only be seen for a few minutes >> because then you miss all that. it's not going to be in your samples and astronomy is all about sample selection. The way how you define your sample, you need to to think through the criteria very carefully when you start doing this research. Yes. So when we have been talking about this multiple transients that people say, oh, you're probably just running into plate defects that just happen to coincidentally look like stars. >> And when you say emulsion, >> what what does that mean? >> And this chemistry you put on these plates. M. So the chemistry you put on the plates when the light shows through it, you get almost like a stain or like a record an increase. >> Exactly. A bubble >> of what was in the sky. >> Yeah. Exactly. And they think Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. You get if if you have bad luck, you get a plate effect like a bubble or something like that. But if you have something uh real then you will get a star. >> Yes. And so you have these plates and they they come from the Palomar Observatory >> those that I work with. >> And was this a wellrespected observatory at the time? >> Yes. one of the greatest ones and Fritz Wiki was there >> and there were many very famous astronomers that were there. So yeah, so we are working with this stuff where people have that people have been using for u doing really great astronomy. Now we're going back and looking at this digitized images and of course I'm having my discussion with people thinking ah it's just plate defects and then there's a simple way of testing it actually that's much stronger. Well, one of the tests we did were these alignments where we still found things. But there's a even cooler way how you can test that. You can actually see uh if you have uh the same number of transients uh when you look outside the earth's shadow or when you look inside the earth's shadow because all the time the earth cast a shadow. It's like a cone and the further you are from the earth the narrower is this um shadow. So my hypothesis was that there were um that uh these transients came from solar reflections at 42,164 kilometers from the earth or somewhere there around. Um and one of the ways how you can check it is to see are there more transients inside where you know the earth shadow is at a certain time or is it like fewer transients. And of course for every transient uh we have the coordinate and we also have the time of the observation. So you can calculate is it inside earth shadow or not. >> And uh if it would be plate defects you would have no deficit. >> Yeah. >> If it's 100% uh solar reflections you will have zero transients there. >> Yes. >> And if you have that a part of them are real and a part of them are plate defects you will have a deficit. uh and you can basically estimate how big fraction of your objects that seem to be authentic. >> M >> of course what do we do? We test this. >> Yes, >> because we have this code from a guy called GYR. So he it's a public code and then we have the transient sample from my colleague at the Spanish virtual observatory. >> So it's quite easy to test. You just insert the coordinates from the sample into the code and you count things. And guess what? you get a huge deficit. >> Wow. >> And that's when you start saying like did I do something wrong? >> Yeah. >> And you start thinking did I calculate the the area of a circle on the sky correctly? And you start doing all kind of things just to test did I screw up? >> So and for the audience so you're basically showing that the earth's shadow would not obviously a solar reflection wouldn't show up there. Exactly. a real object, you know, if it was in the the way of the sun, you would get a solar reflection. A non-real object, you wouldn't get anything. Right. And so what you're showing is that these are real solar reflections because there is a deficit in the Earth's shadow of these objects. >> Exactly. Because inside the Earth's shadow, if the sun doesn't reach Yeah. you're not going to get the reflection. >> While if you're outside Earth's shadow, it's going to reflect sunlight. So that's a remarkable finding because it shows that these are real objects because the idea that there are plate defects that's not going to play favorites ver you know as far as the earth shadow or not earth shadow. It's just going to be evenly distributed throughout a plate defect is a plate defect. >> Exactly. And it's possible that many of the transients we've been working with are plate defects because we only see one that there's a deficit of some of one/irdow. Uh so yes maybe there are a lot of plate defects in the samples but you still have a 30% deficit or 30 35% it still means that 30 to 35% of the objects we are working with come from solar reflections and not any solar reflections because these flashes that we see and these short flashes and not streaks they're associated with things that are extremely flat and extremely reflective. >> Wow. >> Like mirrors and that makes it more fun. >> Like mirrors. mirrors. >> Interesting. Yeah. >> Not something not not a stone, not a rock, >> right? >> Not ice, not round flats. >> This is from the Palomar Observatory before we had satellites in space. >> Yes. >> So that's fascinating. And if you think about it, plate defects again would be even you're going to have some margin of error due to plate defects, maybe like you said 30 35%. But it's not going to be only, you know, where the sun is. That that that makes sense. >> So even if you would have 80% of like uh plate defects, you still would have a substantial fraction of the objects that seem to be real. And that's what counts. I would be happy if it would be 1%. But when you get like 30 to 35% and you say, >> "Am I calculating it correctly?" >> You almost hope for it. At this point in the interview, you might be wondering about the fact that Beatatrice is looking at the most prominent astronomical observatory in use at the time. [music] So why wasn't this discovered earlier? And why haven't these findings [music] been replicated? Well, a man who held just about every clearance in the book and ran the Harvard Observatory in the 1950s, who was also part of the Bureau of Public Standards, basically compiling a lot of the astronomical data known to the public in the ' 50s and60s [music] was a guy named Donald Menzel. Dr. Donald Menzel came [music] out swinging against UFOs. But thanks to Beatatrice and others, we know the true story. He was even caught by his understudy Dorit Hofflight destroying astronomical plates at the Harvard Observatory. >> And he helped the uh US Air Force to debunk the Washington 1952 flap. >> Y >> and two or three months after he suddenly becomes the director of Harvard Observatory and he destroys onethird of the photographic place and [music] and he doesn't ask, as I understand from the record, he doesn't ask the astronomers to select the place. No, he asked his secretary to go and throw away uh onethird of the plates. And there's a woman Dory Tofflight that has been uh like telling about the story in her memoirs and kind of he started revenging on her later too for as I understood it for that she tried to protect some of the plates. He also threw away a a number of the log books that are keeping the observations and what plates exist. So you only have a handful of observatories in use at the time and you have a national security state headed up by people like Don Menzel tightly controlling the information disseminated to the public. It's not beyond belief to me then that a widespread coverup could have occurred. So we've shown that these aren't plate defects because plate defects don't move intelligently around based on the Earth's shadow. They also don't move intelligently around based on nuclear detonations occurring in the 40s and 50s. And if you're wondering just how ubiquitous the UFO nuclear connection actually is, check out my interview with the great journalist Robert Hastings, author of the book UFOs and Nukes, who's chronicled 167 Qcle cleared nuclear base employees who have blown the whistle on UFOs showing up all over our nuclear installations. Roswell was the site of the most nukes in the US in 1947 at the time of the Roswell crash. Unless you think this is an American deep state SCOP, you can go as far as Japan, where a town named Eno, which is right next to the Fukushima prefrure, has a mountain, Mount