DOCTOR AVI LOEB- Hunting Alien Artifacts & Interstellar Visitors!

0:12 Speaker 1: We just constructed an observatory at Harvard University. We are

0:17 Speaker 1: monitoring objects that fly overhead and trying to make sense

0:21 Speaker 1: with them.

0:23 Speaker 2: This collection of instruments is part of Harvard's Galileo Project.

0:27 Speaker 3: The Galileo Project is developing several sites that are spread

0:32 Speaker 3: across a geographical region, where each site has an array

0:37 Speaker 3: of sensors, optical cameras, infrared images. There's audio from infrasound

0:45 Speaker 3: to ultrasound. There's radar.

0:50 Speaker 2: It's a wide.

0:50 Speaker 3: Array of instruments to basically look at the sky all

0:54 Speaker 3: the time to see if you find any anomalism.

0:59 Speaker 1: Behind the window there is a camera and they overlapped

1:03 Speaker 1: and so they get a full picture of the entire

1:06 Speaker 1: skides all the time. So far, we have been operating

1:09 Speaker 1: this observatory for several months and we saw hundreds of

1:13 Speaker 1: thousands of objects in the sky. None of them appears

1:17 Speaker 1: to be anomalous. But even if one in a million

1:22 Speaker 1: came from outside of this Earth, that would be big

1:25 Speaker 1: moves to humanity and change our future. And that's what

1:28 Speaker 1: drives my sights.

1:34 Speaker 2: Being interstellar materiod Welcome back to Total Disclosure, the podcast

1:49 Speaker 2: that dares to unravel the universe's deepest mysteries. I'm your host,

1:54 Speaker 2: ty Roberts, and today we're tackling a question that's haunted

1:59 Speaker 2: humanity for centuries. Are we truly alone out there? Before

2:02 Speaker 2: we blast off, do me a quick favor. Hit that

2:05 Speaker 2: subscribe button on YouTube or follow us on your favorite

2:09 Speaker 2: podcast platform. Your reviews and ideas light up my day,

2:13 Speaker 2: So let me know what you think or who you'd

2:17 Speaker 2: like to see on the show net. Want in on

2:19 Speaker 2: the action. Join our exclusive membership for ad free early episodes,

2:24 Speaker 2: sometimes weeks before they drop, and help keep this cosmic

2:27 Speaker 2: journey alive. You pitch in what you can and I'll

2:30 Speaker 2: take it from there. Now, let's get to the main event.

2:33 Speaker 2: We're sitting down today with doctor Avi Lope, a fearless

2:38 Speaker 2: astrophysicist from Harvard University who's rewriting the rules of the

2:43 Speaker 2: search for life beyond Earth. He's not just a professor,

2:46 Speaker 2: he's the mastermind behind the Galileo Project, a cutting edge

2:50 Speaker 2: mission to hunt for signs of extraterrestrial technology or non

2:54 Speaker 2: human technology in our skies and beyond. With a resume

2:58 Speaker 2: boasting black holes, the dawn of the Universe, and hundreds

3:01 Speaker 2: of mind blowing papers, doctor Avilobe has grabbed the world's

3:05 Speaker 2: attention with his book Extraterrestrial, The First Sign of Intelligent

3:10 Speaker 2: Life Beyond Earth. In it, he makes a bold case

3:13 Speaker 2: we might have already glimpsed alien intelligence and it's time

3:16 Speaker 2: to stop ignoring the evidence. Today we're diving deep into

3:20 Speaker 2: his revolutionary idea, the Galileo Project's quest to scan the

3:24 Speaker 2: cosmos for UFOs and interstellar visitors, and what it all

3:28 Speaker 2: means to us and for us if the answer to

3:31 Speaker 2: are we alone turns out to be a resounding no.

3:34 Speaker 2: So strap in this is total disclosure, and you're about

3:37 Speaker 2: to embark on a one on one journey through the

3:39 Speaker 2: stars with doctor Avilobe that'll leave you questioning everything. Thank

4:18 Speaker 2: you so much, mister Avilobe. It is an honor to

4:21 Speaker 2: be in your beautiful home today, and I just really

4:24 Speaker 2: want to say, from the bottom of my heart, thank

4:26 Speaker 2: you for everything that you've done, not just for you know,

4:29 Speaker 2: the science community, but for the UFO community and bringing

4:33 Speaker 2: your caliber of scientific rigor to the community.

4:36 Speaker 1: Because you know, it's my great pleasure. I mean, I'm

4:39 Speaker 1: driven by curiosity and this is a subject that is

4:43 Speaker 1: fascinating in the public and we have to address this scientifically.

4:46 Speaker 2: Absolutely absolutely so. So today, obviously we're honored to sit

4:50 Speaker 2: down with doctor A. Vlobe, a renowned astrophysicist and professor

4:54 Speaker 2: at Harvard University. We're excited to dive into this one

4:58 Speaker 2: on one session and you'll also be speaking at Contact

5:01 Speaker 2: in the Desert come late May.

5:04 Speaker 1: That's correct, awesome.

5:05 Speaker 2: So I just want to start off doctor Lowe with

5:08 Speaker 2: an introduction and background. Your career has taken you from

5:11 Speaker 2: theoretical physics to leading the charge in search for extraterdustrial life.

5:16 Speaker 2: Can you tell us about your background and what sparked

5:18 Speaker 2: this passion for the unknown.

5:20 Speaker 1: Well, as a kid, I grew up on a farm

5:22 Speaker 1: and was mostly interested in philosophy about the fundamental questions

5:26 Speaker 1: of our existence. And then since I grew up in Israel,

5:31 Speaker 1: there is a mandatory military service, but they allowed me

5:34 Speaker 1: to pursue physics and that was a good approximation for philosophy.