Seni, where UFOs constantly show up. Many of the town's people are obsessed with UFOs. They have a museum on top of this mountain dedicated to UFOs. Eno is directly adjacent to the Fukushima prefrure and their civilian nuclear grid. In the 90s in Zimbabwe, over 60 school children all saw a UFO land and an alien descend out of the craft and telepathically speak to them. And where is this school's location? >> And you know, an aerial school that was near a uranium uh mining site. >> That is right. As far as I understand, >> when we first started selling merchandise at American Alchemymerch.com, we had no idea how complicated and annoying selling merch could be. We talked to a dozen different platforms and companies comparing shipping tools, payment options, website builders, and it all felt like way more of a headache and complicated than it should be. We decided on Shopify, and within days, our store was up. Everything was running cleanly in an automated way so we could just focus on the brand and the vision we had for it. That's when it hit us. Ideas don't scale on inspiration alone. They need a structure, a container. Shopify provides that structure. It quietly powers millions of creators and brands, about 10% of all United States e-commerce. From big names like Gym Shark and Mattel to solo creators building from their bedrooms, Shopify made it simple to build a store that actually feels authentic to us, which matters when your brand lives in a niche like alternative tech, UFOs, or fringe science. And when you have a very clear brand vision, plus their AI tools help write descriptions, organize products, even clean up photos, so we can focus on what matters and what we care about. building the best custom merch line possible with the coolest designs like our UFO cowboy tea and the [music] atomic age tee. Plus, Shopify handles all of the unglamorous, more painful stuff. Shipping, returns, email [music] marketing, all in one clean dashboard. It's like having a silent partner who never sleeps. [music] Our favorite part of the product is the dashboard, which gives us complete demographic information. We can see where our orders come from, making it easy to know who our most loyal, consistent customers are around the world. That's just one example, but Shopify really makes your life easier. Bring your next idea to life with Shopify quietly handling everything behind [music] it. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start today at shopify.com/jesse. Again, that's shopify.com/jesse.j ssse for a $1 a month trial. Again, that's just $1 a month to try Shopify, the state-of-the-art solution in e-commerce. >> So, this is amazing because you've basically found pre-satellites in space uh objects surrounding the Earth. How many of these transients did you find? >> Well, it depends on how one counts. Now, our original sample is around uh 105,000 transients from just the northern hemisphere, but we assume that it's only one/ird of these that are uh relevant. So we can count on 70,000 all over. >> Mhm. >> Um however, I don't know how many of these uh transients might be associated with only one object or if it's like one object could give several of them. >> I just don't know at the moment. We have to investigate this. >> Yes. Because a transient is a flash of light. Exactly. >> And so it could be the same object flashing traveling or whatever. And you found this over what period of time? >> It's over six years. It's seven. It's like some 780 hours of u exposure time. >> Okay. >> So we Yeah, we need to do the calculations correctly. I think it's something like uh 1.1 transient per square degree per hour. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Wow. So like almost like 15,000 per year or something. >> It's a fun number. >> Yeah. What I didn't know is that there's apparently since the early 1960s there were something called uncorrelated targets. >> Uhhuh. >> And people have been finding them in hundreds per week or something like that where again they see something only once or a few times on a radar or with optical sensors and then they they can't track it. So it becomes an uncorrelated target and they always reduced >> from the background when people calculate a number of objects in space let's say space trash and um satellites in space >> how do you separate an uncorrelated target from a satellite how do you know because it's not orbiting like a satellite >> because they can't track it so they they if I understand it correctly NASA and those always remove it from the background >> okay >> sorry they remove this background of uncorrelated targets from the total uh number of things that they see in order to calculate the number of objects in space. However, I think that they're uh they don't do it themselves. It's done by militaries and it's classified list. So, it's kind of becoming a little bit more fun. I'm trying to look into this right now. >> Yeah. So m maybe like uh you mentioned recently like you know NASA's kind of the more civilian space exploration output obviously they do intelligence work as well but maybe space force has these targets these uncorrelated targets and they remove them for NASA >> I think that's what I heard from someone on the inside yes that they don't do it themselves is the space force that has these lists these lists are classified as also those earliest from the 1960s because what I would like to uh is one of these lists >> coordinates and check if they vanish in the shadow. >> Totally. I mean because if they if they didn't vanish they wouldn't just be noise because it sound it sounds like systematically people looking at space are calling them uncorrelated targets. You're basically it's like a oh they're just it's noise in the data or something. It's something to be filtered out. But in fact you have other agencies that are systematically tracking the noise because it's not just noise. It's these are objects maybe. >> It's very interesting and I I learned also that it's like they make up the majority of the things that we see on the sky today. But again, I didn't know about it. So I'm wondering a little bit. Are my transients similar to these uncorrelated targets? Of course. >> Yeah, >> it's one of the things I'm wondering about because that would be interesting. >> That would be amazing because 15,000 a year or 20 thou, you know, whatever number that we come to is a lot. I mean, the amount of satellites in space, like I don't even know what we're at right now, but I mean, obviously, Starlink is dramatically increasing the amount in the sky, but it's not a ton. And the uncorrelated objects, just for the audience, because we've jumped back and forth between transients, which are these light flashes that you were detecting in these plates from the, you know, 50 to 56 and uncorrelated objects. Do we know that these are the same thing or I have no idea. I'm just spec like speculating around this. I'm just curious and trying to look into this right now. These are just where my thoughts are wandering. >> But if you saw that there was a drop off in these uncorrelated objects around the Earth's shadow, you could show that again they're physical objects and maybe if we could show that they were the same amount as what you found in the the plates from, you know, the ' 50s, maybe you'd get, you know, some sort of match. But >> would love to see that like especially these uncorrelated targets if they come from optical sensors it would be super interesting to see if they vanish in the earth shadow. It would also support not only that they're physical but that they are artificial. As it turns out these uncorrelated targets [music] are a gateway to a much deeper rabbit hole stretching all the way back to the dawn of the space race. Our story begins in 1953, 4 years before Sputnik. Enter Major Donald Kho, a retired Marine Corps naval aviator and one of the earliest public advocates for UFO disclosure. Kho states something astonishing that the Air Force was tracking two unknown artificial satellites 400 and 600 m up in low Earth orbit. The timing here was likely not a coincidence. That same year, a very unusual [music] project started at White Sands Missile Range, a military-funded initiative to track small natural satellites. Think asteroids captured in orbit. Two remarkable scientists were in charge. First up is meteorite expert Dr. Lincoln Leaz. Before joining this special search for many moons around Earth, Dr. Leaz headed up Project Twinkle, an Air Force investigation into unexplained green fireballs showing up across American nuclear sites documented at places like Los Alamos and Hollowman Air Force Base. Leaz arrived at the conclusion that these green fireballs were not a known natural phenomenon and they seemed to propel themselves intelligently. Second on the project, we have Clyde Tomba. Yes, that Clyde Tombop, the man who discovered Pluto, the man whose ashes are now speeding towards interstellar space inside the most expensive urn ever built, NASA's New Horizon spacecraft. Until the day he died, Tomba remained steadfast in his conviction that some UFOs could represent visiting alien spacecraft. So, one has to wonder, given wild rumors from credible sources and the cast of characters involved, what exactly did they actually find? On August 23rd, 1954, Aviation Week and Space Technology published a statement from Leaz, one which begged way more questions than it answered. Leaz confirmed that there were indeed two unknown objects, but simultaneously he claimed that the two unknown objects were fully identified natural asteroids caught in Earth's gravitational grasp. He might have been doing this to dispel American domestic panic that this could have been Soviet tech. But if you read between the lines, there's a lot that just doesn't add up. Firstly, these observations directly corroborate Kho's story. White Sands Missile Range actually was tracking two unidentified objects in low Earth orbit, but it also contradicts just about everything else we know about the historic and scientific record. These two quote unquote natural satellites never show up again in any of the literature on asteroids and near-Earth objects. Given that the moon is regarded as the Earth's only permanent natural satellite, these two mini moons should have been a major astrophysical discovery. I'm talking national news major. Yet, we never heard about these two objects again. Perhaps strangest of all, in the official Near-Earth Satellite Project's final report, these two objects aren't even mentioned. Not only that, but the report concludes that there are no natural satellites orbiting the Earth. But if that was true, if there were really no natural satellites, then what the hell were these two unknowns? Perhaps most remarkably, the most important US government documents surrounding UFOs from exactly when the Palmar Observatory was making these observations in the early 50s [music] quite literally refers to objects with metallic and light reflecting surfaces that were flat on the bottom. So, the Air Force and CIA documents at the time describe objects that exactly sound like the mirrorlike features Beatatric's data implies. These documents include the 1947 Twining [music] memo, the 1948 Project Sign analysis, and the CIA's analysis of the 1952 [music] DC UFO flyover, along with Blue Book lead Captain Edward J. Rupelt's analysis and more. UFOs are consistently described as light reflecting, luminous, shiny, metallic objects. Characteristics that would likely show up as light transients on astronomical plates like the Palomar Observatories. Have you tried to corroborate your findings from the Palomar Observatory? Because people maybe forever will try to say it's plate defects even though plate defects aren't going to be biased towards you know what's not in the earth's shadow and where the sun is hitting. That doesn't make any sense. >> Unless they are intelligent plates >> unless they're int then you're >> they move around on the plate just to avoid a shadow. >> Yeah. So they're the real conspiracy theorists. The plate defects people are you know they're into Yeah. Yeah. Intelligent plate defects. >> Exactly. Um, have you tried to look at other observatory data, other plates from the 50s to cross reference that data against the Palomar? >> I really want to do it. It's a big project because every time you um try to let's say uh look at a new place collection, it's a big extraction like the whole process to look through the place even the digital ones. It's a it's it's a project for maybe two years or so. So I hope I will get maybe a post-doctoral uh researcher to help to do this. >> A lot of people watching this might be asking, "Oh, it's convenient that Beatatric who was interested in UFOs is finding, you know, UFOs." Um, how would you respond to to those people? Because the way you're describing it to me, it's kind of undeniable from a first principles viewpoint that this is worthy of investigation and it's very clear. But >> it's called a scientific method. You have a hypothesis. When you build the LHC to looks for the when they built the LHC to look for the H boson, they also have a hypothesis in the beginning. When they look for a particular particle, they know what they are looking for. Is it there or not? Yes, >> it's a scientific method. Why should UFOs or alien life be an exclusion? I mean, >> that's a that's a beautiful way to put it. The scientific method involves the interplay between hypotheses and testing. And if you can't even have the hypothesis that there could be, you know, other life or other objects that we don't detect out there, you're not going to obviously find it because it's >> Yeah. So if you go very generally and you look for UFOs and you start looking uh let's I mean I've seen some astronomers suggesting that you should um just look without any hypothesis and do like classify things like you're classifying butterflies. I think you're not going to find anything. >> Well obviously >> because because you have no hypothesis you don't target your experiment. >> Yes. and you are going to invest years into that and you might have a great classific like great catalog of things but I'm not interested in the catalog. >> Yes, >> I want to ask the question. I want to design the experiment. Of course, you're going to have a lot of pitfalls, things that can go wrong. It's all trial and error. We're learning continuously. >> But this is what I want to do. I want to test the question. I want to do the experiment and I want to analyze the data and see what is the outcome. >> And it's a great example you used. You said LHC which is the Large Hydron Collider which is CERN this big particle accelerator. The Higsfield I believe was predicted in the 70s and they actually discovered it much later obviously with the Large Hydron Collider. So it's a perfect example of you need to be open or knowledgeable about the thing you're looking for before you find it. It's not just science is not like uh remove your brain and you're just like an instrument or a sensor. you have to target your sensor, you know, against something. And so that's what you're doing. And here's where I think things get even more exciting for people like me who have been into UFOs for a very long time and have long known about this connection between UFOs and nuclear detonations. I mean, it's a ubiquitous phenomena. There's a great book by a journalist named Robert Hastings called UFOs and nukes and it documents the global widespread phenomena of UFOs showing up around nuclear installations, nuclear civilian energy grids and nuclear weapons facilities. You have 167 Qcle cleared missilebased security personnel, radar operators, guys that work at these these bases who are basically hired to protect the crown jewels of defense. and they have to report if they're taking, you know, Tylenol or ibuprofen, like they literally have to be the picture of mental health and they all say they see UFOs, saucers, tic tacs. And so you found that there might actually be a connection between nuclear and UFOs in space. >> Uh so my colleague Steven Brule, he has been leading a study. I'm co-author on this paper. Uh so he has used the sample from the Spanish virtual observatory, the same sample that we use for the Umbra test, exactly the same thing. and he has tested a hypothesis of that there's a correlation in time between our transients and nuclear bomb tests and he finds a correlation. It's weak but it's there and is statistically significant. He also finds a correlation between UFOs and nukes and between UFOs and transients and all of them are statistically significant. So you have this triad UFOs, nukes and transients. >> Wow. And is it specifically nuclear detonations? >> Yes. >> So it's the timing of nuclear detonations. >> Yes. Within a day you see this uh