5:39 Speaker 1: It was useful for the defense of the country. In fact,

5:42 Speaker 1: the President Rigan initiated at the time, which was the

5:45 Speaker 1: mid nineteen eighties, the Star Wars Initiative, and I proposed

5:52 Speaker 1: the project that was first to be funded by the

5:55 Speaker 1: US as an international project. And that brought me to Washington, DC.

6:00 Speaker 1: We were funded a few million dollars a year, and

6:04 Speaker 1: in one of my visits I went to Princeton where

6:07 Speaker 1: they offered me a five year fellowship under the condition

6:10 Speaker 1: that I'll switched to astrophysics because before that I was

6:14 Speaker 1: doing plasma physics, the physics of very hot gases. So

6:19 Speaker 1: I agreed to do that. It was an offer that

6:21 Speaker 1: I couldn't refuse, just like in The Godfather. Then after

6:26 Speaker 1: that I received an offer from Harvard University for a

6:30 Speaker 1: junior faculty position, and three years later, to my surprise,

6:33 Speaker 1: I was tenured. And at that point it became clear

6:37 Speaker 1: to me that even though it was an arranged marriage

6:40 Speaker 1: with astrophysics, it's actually a marriage to my true love

6:45 Speaker 1: because I can address fundamental questions about our existence in

6:49 Speaker 1: the universe using the scientific method, and so here I

6:53 Speaker 1: am very different than my colleagues because I tend to

6:56 Speaker 1: think about the big picture, and the most important question

7:01 Speaker 1: that we have is are we alone? I mean, we

7:04 Speaker 1: see our house that we live in, and then through

7:09 Speaker 1: the windows we see other houses very similar to our

7:12 Speaker 1: house on the cosmic street. These are sun Earth analogs,

7:18 Speaker 1: and we know that there are hundreds of billions of

7:20 Speaker 1: stars like the Sun in the Milky By galaxy, and

7:24 Speaker 1: at least a few percent of them have a planet

7:27 Speaker 1: the mass of the Earth roughly the same separation. So

7:30 Speaker 1: you know, the many houses like our own. And the

7:33 Speaker 1: question is whether they have residents, and that is the

7:36 Speaker 1: most fundamental question, because if they do, you know, there

7:39 Speaker 1: might be a smarther kid on our block that we

7:42 Speaker 1: can learn from. And I'm not surprised that most of

7:46 Speaker 1: my colleagues dismiss that possibility and argue that we are

7:49 Speaker 1: probably alone until we find evidence. You know, it would

7:52 Speaker 1: be an extraordinary claim to imagine something like us. But

7:57 Speaker 1: I think that it's much more likely that we are

7:59 Speaker 1: not alone. And you know, other civilizations existed billions of

8:02 Speaker 1: years ago, because the Sun is a late bloomer. It

8:06 Speaker 1: only formed in the last one third of cosmic history,

8:09 Speaker 1: and most of the stars formed billions of years before

8:12 Speaker 1: the Sun. And you know, I just remember how my daughters,

8:15 Speaker 1: when they were very young, they used to think that

8:17 Speaker 1: they are the center of the universe, you know, And

8:22 Speaker 1: at some point they went to the kindergarten and they

8:24 Speaker 1: were shocked to find other kids like them and even smarter.

8:28 Speaker 1: So my colors and yeah, and different abilities. So I

8:33 Speaker 1: think out of sense of humility, we should assume that

8:37 Speaker 1: there are things like us that existed, and most of them,

8:40 Speaker 1: most of the civilizations probably died by now, but we

8:43 Speaker 1: should search for them. You know, new knowledge would not

8:45 Speaker 1: fall into our lap. We should invest time, effort and

8:49 Speaker 1: money to look for them. And that's what I'm doing.

8:53 Speaker 2: So, you know, what really brought you on the map,

8:58 Speaker 2: And I don't want to say this like, you know,

9:00 Speaker 2: in a drogatory way, but for the UFO community and

9:04 Speaker 2: the related phenomena, what really brought you to the map

9:08 Speaker 2: was more and the interstellar object and what you theorized.

9:14 Speaker 2: Can you explain your what you were talking about with

9:19 Speaker 2: a more and more and the ridicule of your peers

9:22 Speaker 2: that soon came after.

9:24 Speaker 1: Yeah, So, for the first time, seven years ago there

9:30 Speaker 1: was an object discovered from outside the Solar System that

9:34 Speaker 1: astronomers recognized in a survey telescope. Before that, we've never

9:40 Speaker 1: seen a big object coming from outside the Solar system.

9:44 Speaker 1: And it was found just because it came close to Earth.

9:47 Speaker 1: And that was named because the telescope was in Hawaii

9:52 Speaker 1: and it means a scout in the Hawaiian language. It

9:54 Speaker 1: was roughly the size of a football field, about one

9:58 Speaker 1: hundred meters, and the the amount of sunlight reflected from

10:01 Speaker 1: it changed by a factor of ten as it was

10:04 Speaker 1: tumbling every eight hours, and that's a huge change in

10:08 Speaker 1: the surface area of this object projected on the sky

10:12 Speaker 1: as a result of its spin. And in fact, the

10:17 Speaker 1: most likely shape for the object was infaird to be

10:21 Speaker 1: a flat shape like a pancake. Yeah, despite what an

10:27 Speaker 1: illustrator made it look like more like a cigar, but

10:31 Speaker 1: that's not true, that's in projection. In fact, it was

10:33 Speaker 1: most likely flat, and moreover, it was pushed away from

10:36 Speaker 1: the sun by some mysterious force without showing any cometary evaporation.

10:41 Speaker 1: It wasn't a comet because we didn't see a tail

10:45 Speaker 1: of gas or dust around it that reflects sunlight. And

10:49 Speaker 1: that's the way you recognize a comet now most recently,

10:53 Speaker 1: and there is a long history of astormers trying to

10:56 Speaker 1: explain it as a natural object. I suggest that is

11:00 Speaker 1: pushed just by reflecting sunlight. And in fact, three years

11:05 Speaker 1: after a moment was discovered, there was another object that

11:08 Speaker 1: was definitely pushed by reflecting sunlight, and that happened to

11:12 Speaker 1: be a rocket booster from a nineteen sixty six launch

11:15 Speaker 1: by NASA, and it was given the name twenty twenty

11:19 Speaker 1: s O. Discovered by the same telescope in Hawaii. It

11:23 Speaker 1: was not discussed much because people realize it's actually technologically

11:27 Speaker 1: manufactured by US. And in fact, just recently, on January second,

11:34 Speaker 1: twenty five, there was a points source of light near

11:38 Speaker 1: Earth that was recognized by an amateur astronomer as a

11:44 Speaker 1: near Earth object new asteroid, and so the Minor Planet Center,

11:48 Speaker 1: the official center for documenting Near Earth objects, gave it

11:54 Speaker 1: a name. Then seventeen hours later astronomers said, wait a minute,

12:00 Speaker 1: this orbit of this new asteroid matches that of the

12:05 Speaker 1: Tesla roadster car that Elon Musk launched in twenty eighteen

12:11 Speaker 1: with a dummy payload and the Falcon Heavy It was

12:14 Speaker 1: his own car, and it's now an orbit around the Sun.

12:18 Speaker 1: And just last week I submitted a paper saying that

12:26 Speaker 1: you have to be careful when you call something a comet,

12:31 Speaker 1: because there was a paper three months ago published in

12:35 Speaker 1: the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that claimed

12:39 Speaker 1: here are fourteen objects that do not show any cometary

12:43 Speaker 1: tale so, and nevertheless, they have some additional force acting

12:47 Speaker 1: on them in addition to the force of gravity. And

12:51 Speaker 1: they said, well, these are comets, but their tail is

12:54 Speaker 1: not visible, so they call them dark comets. And the

12:58 Speaker 1: acceleration that they exhibit is really small relative to the

13:03 Speaker 1: gravitational acceleration. And I looked at them, and I asked

13:07 Speaker 1: my post doc to check when each of these objects

13:11 Speaker 1: was closest to Earth, and then I went back and

13:14 Speaker 1: looked online for whether there were any spacecraft launch So

13:18 Speaker 1: one of them, for example, came closest to Earth around

13:23 Speaker 1: November nineteen sixty five, and I checked which spacecraft were

13:28 Speaker 1: launched at that time. It turns out that the Soviet

13:31 Speaker 1: Union launched a spacecraft named Venera too towards Venus. And

13:38 Speaker 1: I look at the orbital parameters, and I see that

13:41 Speaker 1: this object that was classified as a dark comet actually

13:45 Speaker 1: went straight to Venus after being close to Earth, and

13:50 Speaker 1: it matched the roughly speaking, the orbital parameters, and the

13:54 Speaker 1: acceleration in addition to the force of gravity that it

13:56 Speaker 1: exhibited was just as a result of reflecting sunlight. And

14:00 Speaker 1: so I wrote a paper just a few days ago

14:03 Speaker 1: saying that and my point is that you have to

14:06 Speaker 1: be careful not to call animals that. Suppose you want

14:11 Speaker 1: to identify all animals as zebras, and then you see

14:14 Speaker 1: an elephant. You shouldn't call an elephant a zebra without stripes, right,

14:20 Speaker 1: And for the same reason, you shouldn't call a spacecraft

14:24 Speaker 1: a dark comet. And that is the tendency of people

14:27 Speaker 1: to just for scientists to feel comfortable with objects that

14:32 Speaker 1: they cannot explain. And they were arguing that perhaps was

14:36 Speaker 1: a dark comet, and I said, you have to be

14:38 Speaker 1: careful about that, because we haven't seen a commentary tale.

14:42 Speaker 1: It's just like Hans Christian Andersen's tale about the boy

14:46 Speaker 1: that was looking and saying, the emperor has no clause.

14:49 Speaker 1: In this case, the object doesn't have a cometary tale.

14:52 Speaker 1: That's what I was saying. But they said, no, no, no,

14:54 Speaker 1: it's invisible. The Emperor has closed. You just can't see them.

15:00 Speaker 4: So it's you know, for me, the science community is

15:05 Speaker 4: you know, like, wouldn't this excite the community, wouldn't you

15:09 Speaker 4: know people rally around the idea this could be possibly something.

15:13 Speaker 2: Why are they so quick? We can't explain it, We're

15:18 Speaker 2: just going to slap the name dark on it. So

15:20 Speaker 2: dark matter, dark dark comet.

15:22 Speaker 1: You know, it's just you know, the mind of a

15:26 Speaker 1: scientist at is that it's really not anomalous because you

15:30 Speaker 1: call it a comet with an additional adjective, so it

15:33 Speaker 1: feels something that is familiar. I mean other explanations where

15:37 Speaker 1: maybe it's a hydrogen iceberg we've never seen that before,

15:41 Speaker 1: or a nythogen iceberg, or perhaps a dust bunny, all

15:46 Speaker 1: kinds of ideas that were never related to any object

15:51 Speaker 1: we saw. And we're trying to explain the normalous properties

15:54 Speaker 1: of this object. And I'm saying, okay, well, you're allowed

15:57 Speaker 1: to think whatever you want, but let's leave on the

15:59 Speaker 1: table possibility that is artificial, because you know, it behaves

16:04 Speaker 1: in ways that are different than the rocks we have

16:06 Speaker 1: seen in the Solar System. And the issue is really

16:09 Speaker 1: if you brush it under the carpet, then you are

16:13 Speaker 1: not curious enough to explore that possibility about other objects.