increase in transients. >> As you know on American Alchemy we cover a lot of technology that goes beyond human limits. This is about technology that helps the body catch up and feel good. I'm talking about the I restore LED face mask, a red light therapy system that uses clinical grade wavelengths to boost skin cell energy production. The same exact principle used in the top recovery clinics and bio optimization labs in the world. I've been using it most nights, 10 minutes while I'm reading, prepping for a show, or decompressing. It's completely hands-free, comfortable, and engineered to deliver consistent light intensity across the face, not that uneven scatter most cheaper masks use. It feels like your face is taking a warm bath. What it's doing is called photobiomodulation, stimulating mitochondria to repair tissue, reduce inflammation, and improve circulation. You [music] actually feel the calm and rejuvenation after a session. I've tested a few of these. This one really stands out for the build quality. It feels like it was built in a high precision [music] lab, and it's not just a cheap beauty gadget. So, if you're into real evidence-based recovery [music] tech, this belongs in your setup. Head to ires restore.com and use code jesse25 [music] for an exclusive discount. Again, irrestore.com code jesse25. Red light therapy has really been a gamecher for me. So, I hope you love it. Originally, I trained as a clinical psychologist, but I quickly moved into doing biomed research. So as part of getting a PhD I got training in research design uh statistics and have practiced that you know the research skills in statistics for many years. I approached Beatatrice via email and I said, you know, what do you think of trying to explore this further and she was nice enough to uh agree to do a Zoom meeting and we started talking about it and she became very excited about the possibility of systematically looking at this which she had not really thought about doing before. and we kind of came up with a plan for how to do it and over the course of the past year compiled this enormous database with uh 2,700 days in it and for each day we recorded was there a nuclear test that day? There were like 134 over that period of time. Was there a transient that uh day and there were transients were only seen on about uh 300 days out of those 2,700. And then we looked is there a relationship between those and a relationship with UAP sightings in the old center for UFO studies UFO database which covers that period of time. And uh you know I was shocked. We got a really interesting finding that was highly significant statistically and uh I doublech checked it, triple checked it and then reached out to Beatatric. She was very excited and we immediately started writing it up for a paper uh which was actually just accepted this week at a journal called scientific reports. >> That's amazing. Congratulations. So um how strong is the correlation that you found between the transients and nuclear tests? >> Let me put that two ways. So statistically uh it there is an 8 and 1,000 chance that this is an error which is means it's pretty unlikely that's an error. Uh, and then the other way to look at it is in terms of percentages. So out of those 2,700 days, if there's no nuclear test, there's a transient on 11% of those days. But if there's been a a nuclear test the day before, then it's uh almost 19% of those days have a transient. So that 11 versus 19 is about a 68% increase in risk for a transient if you've had a nuclear test. And so when you're documenting all these nuclear tests, these are tests presumably at the Nevada test site which turned into Area 51, maybe the Marshall Islands are like those sorts of nuclear tests and then you know maybe whatever Russia was doing with the Zarbomb in Kazakhstan, that sort of thing. >> Yes, [laughter] that is all true. It's Kazakhstan, there's some British tests in Australia and then the US tests in New Mexico and in the Pacific. >> That's right. There's Wumera test range which um the head of the nuclear division actually in Australia the joint intelligence organization was a guy named Harry Turner and he was obsessed with UFOs and so I think it's probably not a coincidence that he was overseeing a lot of those nuclear nuclear tests. Um but uh yeah that's fascinating. Is there any way to geoence uh the transients uh to maybe correlate it even more tightly? I think in principle there is the possibility of doing uh kind of looking at general directions because all of these that we've looked at so far were taken from California at the Palomar Mount Palomar Observatory. Um, there are plates from that same era that are taken at other observatories like the Vatican Observatory. And if we could get access to digitized plates from some of these other locations, um, I would think we'd be some ability to kind of triangulate uh on the on those days when you get a transient that coincides with the nuclear test and may be able to identify uh roughly what direction that was in. So, right now, we haven't been able to do that, though. This this would be a really big deal, I think, if uh you know the entire consensus sort of accepted it because already you have people like Robert Hastings documenting 160 plus qcle cleared ICBM security personnel, radar operators, guys at nuclear bases with no incentive to lie, no histrionic streak in their personalities. Often they're tested actually uh for being sound of mind. They're on what's called the PRP, personal reliability program. U they have to be inherently, you know, kind of credible witnesses, and they're all seeing UFOs. And what your study does is it almost implies possibly that these are coming from from space. They're not just showing up, you know, locally at the Air Force base. >> Yeah. So, here's the pieces of information that I like to point out when I'm talking to people about this. And I have to say a few years ago I would think I was crazy for saying this but these are just statistical facts. So Beatatric has shown that these transients the number of transients drops dramatically when they are in an area where the earth's shadow would be. So that indicates that they are reflective objects in orbit. They're not plate defects. Um, our findings indicate that these things were in the sky the day after a nuclear test and they weren't there the day before. So somehow based on a nuclear test going off within 24 hours you have these objects whatever they are appearing in geocynchronous orbit. Now who is behind that? you know, where where did these come from? And how can they be so close that in 24 hours they're they're able to be here and I don't know the answer to that, but it really is thoughtprovoking to me in an existential way. >> Absolutely. Are there any kind of first order debunks that you've thought of when it applies to your findings? So like the first order debunk with Beatatrice would be that uh these are plate defects. And I think she answered that pretty substantially with, you know, unless the plate defects are intelligently shifting themselves based on, you know, light patterns, that doesn't really make sense, right? So, do you have like a a first order debunk that you've thought of or addressed or plan to address in the future? >> Yeah. So, the things that are, and this is all pretty obvious, but uh the transients were identified using an automated system. It's not true AI, but it was an automated uh process conducted by a computer. And I know for a fact that some of those are errors because I've I've gone through at this point probably a hundred of these transients manually, which is a lot of work, but you can compare and see why the computer thought it was a transient. And there are some things that are errors in there. Um, so that is always a concern, but the thing is I Like for example with the nuclear tests, I looked at the transients that were seen this the day after a nuclear test. And for each of those dates that happened, I have manually confirmed that there was an actual real obvious transient, at least one of them on that day. And that gave me more confidence that this isn't some weird error, some random pattern that we've capitalized on. So I I know there's real transients from these days when the nuclear tests happened, but the debunk of it is is something local to the observatory, right? Uh and what's interesting is the transients correlate