16:18 Speaker 1: So I just a month ago after finding this venera

16:21 Speaker 1: to spacecraft, I realized that there is a whole population

16:27 Speaker 1: of objects that are called empty trash bag objects. These

16:31 Speaker 1: are objects that are being pushed around by radiation from

16:35 Speaker 1: the sun and the light cell. Well, so the belief

16:40 Speaker 1: is that all of them are just broken pieces of

16:43 Speaker 1: satellites or in the vicinity of Earth. I mean, they're

16:46 Speaker 1: too small for us to see at a large distance,

16:48 Speaker 1: so we see them only around the Earth. And indeed,

16:51 Speaker 1: there could be objects that were just broken pieces of satellite.

16:55 Speaker 1: But one should be open minded because I found one

16:58 Speaker 1: object that was doing zigs motion and I thought, well,

17:02 Speaker 1: that's the definition of an unidentified anomalous phenomena. But so

17:07 Speaker 1: you say, nobody in the scientific community is looking into UAPs.

17:12 Speaker 1: But when they find the UAP and they call it

17:15 Speaker 1: an empty trash bag object, and do not look into it,

17:17 Speaker 1: do not try to model it. And I'm saying, you know,

17:21 Speaker 1: we should look at all anomalies because they would signify

17:25 Speaker 1: perhaps something that we've never seen before that can teach us.

17:29 Speaker 1: And not all the technological debris that we find in

17:33 Speaker 1: our vicinity were launched by the Soviet Union, or by NASA,

17:36 Speaker 1: or by anyone else on Earth. Some space trash may

17:40 Speaker 1: have originated from another star. Why should we assume that

17:45 Speaker 1: il Musk was the most accomplished space entrepreneur since the

17:47 Speaker 1: Big Bang thirteen point eight billion years ago. There could

17:50 Speaker 1: be a lot of cars just like the Tesla roadste

17:54 Speaker 1: car floating an interstellar space. And by the way, when

17:57 Speaker 1: a star like the Sun ends its life, it will

17:59 Speaker 1: end its life. The Sun will die in seven point

18:02 Speaker 1: six billionaires. It will expand and there will be a

18:06 Speaker 1: very significant wind coming out of it, and that could

18:09 Speaker 1: sweep all the technological debris that we have around Earth

18:13 Speaker 1: right now into interstellar space. Even if we don't launch it, eventually,

18:17 Speaker 1: it may end up there because the Sun will brighten

18:20 Speaker 1: before it ends.

18:21 Speaker 2: The exploding, sending everything outward.

18:25 Speaker 1: Yeah, sending its envelope outwards. So there could be a

18:29 Speaker 1: lot among the rocks, and I don't deny that there

18:32 Speaker 1: should be a lot of rocks in interstellar space. There

18:35 Speaker 1: could also be some technological objects, and they would fall

18:39 Speaker 1: into two types. One is space trash. These are pieces

18:43 Speaker 1: of broken structure, or even like Voyager, because Voyager is

18:49 Speaker 1: now losing its ability to communicate with Earth and you

18:52 Speaker 1: know it will exit the Solar System in ten thousand

18:55 Speaker 1: years and it will be just a piece of junk

18:57 Speaker 1: at that point. So you could have a lot of

19:00 Speaker 1: devices that are not operating that are billions of years

19:03 Speaker 1: old floating through space. But you could also have things

19:06 Speaker 1: that are operational and those could be close to Earth

19:10 Speaker 1: monitoring what happens here, and we should be open minded

19:13 Speaker 1: and just search the sky without any prejudice as and.

19:17 Speaker 2: I could not have said that better. So, like you know,

19:21 Speaker 2: many people are familiar with Seti's or the search for

19:24 Speaker 2: extraterrestrial life, their approach to listening for radio signals. You're

19:29 Speaker 2: the head of the Galleyo project. How does the Galileo

19:32 Speaker 2: project carve its own path in the search for intelligence

19:37 Speaker 2: and what makes it focus so groundbreaking in its approach?

19:42 Speaker 1: So SETI, for about seventy years have been searching for

19:47 Speaker 1: radio signals, and that's just like waiting for a phone

19:51 Speaker 1: call at home. Nobody may call you when you're waiting.

19:54 Speaker 1: And even if you do it for seven years, you know,

19:57 Speaker 1: the age of the universe is thirteen point eight bi millionaires.

20:00 Speaker 1: And you know, why would they specifically call you when

20:03 Speaker 1: you're listening. They may have called us a millionaires ago.

20:06 Speaker 1: We were not listening back back then, and the signal

20:09 Speaker 1: is now a million light years away. And therefore, you know,

20:13 Speaker 1: one thing that Albert Einstein said is, you know it's

20:20 Speaker 1: not smart to keep doing the same thing over and

20:23 Speaker 1: over again and expect different results no more of insanity,

20:27 Speaker 1: right yeah, And I mean we can continue to do that.

20:30 Speaker 1: There are lots of stars that we can monitor for

20:32 Speaker 1: radio signals. But another approach is to search for a

20:37 Speaker 1: tennis ball in your backyard or an object that came

20:40 Speaker 1: from a neighbor's yard. And this is something that we

20:44 Speaker 1: only started doing over the past decade when astronomers found

20:47 Speaker 1: the first interstellar object. And then after that, together with

20:52 Speaker 1: my student, we discovered a meteor, an object that was

20:55 Speaker 1: half a meter in size that collided with Earth in

20:58 Speaker 1: twenty fourteen. Uh, and then we UH decide, I decided

21:04 Speaker 1: to lead an expedition to the Pacific Ocean to search

21:07 Speaker 1: for the materials from this object, and we did retrieve

21:12 Speaker 1: from the impact site. We retrieved some tiny molten droplets

21:18 Speaker 1: that we analyzed in the laboratory of my colleague here

21:21 Speaker 1: and have a Steyn Jacobson, and we found some materials

21:25 Speaker 1: that are not represented in the Solar system that have

21:29 Speaker 1: a composition of elements, chemical composition that includes a very