not only with nuclear testing but also show a small but statistically significant correlation with UAP reports from the general public. >> Whoa. So on on a day when there is a a nuclear test or see day after a nuclear test and there are UAP sightings, you get a much higher risk of a transient. So they all kind of are like a triangle. They're all together as one thing. And that's fascinating to me. And you can't explain that by anything that was local to the observatory or the film. Those associations wouldn't be there if it was plate defects or radiation effects. If it was a the bomb casing, just let's say some bit of it survived, it's not going to sit in one place in the sky for 24 hours to be seen as a transient afterwards. So just none of the things I would think of make any sense. And uh you know as a psychologist most of the research I do has a lot of error in it because you're basing it on what people tell you. And there's error in this data set but it doesn't undo the fact that there is a real signal there that is clearly detectable and is actually quite large when it comes to the nuclear testing association. Well, also if you're doing kind of pointed error correction on the days that these, you know, transients seem to show up, then you're actually saying that 68% more likely, you know, transients nuclear is a baseline statistic and it's probably higher if there are errors in the entire data set and they're probably more transients than, you know, we think. >> Yeah. Same thing with the UAP sightings. a lot of error those a lot of those are prosaic things that just there was no ability to you know research them. So our plan hopefully is to use AI to try to clean the transient data. Uh you know train train the II AI to tell the difference between a bad plate or dust or a streak on the plate uh and a real transient. And that what you just said is true that if we do that successfully we're going to get rid of the error and end up with more signal and that should increase the associations we see. Now, and can I I want to mention one thing too, and this is just kind of an odd fact that I find interesting is when we look at the data set, uh the last time we saw a correspondence between a nuclear test and a uh transient was March 17th, 1956. Okay. Now our study goes on for an entire year after that and there are an additional 38 nuclear tests over the course of that year. Not a single time is a transient associated with a nuclear test at that point. So it was like, well, what happened suddenly in 1956 and uh I was reading an article that a guy named Larry Hancock with the SCU did uh where they were looking at sightings of UAP at nuclear facilities like nuclear production facilities, nuclear plants, things like that. And what they found was high levels of activity from 1949 until 1953. And then it just stopped. Even though more facilities came online, suddenly they weren't seeing UAP anymore. And it just got me thinking. It almost looks like whatever it is was showing an intelligent interest in all things nuclear up until between 53 and 56 and then suddenly wasn't anymore, at least for a while. That was kind of odd to think about. I don't know what that means, but that was that was intriguing. Yeah, I'm trying to think what happened in 56 or 57. I mean that's when NIKAP formed which was the first civilian UFO research program. That's when the international geoysical year happened where Antarctica became a no-fly zone and a bunch of scientists, you know, internationally met together to discuss things of this nature. So maybe maybe there's something around that. I believe that was 56 57 um >> maybe >> but I don't know. >> Yeah. And if these if these are we always have to consider the possibility that there's some very odd form of plasma life you know I don't know what that would be but some organism that may give the appearance of this that can hover in the sky and appear like a transient and might be interested in nuclear testing. But it is hard to conceive of any kind of organism that would be able to do what these things seem to do. >> Yeah, absolutely. So, how many transients are we talking about total in this data set? >> It is surprisingly large keeping in mind the error, but there are over 107,000 over that uh what is it 8-year period. >> Okay. Wow. It's remarkable. So, like a little over 12,000 a year. >> Yeah. So, if we think though that 90% of these are error, let's just be conservative, we've still got over 10,000 things that were in orbit reflective prior to the first satellite that seem to be interested in nuclear tests in some way. >> Do you have a sense of the error rate? Because if the error rate is 10 to 20%, I'd be I'd say far more confident in your study. If it's like 90%, I might be a little more okay, let's let's do the error correction. You know, >> I think the best way to think about that is something that Beatatric has talked about, which is when she looks at the transients and where they are and calculates which transients are in sunlight and which are in shadow. When you look at the data that way, in the shadow, the number of transients drops by about 30%. Right? So that kind of presents the lower limit for error would be maybe about you know 30 30% of these being real transients 70% error. I don't think it's actually that high just having manually inspected these >> but it would make sense that you'd get more transients in the light than in the shadow side. Right. >> If they're in orbit. >> Yep. So okay. So I see what you're saying. So like up to 30% but even that like you'd expect some you'd expect the you expect some delta between those two. So it's really maybe up to 25% or something. I don't know what the right mental model is. >> There's no way for us to tell at this point exactly. >> Yeah. It sounds like as a the best way to corroborate this just get as many observatories like their data and kind of cross crossch check all of them. Right. >> Yes. So if anybody out there has access to digitized plates from places beyond Palomar, please talk to us because I think there's some very interesting things we could do with that. >> And one more thing that I like about this result is that again it disagrees with the plate defects unless they are intelligent. >> Yes. Exactly. If there's any sort of correlation between nuclear and UFOs, it's like so >> even if we >> Yeah. Yeah. So the emulsion issues are somehow biased towards you know nuclear detonations like that that all of a sudden becomes much crazier as a null hypothesis than just admitting that there are these unidentified objects. >> Yeah. People could of course say oh it's just cosmic rays then or it's something you know it's some high energy particle but you're not you're also having a correlation with UFOs and plus >> if it would be cosmic ray particles they wouldn't vanish in the in the earth's shadow. No, they wouldn't also >> at 42,000. So >> they wouldn't vanish in the earth's shadow. They also wouldn't be systematically tracked by, you know, maybe other military organizations, you know, while civilian facing organizations are sort of, you know, uh, systematically removing them. So is this data that you received from these plates from the Palomar Observatory, is that used in other serious scientific investigations? Do other astronomers look at that data? They are used by lots of astronomers. >> So if there are systematic plate defects in what you're seeing, then this would discount any study online that involves these Palomar this Palomar observatory, this this Palomar data and you're saying that it's used by a lot of serious astronomers. But what is usually done and always has been historically done is that people only use the images that um let's say the object that can be found on multiple images and then you get rid of all the transients and the plate defects. >> Okay. Are are there other examples of plate defects causing this number of transients? >> Not that I know. >> Okay. So you've never heard of an example like that? >> No. But these are these intelligent plate defects are correlating with UFO events with nuclear um bomb tests. They are also hiding in the Earth's shadow and they're sometimes being aligned. They are remarkable. >> Yeah, that's a pretty remarkable set of plate defects. [music] >> [music] >> In 1961, legendary astronomer Frank Drake [music] started Project Osma, the first ever organized search for interstellar radio signals. Drake scred together an antenna and dish using scrapped radar parts from World War II and pointed the whole apparatus skywards in hopes of intercepting an alien transmission. In doing so, he initiated the largest scale search for intelligent life our astronomical community has ever engaged in. SETI or the search for extraterrestrial intelligence had begun its 70 plus year life. Outside of a few unresolvable blips like the famous WOW signal discovered by Jerry Aean at Ohio State, no alien radio signals have ever been detected in a repeatable consistent way. Nonetheless, the search is still in its infancy. One study literally calculated that the volume of the galaxy that SEI has scanned so far is like comparing the volume of a hot tub of water to all of the Earth's oceans and asking where are all of the fish. Even back in the early 60s at the start of SETI, some of its scientists were already exploring radical alternative possibilities, even ones that went far beyond basic radio signals. One such outside the box thinker was electrical engineer Ronald Bracewell and his concept of a communicating probe. Let's say you're trying to have a phone call with alien broadcasters in epsilon Bes some 203 lighty years away. [music] You send a message, hey, what's up? 406 years after you sent the original message comes the response. Nothing [music] much. How about you? The point is it would take 406 years just to exchange those two sentences. [music] Interstellar radio beacons don't exactly make for engaging real-time conversation. The speed of light is the fastest thing we know, but it's also painfully slow. Here's where Bracewell saw an intriguing concept. Instead of waiting around for radio signals to cross interstellar distances, why not send a physical robotic probe to the star system of interest? Even if you couldn't have a real-time conversation with someone from another star, you could upload an automated messaging system or even eventually your mind into an interstellar spacecraft which could then upon arriving in orbit of the destination [music] planet after eons in the void initiate a realtime conversation with the local life forms. But what would the first message be? How would one even go about starting such an interecies dialogue? Bracewell's idea was simple. You'd intercept whatever radio transmissions the locals were already sending out and then send those radio transmissions back to them. Bracewell took his speculation one step further by considering that such a probe may already be lurking somewhere in the dark recesses of our solar system, waiting to reach out at any moment. One may recall a relevant scene in Carl Sean's classic novel Contact, [music] which follows SETI astronomer Ellie Arowway as she intercepts a genuine extraterrestrial signal sent from aliens in the Vegas star system. In a wild plot twist, [music] the initial contents of the message come as some shock. Hitler's speech at the 1936 Olympics was Earth's [music] first ever television broadcast to break through the ionosphere and reach space. So in the novel, Hitler is also the first representative of humanity the Vegas [music] civilization sees. Not exactly a good first look. In a manner just like Bracewell's concept, the Veagan aliens decide to respond by bouncing Hitler's speech back to its initial source, encoding instructions inside of it to build an interstellar wormhole device. They're under control. Do you read me? >> It's worth remembering that the solar system is a very big place. It's also a very ancient [music] place. Given the vastness of space and time in our solar system alone, where would any such a probe park itself? The Earth Moon Lrangee points would be the ideal choice. Think of Lrangee points as pockets of stability where gravity, rotation, and orbital motion all balance out, and objects [music] within these pockets stay still. If our solar system truly is a wash in alien time capsules and artifacts, they'd accumulate in Lrangee points like a grand celestial treasure chest for spacebound archaeologists. [music] If you wanted to send a probe to monitor our planet for millions or even billions of years, the Lrangee points are a great strategy for playing such an observational long game. Okay, but Jesse, isn't this episode supposed to be all about hard data? Why all the sci-fi speculation? Well, it so happens there's a long welldocumented unexplained radio phenomenon that eerily pattern matches to many of these ideas and predictions. I'm talking about long delay echoes or LDEs. The story begins back in 1927. Norwegian shortwave radio operators began to notice something odd. Shortwave radio naturally travels around the world and makes its way back to its source, [music] usually creating an echo 17th of a second after the initial signal. This is completely normal and expected. 17th of a second is how long it takes to travel around the entire Earth's circumference at the speed of light. Radio waves, of course, travel at the speed of light, but for some transmissions, [music] a ghostly echo would follow. sometimes up to 30 seconds later. Much too late to be a normal shortwave radio echo. The radio operators who first noticed this phenomenon were completely [music] baffled. Norwegian physicist Carl Stormer quickly got to work trying to explain these mysterious echoes. To this day, a definitive answer remains elusive. A vast majority of LDEs are likely caused by radio waves bouncing through plasma in Earth's ionosphere. A few are more mysterious, perhaps even echoing from the Earth Moon Lrangee points. Some of the longer delay times match the travel time to these Lrangee points. [music] And one study even found a statistically significant increase in LDEs when the Earth Moon L5 Lrangee point was above the horizon. Just consider for a moment how closely long delay echoes resemble Bracewell's concept for interstellar communication. Taking [music] local transmissions and bouncing them back. This coupled with a possible origin in Earth moon lrangee points paints a picture eerily similar to the long hypothesized notions of what contact could look like. Could some of these echoing Bracewell probes be what Beatatrice has detected on the Palomar plates. When you spend time with other credentialed astronomers, after rounds of them questioning you on possible plate defects, them doing mathematical calculations, is anybody still hold out as skeptical after spending weeks plus with you and diving into the data? >> I mean, the only one uh I can comment about now is my referee. >> Okay. And I think he send he or she is sending back comments that are kind of constructive asking for more tests and I think people are always going to be skeptical. There is like >> when you say your your ref your referee who is what does that mean? >> So uh we're working through the revision of the paper and it's undergoing like review process which means you're getting back a lot of questions where they are questioning like your methods etc. And I think this process is very important because it helps you to test uh your method and it also gives you confidence about the method when results stay robust and in general when I interact with astronomers I think the first reaction is like it's you know it can't be well it's just my first reaction as well like it can't be but you if you see it then it's there and I suspect that scientists are going to be slower with accepting certain results. I think the onlogical shock among scientists is going to be more brutal than among um the general population. >> Yeah. >> Because we are very self-confident about that we are the smartest uh >> for sure >> in the universe. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> So, >> are you trying to get this published in a like a prestigious academic journal? >> We're trying the traditional way through peer review. is difficult because there's it's of course it's a touchy topic it's touchy results >> and u there's going to be a lot of skepticism but the way how I'm seeing it is that we might not be able to convert anyone at the moment but we can make our data publicly available >> so that anyone can go there and they will have the access to the code as well yeah >> and then they can get their own ontological shock why why should only I have it >> that's the question >> why did you decide decide to go public before getting this published uh via peer review. >> Um let's say like this. I know there's going to be a lot of pressure on me. I already have experienced it from people that are trying to like save me by asking me not to talk about it or you know um >> Oh, that's so weird. >> It it has been a really unpleasant process in some ways. >> Why would they be saving you? Yeah, because they think they save me by they think okay if if you go out with this there's going to be this and that and all these horrible things are going to happen to you etc etc and I know that it's going to be tough with the pressure and I thought it's more fair to put out the results even the preprint early on so that people can see this is where my thoughts are at right now because then they might also see how things develop >> what happens what happens to the results? Have they changed? Um, it might also be a safer way when it comes to pressure because if you don't put it out and it leaks out instead that a lot of people know about it, but they are still not official, there's a bigger risk that someone will come and try to really stop me already. Now, people have been kind of some of them have been a little bit unpleasant to deal with. Have you been approached by aerospace or military or people with intelligence backgrounds? >> I have been approached by some people I suspect have it. >> Okay. >> And that have been a little bit scary to talk to. >> Okay. >> Um I mean if after that the result was out. Uh I have also been approached by very very nice people with uh that kind of background who have been instead of supportive. >> Yes. And I appreciate that. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> For me, it's important to like meet people who are supportive. >> There are good and bad people everywhere. But you've It is It is to me it's interesting that academia is trying to throw the kitchen sink of skepticism and they don't know what to think about it and you know, God, God willing, you get this published, you know, in this academic. >> It's been really scary. It's been a really scary especially like with people who are some of the people who I thought were my friends and and then they come back and they comment something and they try to push you down maximum and you say, "Hey, we [clears throat] shared so much and we talk so much and I've been so vulnerable with this person and then they >> try to stop you from making an interview or talk about your work or something like that." And that's where I just why is this why is this happening? It's a scary result. I understand. >> Yeah. >> It's a super scary result, but >> I think it's an exciting result. It's that [laughter] scary. >> Well, it's exciting and scary, but it still has to be >> I mean, it has to be out there. And if it turns out that it was some mistake in the calculation later, fine. >> Okay, then it happens. happens. We are all humans. I'm also human and I'm also learning and all the stuff. But >> the ideas will be out. The methods we develop will be out. Someone else who might have better methods than me might use the same ideas for the earth shadow alignments presutnik plates combine them and maybe we'll find really great support for what we see. >> The value of any scientific endeavor is how uh against the updating of the consensus it is. So if you have something that's totally not correlated from what you know most astronomers think that's the most valuable thing that you could ever look into. And so the idea that you shouldn't look into that is to me insane. And it's uh people who want to defend basically the establishment and the status quo. And you know it's crazy how we replay the same cycles over again but you know Galileo you're like a modern Galileo or something. So l literally in some ways because you're looking at you know it's historical data but it's through a telescope. My hope is that the second if we get it published and we will make these data sets publicly available and people can simply go in and check it for themselves. >> Yeah, I love that. >> And they can reply through by writing a paper, right? Not by doing some I don't know ju just complaining to me they can write a paper. >> So you're open sourcing this for everybody to be able to come to the same conclusion. >> I want people to go in and do this themselves because I also want the confirmation from the outside. >> That's beautiful. >> So that's how I'm thinking. I do think it is telling perhaps that academia is more like disinterested or skeptical and they're saying don't ruin your reputation and then you have aerospace, military, those sorts of people are coming to you and they're saying you know they're expressing more interest almost as if maybe they know a thing or two about what you've already found which has been my experience in in many things that I've found when it comes to exotic propulsion or UFOs. is the military and aerospace are often like there's something there, you know, and then academia has no idea how to even conceptualize what you're talking about because they're in this kind of ivory tower citadel which is kind of separated from reality. >> I think there's like I think there's a certain amount of like mismatches one realizes when when one is interacting with academics. I had recently someone telling me like, "Oh, every astronomer wants to be the first one finding alien life and you're doing a mistake. you're doing the same mistake as and he read some names and I'm just uh like yeah he was upset over that I wrote the paper and that I'm going like that I might publish it and I'm just thinking like I'm not out here to be the first or something because if if this result is correct then I'm far from the first. There are thousands or 10 thousands of people who know about it. There are millions of UFO reports. There's nothing about discovery here. Yes, >> the only thing that would happen is that there is scientific data confirming something that is already known and probably there's loads of results that are classified related to this. There's nothing related to discovery of being first. >> Well, this is how science moves forward. If you read like Thomas Coon's like the structure of scientific revolutions, he says science moves forward more due to politics than due to truth. And so if you think about who was the first person that hypothesized that we live in a heliocentric universe that revolves around the sun or solar system it was universe at the time uh was uh uh actually a guy named Aristarkus who is a 3 century Greek. Nobody believed him and he was forgotten. And then in the 16th century you have capernicus saying you know we live in a heliocentric universe and then you know obviously Galileo helps kind of see that through through a telescope. But the point is is that people can be not listened to for the longest amount of time and then posteously be right and get no credit and then it's the right time, it's the right place and the discovery gets born. But it's way more about the social zeitgeist people being receptive and ready than it is purely truth. I agree. And also what about the you know somebody at the Palomar Observatory or a great example is I interviewed you last time and you talked about Dorit Hofflight who is um this astronomer who ended up being a very wellrespected astronomer herself but at the time she was kind of an assistant professor I think for uh Don Menzel at Harvard at their observatory. and she talked about Don Menzel, who is basically as prominent in UFO lore as any astronomer, astrophysicist there is, who was privy to classified Navy and, you know, all sorts of data, military data. Um, and he was a big UFO debunker and he was caught destroying astronomical plates from the early 1950s. >> It's amazing the whole thing. And it's it it happened two months after the Washington 1952 flap when by the way that's when we have our interesting transient cases too. >> There you go. >> And and then like connect that now the story with Don Mansel. >> Yeah. >> To the fact that the Vera Rubin telescope is going to remove a lot of classified satellites and other objects. >> Yeah. >> And now also that we know that there's a background of uncorrelated targets that are classified also as far as as I understand. I mean that seems like a pattern to me and very worthy of >> as far as I understand that's what I understood from my source uh at NASA that >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, no, we can uh we can