21:34 Speaker 1: high abundance of beryllium, lanthanum, uranium up to a thousand

21:40 Speaker 1: times more than you find in the materials that made

21:44 Speaker 1: the Solar system. So yeah, so we don't know where

21:49 Speaker 1: this material came from, and you know it's possible that

21:52 Speaker 1: it came from some natural source, natural origin. The goal

21:57 Speaker 1: is to go again for another expedition where we can

22:00 Speaker 1: retrieve bigger pieces of the original object. That would require

22:04 Speaker 1: placing a robot on the ocean floor, which is about

22:08 Speaker 1: a mile deep at that location, so that we can

22:10 Speaker 1: pick up bigger pieces. And that expedition will cost more

22:14 Speaker 1: than the previous one, which was one and a half

22:16 Speaker 1: million dollars in cost. The new one would be probably

22:19 Speaker 1: six and a half million dollars and we are currently

22:22 Speaker 1: in the process of seeking fundam. Yeah, so that's one

22:25 Speaker 1: branch of the Galileo project. And then another branch is

22:31 Speaker 1: to look at the sky. Following the all the reports

22:36 Speaker 1: from the Director of National Intelligence that there are unidentified

22:39 Speaker 1: and normalous phenomena in the sky that military personnel report

22:42 Speaker 1: about and the word congressional hearings. There is also the

22:45 Speaker 1: Old Domain and a normal irresolution office in the Pentagon,

22:48 Speaker 1: and so we are just doing the scientific study of

22:52 Speaker 1: whether there are any unusual objects in the sky. We

22:55 Speaker 1: built one observatory at Harvard University which is collecting data

23:00 Speaker 1: and about one hundred thousand objects every month, and we

23:04 Speaker 1: published the paper that analyzed the first half a million

23:08 Speaker 1: objects that we analyzed with machine learning software. We're trying

23:14 Speaker 1: to find out if there is anything unfamiliar among these objects,

23:18 Speaker 1: something that doesn't look like a bird, a plane, Superman. Yeah, yeah, yeah,

23:26 Speaker 1: if it looks like a Superman, that would be really

23:28 Speaker 1: amazing great. But the goal is to also have multiple

23:34 Speaker 1: units of the observatory looking at the same objects, so

23:37 Speaker 1: we can figure out the distance. That's called the triangulation.

23:41 Speaker 2: An array of yeah, two or three of them.

23:45 Speaker 1: We are now in the process of building that at Harvard.

23:48 Speaker 1: But I also received funding recently for another observatory in Pennsylvania,

23:56 Speaker 1: another in Nevada, and find only one in Indiana. So

24:03 Speaker 1: it's altogether. Over the past couple of months, I received

24:07 Speaker 1: about five million dollars in funding committed. We still need

24:11 Speaker 1: to build those things, and hopefully by summer. By the

24:16 Speaker 1: end of summer twenty twenty five, we'll have two additional

24:18 Speaker 1: observatories working and they will provide us with millions of

24:23 Speaker 1: objects in the sky every year, and then we will

24:27 Speaker 1: try to assess whether any of them is unusual and

24:31 Speaker 1: not from this Earth.

24:32 Speaker 2: Can I ask you now this is maybe this is

24:36 Speaker 2: going to involve a little bit of speculation. Say the

24:40 Speaker 2: Galileo project analyze is something and you really don't know

24:46 Speaker 2: what it is. What would what would be the process

24:50 Speaker 2: that is initiated, and what do you tell the public?

24:54 Speaker 1: Right, So we will approach it the same way that

24:58 Speaker 1: any astronomic observations follow, which is to first look at

25:06 Speaker 1: the data, make sure that it's not an artifact of

25:08 Speaker 1: the instruments, make sure that we can trust the data,

25:11 Speaker 1: and then if it looks really anomalous in the sense

25:15 Speaker 1: that something is moving in the sky faster than any

25:18 Speaker 1: human made technology is, then we would write a scientific

25:23 Speaker 1: paper just on this object. That's what I tell my

25:26 Speaker 1: team that, as you know, people should not be too

25:30 Speaker 1: excited if we just write about millions of objects. If

25:34 Speaker 1: they see a paper about one object, they should be

25:37 Speaker 1: excited because then it means that we did find something,

25:41 Speaker 1: and of course the data will be public because the

25:45 Speaker 1: sky is not classified. The difference is most astronomers are

25:49 Speaker 1: looking at objects that are very far away, and they

25:53 Speaker 1: focus on a smaller part of the sky. We had

25:56 Speaker 1: to build an observatory from scratch that looks at the

25:59 Speaker 1: entire sky all the times and also does it in

26:04 Speaker 1: the infrared, optical, radio, and audio. Something like that was

26:08 Speaker 1: never built before, but now we know how to make it,

26:11 Speaker 1: so we can make multiple observatories of this time.

26:13 Speaker 2: Amazing, amazing. So when we talk about intelligence beyond Earth,

26:18 Speaker 2: it's a concept that's kind of hard to pin down.

26:21 Speaker 2: How do you define in your work and what specific

26:25 Speaker 2: clues like artificial structures or signals are you hoping to uncover.

26:30 Speaker 1: So I'm just seeking something that is not familiar. In

26:35 Speaker 1: other words, I don't want to imagine what it may

26:39 Speaker 1: be like. I would be really surprised if it has

26:45 Speaker 1: some pilots that are biological. I would expect it to

26:51 Speaker 1: if it's functional, to have artificial intelligence that operates. But

26:57 Speaker 1: I don't want to imagine because you know, when we

27:01 Speaker 1: go on a date, we can imagine what the partner

27:05 Speaker 1: might look like, but that's because they share the same

27:09 Speaker 1: DNA as we do. But when you meet something from

27:11 Speaker 1: another star, all bets are off and it could be

27:15 Speaker 1: well beyond our imagination, which is shaped by our past experience.

27:20 Speaker 1: So even science fiction writers, you know, they cannot imagine

27:24 Speaker 1: the unknown. They can just think about what they experience

27:29 Speaker 1: and try to expand that a bit, but I prefer

27:35 Speaker 1: to learn from nature. In other words, whatever nature brings

27:38 Speaker 1: to our front door, we should examine and try to

27:42 Speaker 1: figure it out. And that's why, you know, people ask

27:46 Speaker 1: me how should we respond if there is a visitor

27:49 Speaker 1: in our backyard, and my answer is that we should

27:52 Speaker 1: not appoint committees that try to envision or imagine what

27:56 Speaker 1: it might be like to meet a visitor, because the

27:59 Speaker 1: visitor would look probably very different than we imagine. So

28:02 Speaker 1: let's wait when the visitor arrives. We'll collect as much

28:06 Speaker 1: data as possible, try to figure out the intent of

28:08 Speaker 1: the visitor, what brought the visitor in, and only then

28:12 Speaker 1: respond to it. And one example that I like to

28:17 Speaker 1: mention in this context is one day my wife noticed

28:22 Speaker 1: someone standing on the street looking at our house for

28:25 Speaker 1: an hour, and she said, I'm really worried about that

28:28 Speaker 1: person because maybe it's one of your fans, and I'm

28:32 Speaker 1: not sure why that person is creepy. Yeah, yeah, So

28:37 Speaker 1: I said, no worries, I'll go and speak with that person.

28:40 Speaker 1: And I went to him and said, why are you

28:44 Speaker 1: staring at our house for an hour? And he said, well,

28:47 Speaker 1: I used to live in this house fifty years ago

28:49 Speaker 1: as a kid, and I said, oh, in that case,

28:53 Speaker 1: why don't you come with me. I'll show you the

28:55 Speaker 1: backyard and so, and then he pointed to a place

28:58 Speaker 1: where he said that, you know, fifty years ago he

29:01 Speaker 1: buried a cat named Tiger there, and I said, yeah,

29:05 Speaker 1: the name looks familiar because actually saw the name Tiger

29:12 Speaker 1: on a tombstone there, and I thought, maybe there is

29:14 Speaker 1: a tiger buried. So the lesson from this is that,

29:21 Speaker 1: you know, a visitor could have much longer history with

29:24 Speaker 1: the place that we are currently inhabiting, and we can

29:28 Speaker 1: learn much more from the visit. But in order to

29:31 Speaker 1: figure out the intent of the visitor, we really need

29:33 Speaker 1: to watch it and learn more about it and.

29:37 Speaker 2: Not make maybe snap judgments exactly right, ask ask the

29:43 Speaker 2: obing questions, find exactly a data driven approach.

29:46 Speaker 1: Well, in fact, there is a new movie that just

29:49 Speaker 1: came out Mickey seventeen, and yes, it's all about the

29:55 Speaker 1: way that humans interpret So in that case, alien life

30:00 Speaker 1: in a way that is inappropriate given that that alien

30:06 Speaker 1: life might be even smarter than humans. And you know,

30:09 Speaker 1: we will be shocked to meet artificial intelligence that superseds

30:14 Speaker 1: our own intelligence, probably within the coming years, we will

30:17 Speaker 1: have the ability to interact with such AI systems, and

30:23 Speaker 1: that would be appreparation for US meeting alien intelligence in

30:28 Speaker 1: a way, because artificial intelligence is related to chips, is

30:37 Speaker 1: enabled by chips that are made of silicon and are

30:40 Speaker 1: very different than flesh and blood. The way our brain operates,

30:43 Speaker 1: our brain uses about twenty watts of power, whereas these

30:46 Speaker 1: systems AI systems use jigawats of power, and they are

30:51 Speaker 1: clearly a very different beast than our brain. We are

30:54 Speaker 1: training them on human content, so they when they give

30:58 Speaker 1: us answers sounds familiar, but the way they think is

31:03 Speaker 1: quite different. And you know, when we try to consider

31:07 Speaker 1: them as imitators of human intelligence, it's just like trying

31:12 Speaker 1: to put lipstick on a pig. It's it will not

31:15 Speaker 1: make the pig human. And so I think it will

31:19 Speaker 1: be the first experience of US encountering alien intelligence, but

31:27 Speaker 1: the surprise will really come from another star because there

31:31 Speaker 1: they may have had, you know, billions of years or

31:34 Speaker 1: millions of years of technology. We just had one hundred

31:39 Speaker 1: years since quantum mechanics was discovered, and that's when you

31:44 Speaker 1: know the physics that we are currently using to make

31:49 Speaker 1: those silicon chips were understood, we would not be able

31:53 Speaker 1: to make artificial intelligence systems now unless we had one

31:58 Speaker 1: hundred years ago, the discovery of the the principles of

32:01 Speaker 1: quantum becas just think about how much more we will

32:03 Speaker 1: know in a millionayears from now.

32:05 Speaker 2: Right, And it's I mean exponential growth factoring in you know,

32:11 Speaker 2: just in the past one hundred you know, we went

32:13 Speaker 2: from horse and buggies. In that same one hundred years,

32:19 Speaker 2: we're landing on the moon right right.

32:21 Speaker 1: So in fact, the question is how to save humanity

32:27 Speaker 1: from a single point catastrophe. So Earth might go through

32:33 Speaker 1: a catastrophe either because of self inflicted wounds that we

32:37 Speaker 1: create as a result of climate change, or nuclear war

32:41 Speaker 1: or biological war, but also it could be a natural

32:45 Speaker 1: phenomenon like a big asteroid colliding with Earth or the

32:49 Speaker 1: Sun erupting in a way that we've never experienced, and

32:53 Speaker 1: so it's created it would make sense for us to

32:56 Speaker 1: go to space, and in fact, is advocating going to Mars,

33:01 Speaker 1: I'm not sure that's a good idea. It's just another rock,

33:04 Speaker 1: not very far away, not doesn't have an atmosphere. It's

33:08 Speaker 1: actually more dangerous to live on the surface of Mars.