investigate and and >> I would love to learn more about this and check like exactly where it happens, where do they remove them from which calculation and I would like to learn more about it. And can you find the list from the early 1960s somewhere? >> Yeah. >> And not only like 10 of them, you want something like thousands of them. In light of Dr. [music] V Royale's latest paradigm shifting results, perhaps we should at least consider the possibility of non-human technology. We can also examine the testimony of the legendary French godfather of ufology himself, Dr. Jacques Valet. Young Jacques was working as an astronomer at the Paris Observatory as part of its nent satellite tracking program. One night on July 11th, 1961, he and his colleagues noticed something truly bizarre. An unidentified object orbiting the Earth. The object was in retrograde orbit going the opposite direction to the Earth's rotation. To unpack why this was so weird, we need a bit of rocket science 101. Many of the world's top launch facilities are located along the equator. And no, dear alchemists, it's not for some freaky symbolic occult ritual. It's actually to get an extra boost from the Earth's natural rotation. If the Earth spins on its axis and your rocket shoots off in the same direction as that spin, it takes some of that momentum with it on its way up. To go against the Earth's rotation and enter a backwards orbit is much harder. As baffling as this mystery object's backwards trajectory was, it also may be a clue to possible intent. Retrograde trajectories often show up in polar orbits. In a polar orbit, the satellite passes directly over the north and south pole, making it the only orbit capable of imaging the entire Earth's surface as the planet turns below. In other words, if these objects were indeed from an alien civilization, they would have been peering down from a perfect vantage point to survey the Earth. Some try to explain away Jacques's orbital mystery sighting by invoking the Corona program, a series of highly secretive CIA sponsored satellites first launched in 1960, kicking off the modern era of orbital espionage. The Corona satellites did have a nearly polar orbit. However, it's a very insufficient explanation as Valle pointed out in a later interview. Later I found out that other observatories had made exactly the same observation and that in fact American tracking stations had photographed the same thing and couldn't identify it either. It was as bright as the star Sirius. You couldn't miss it. It didn't reappear in successive weeks. Sirius is the brightest star in the night sky. So if this was an espionage satellite, they weren't doing a great job of hiding it. Corona satellites were deliberately built with less reflective materials than others at the time, making it extremely incompatible with the exceptional brightness that Jacqu reports. Jacques also mentioned that the object did not reappear in successive weeks. Also strange and inconsistent with the corona satellite explanation. What happened next would shock young Jacques to his very core. His superior at the observatory, Paul Mueller, got a hold of the data. The next morning, Mueller, who behaved like a petty army officer, simply confiscated the tape and destroyed it. Jacques would later recount realizing that scientists were human beings like the rest of us. When their reputations were threatened, when their ideas were challenged, they reacted by eliminating the data. If the data didn't fit their preconceived notions, they just got rid of it. In many ways, this was the inciting incident which sent Jock on his lifelong hero's journey to the furthest edges of the unexplained. It also parallels the heated response Beatatrice now faces from many of her peers, and it shows that her anomalous observations are in good company. They don't exist in a vacuum. >> Do you feel like the world is ready to accept this? I think there is no such moment. It just happens when it happens. >> Yeah. >> On the other hand, like you say, uh sometimes some knowledge doesn't land well because it came in the wrong moments. >> I don't know. But now we have all the whistleblowers coming out or that they came out and they gave really great testimonies. All these people who >> have talked about their experiences. Many of them are really really like really really intelligent, brilliant, healthy in all ways. >> Yes. >> And it's like people who want like role model people. >> No, we're getting to I think a tipping point even on my little YouTube show, you know, it's like we've probably broken maybe 15 16 of these people with again the intersection of very credible backgrounds. Green berets, air force combat control recruits, national geospatial agency, elder statesman adviser to the president in the case of Harold Malgrren. You have all these people saying the same thing. I just interviewed a a a chief uh of aerospace medicine, you know, one of the top doctors. He was attached to NASA. He was at the the Air Force. He was a senior doctor there. Uh and he saw something. Uh so it's like uh it's we're getting to a tipping point I think where it's like okay one thing is a campfire story but like you know hundred like what how do you explain that away? I mean it starts to get really interesting. >> I mean if I look at everything that I learned in the last years I I will be fair. I don't think we are alone. I think we have company. >> Yeah. >> And that's my impression. I'm hopelessly curious and I cannot I cannot stop once I I mean once you see these kind of results it's not like you >> can just give up and say no no no I you know >> no >> uh I should go and do some classical astronomy to support my living you just can't it's also like something you become dependent on >> trying to satisfy that curiosity ask any question you have to know >> I think it's just going to take time for this to get out there I think when people actually see this published and read it. Uh if they think about it, I think they're going to be very intrigued by this. So, it's going to be interesting to see what, if anything, this changes in terms of the way people think about science of UAP. But I know there are many other interesting scientific projects going on in the UAP area. And I think in the next, you know, five or 10 years, it's going to be night and day from what it has been in the past. And we're going to start seeing a lot more peer-reviewed studies uh assuming journals are willing to take them. That's always the concern is because of the topic a lot of journals don't even want to touch it. We've spent most of this episode examining the data, but with results that so thoroughly challenge our existing modalities and worldviews, it's worth stepping back and trying to grasp at a bigger picture. So, what does all of this mean and what are the deeper implications? As with any cosmic shift in perspective, Carl Sean's pale blue dot comes to mind. >> Our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position [music] in the universe are challenged. >> But what does this all mean? If our pale blue dot is being intently studied by other little pale dots, pale dots that fully surround it, what new meanings do Sean's words carry if we're actually not a lonely and obscure speck, but instead so enveloped in cosmic company that tens of thousands of alien satellites were studying our planet before we could even launch one of our own. I can't answer that in this video, but maybe trying to contemplate those questions is a next step in our collective evolution. And if you ever do find yourself staring up and watching a starry night sky, just ask yourself who or what might be staring back. I want to thank Dr. Beatatric Vioale for her time and for sharing her remarkable findings. I also want to thank Dr. Steven Brule. Until next time, I'm Jesse Michaels and this is American Alchemy. Alchemist. Did you enjoy that? Well, here's the thing. That episode was just the tip of the iceberg. If you want the full picture, head over to the American Alchemy Magazine we just launched on Substack. That's where we deep dive into all sorts of crazy topics that we don't have time to fit into every video with weekly articles exploring all of the strange, forgotten, and conspiratorial corners of space, history, and high weirdness. So join up today at our free or paid tiers on Substack. I am including the full link in the description of this video.