33:11 Speaker 1: It would make sense to design a space habitats, some

33:16 Speaker 1: platform similar to a space station which can maneuver and

33:20 Speaker 1: go places. Okay, And that is just like Knox arc

33:25 Speaker 1: when not try to prevent catastrophe so that you know,

33:30 Speaker 1: the Great Flood was threatening many lives, so he put

33:34 Speaker 1: in an arc the forms of life that he wanted

33:36 Speaker 1: to preserve. And we can do the same with a

33:38 Speaker 1: space station platform that goes to space. And I think

33:44 Speaker 1: it would make a lot of sense to try that.

33:47 Speaker 1: But we could also send ambassadors of humanity in the

33:50 Speaker 1: form of AI systems that would keep the torch of

33:58 Speaker 1: what we care about life into the distant future because

34:01 Speaker 1: they will not be bored in very long journey journeys

34:05 Speaker 1: through interstellar space. And eventually when they reached some destinations

34:08 Speaker 1: they could serve as gardeners. They would see other locations

34:14 Speaker 1: other planets with the kind of things that we want

34:17 Speaker 1: them to recreate there. And so there are two ways

34:22 Speaker 1: for us to maintain heavity. One is to lift some

34:25 Speaker 1: people out of this Earth. Another one is to send

34:28 Speaker 1: AI stef and maybe other civilizations did that already and

34:32 Speaker 1: we could be inspired by meeting their products.

34:35 Speaker 2: Right, And you know, this is going to be going

34:38 Speaker 2: down on Avenue. But a lot of people, I'm sure

34:42 Speaker 2: you have heard of the grays, right, the little gray aliens,

34:46 Speaker 2: the archetypal alien, no, so the arc type alien, the

34:52 Speaker 2: gray guy with the big eyes and big head. Right. Oh,

34:54 Speaker 2: A lot of people have speculated that maybe there's some

34:58 Speaker 2: sort of advanced form of artificial intelligence meets biological advancement. Right,

35:06 Speaker 2: it's not alive, But it's not not alive, I think, right,

35:12 Speaker 2: And it's an ambassador from a different universe, right, and.

35:15 Speaker 1: It also represent our future, that's what you're saying.

35:17 Speaker 2: Absolutely right, because we as creatures, as biological creatures, again,

35:23 Speaker 2: we're subject to boredom. You know, we need to eat, sleep,

35:28 Speaker 2: whereas these don't, and they can travel for thousands of years, right,

35:31 Speaker 2: with the objective of getting to where they're going.

35:35 Speaker 1: Yeah, with an advance enough technology, there may be a

35:38 Speaker 1: way to extend the lifespan of humans indefinitely. In principle,

35:44 Speaker 1: just like a car, you can repair it again again,

35:47 Speaker 1: and that could happen, especially thanks to AI. Right now, now,

35:51 Speaker 1: AI could integrate itself into our brain because we would

35:58 Speaker 1: be hooked to information coming from AI systems. And so

36:02 Speaker 1: I think it's inevitable. Even if you don't put electrodes

36:06 Speaker 1: in our brain, the interaction with AI will change the

36:10 Speaker 1: human the way humans think, not necessarily for the better,

36:13 Speaker 1: because right now we have to think about solving problems

36:18 Speaker 1: or getting information that would help us. But AI could

36:22 Speaker 1: fit us with that information, and we wouldn't need to

36:24 Speaker 1: think too much at the risk of the AI using

36:29 Speaker 1: us as tools.

36:29 Speaker 2: You know that, right, right?

36:31 Speaker 1: Right?

36:33 Speaker 2: So, I mean obviously such a discovery, if it were made,

36:37 Speaker 2: could ripple through every facet in part of society. How

36:42 Speaker 2: do you envision it reshaping religion, culture, or even our

36:46 Speaker 2: sense of identity as a species.

36:49 Speaker 1: I think it would make the biggest change ever that

36:53 Speaker 1: the humanity went through. So if you think about the

36:57 Speaker 1: early humans, you know started millions of years ago, they

37:02 Speaker 1: were in Africa, and then you know, if you had

37:08 Speaker 1: to find them, you would find them in jungles, on

37:11 Speaker 1: trees and so forth, because they came from the same

37:14 Speaker 1: an ancestry as the chimpanzees, for example. And eventually, right

37:22 Speaker 1: now what you find is humans in high rises in cities.

37:25 Speaker 1: And I would argue that going from a jungle to

37:28 Speaker 1: a high rise is actually more of a leap than

37:31 Speaker 1: going from a high rise to space. So eventually, you know,

37:37 Speaker 1: I think we will make that second phase where we

37:40 Speaker 1: go from Earth to space this way. But we can

37:45 Speaker 1: in fact be inspired in terms of recognizing the potential

37:50 Speaker 1: of interstellar travel by meeting whatever aliens sent our way,

37:55 Speaker 1: and because they may represent our technological future, we can

38:00 Speaker 1: get a shortcut into viewing that future. Now, this is

38:05 Speaker 1: just in terms of science and technology. We might realize

38:08 Speaker 1: new technologies we haven't yet imagined. We might figure out

38:13 Speaker 1: something about science that we don't know right now. For example,

38:17 Speaker 1: we don't know how to unify quantum mechanics and gravity,

38:19 Speaker 1: and maybe they are using it for propulsion. We don't

38:25 Speaker 1: understand what really happened before the Big Bang, and maybe

38:29 Speaker 1: they have a theory of quantum gravity that allows them

38:33 Speaker 1: in principle to create a baby universe. Just think about it.

38:39 Speaker 1: It's just not making a cake. In order to make

38:43 Speaker 1: a cake, you need to know the ingredients that unnecessary

38:46 Speaker 1: and how to put them together and then apply heat.

38:49 Speaker 1: And once you have the recipe, the only thing you

38:52 Speaker 1: need is an oven that would allow you to create

38:56 Speaker 1: those conditions and make a cake. Now, if those aliens

39:00 Speaker 1: are able to understand the recipe for a baby universe,

39:04 Speaker 1: what happened before the Big Bang. They can in principle

39:08 Speaker 1: be regarded as playing the role of God. You know,

39:12 Speaker 1: they can apply to the job of God, because the

39:15 Speaker 1: basic requirement is you should be able to create a universe.

39:18 Speaker 2: Right.

39:19 Speaker 1: What I'm saying is that the very advanced level of

39:21 Speaker 1: science is could provide an approximation to what we associate

39:27 Speaker 1: with God in religious texts. And in fact, if you

39:31 Speaker 1: just think about Moses, you know, in the Old Testament,

39:36 Speaker 1: there was this burning bush that was never consumed, convinced

39:40 Speaker 1: Moses that miracle, that God exists, that there is a

39:43 Speaker 1: superhuman entity. And if you were to show Moses a

39:48 Speaker 1: cell phone today, he would be even more impressed than

39:53 Speaker 1: with a burning bush.

39:54 Speaker 2: Right.

39:56 Speaker 1: It just and of course this is not super human,

39:58 Speaker 1: because we are descendants of those early humans, and it's

40:02 Speaker 1: just that we have better technologies. And what I'm trying

40:05 Speaker 1: to say is that for us it might look like miracles.

40:08 Speaker 1: I mean some of the things we encounter, in fact,

40:12 Speaker 1: they represent a higher level of science and technology. And

40:16 Speaker 1: this is a way of bringing together religion and science,

40:19 Speaker 1: because perhaps all these stories and myths about superhuman entity

40:27 Speaker 1: is all about a very advanced scientist and a white

40:30 Speaker 1: lab code that created things that we regard as miracles.

40:33 Speaker 2: And you literally you said exactly what I was thinking.

40:39 Speaker 2: And you know, for me, I think the problem with

40:43 Speaker 2: scientists or science maybe the science community is with religion.

40:47 Speaker 2: They tend to throw the baby out in the bathroom

40:49 Speaker 2: right now, They separate themselves when I think there's an

40:54 Speaker 2: approach that if you come together right and there's another

41:00 Speaker 2: way forward. I don't definitely.

41:02 Speaker 1: I mean that's the other important significance of an encounter

41:07 Speaker 1: with some aliens, because you know, we are if you

41:12 Speaker 1: look at the news every day, we are focused on conflicts,

41:15 Speaker 1: often about territories or about status, and so we tend

41:21 Speaker 1: to look down and we spend two point four trillion

41:25 Speaker 1: dollars every year on military budgets, one third of that

41:28 Speaker 1: in the US. It's a huge amount of money. I

41:32 Speaker 1: calculated if you use this money for space exploration, we

41:37 Speaker 1: can send a CubeSat towards every star in the Milky

41:40 Speaker 1: Way galaxy within this century if we just use the

41:43 Speaker 1: same amount of money. But instead we are trying to

41:47 Speaker 1: either kill others or prevent others from killing us. And

41:52 Speaker 1: I don't think that the solution will come, you know,

41:54 Speaker 1: from people singing John Lennon's song imagine all the people

42:00 Speaker 1: living in peace. I think it will come through shock therapy,

42:03 Speaker 1: where we would realize that there is a better way,

42:06 Speaker 1: and that is looking up, not looking down, looking up

42:09 Speaker 1: and realizing that there is a smarter kid on our

42:11 Speaker 1: block that actually managed to achieve much more, and that

42:15 Speaker 1: will change our focus. And once we realize there is

42:17 Speaker 1: someone else, you know, on the cosmic street, there is

42:20 Speaker 1: another house that has residents, then we would feel as

42:24 Speaker 1: if we are part of the same team, you know,

42:26 Speaker 1: because we are all in the same boat, the Earth,

42:29 Speaker 1: sailing through space, and we better you know, work together

42:33 Speaker 1: rather than fight each other, right, you know. I had

42:36 Speaker 1: this sense of teamwork when I was on the ship

42:39 Speaker 1: during the expedition to the Pacific Ocean. All the members

42:42 Speaker 1: of the team were helping each other for the success

42:46 Speaker 1: of the mission, and that was a very good metaphor

42:48 Speaker 1: for how humanity should work. But instead, what you find

42:51 Speaker 1: is even within the US, you know, just one nation,

42:54 Speaker 1: you have this polarization where you have two camps clashing

42:59 Speaker 1: rather than everyone working together for the benefit for the

43:02 Speaker 1: benefit of the nation in this case, right and by

43:05 Speaker 1: the way. It wasn't that way if you look back

43:08 Speaker 1: closer to the Second World War. I mean, there was

43:11 Speaker 1: a sense of a community that everyone should contribute to,

43:16 Speaker 1: and back then there was appreciation of science as well.

43:19 Speaker 1: Because the Manhattan Project had political implications, it ended the war,

43:25 Speaker 1: and right now science is not appreciated as much. It

43:32 Speaker 1: was funded for a while because of the Manhattan Project.

43:36 Speaker 1: And one event that made me wonder whether something like

43:42 Speaker 1: that could have brought science back to the focus of

43:46 Speaker 1: society is there was an asteroid recently that had the

43:49 Speaker 1: three percent chance of colliding with Earth, and NASA mentioned it,

43:54 Speaker 1: and then they realized by better measurements of the trajectory

43:58 Speaker 1: of this object that it will not collide with Earth.

44:01 Speaker 2: Probably, I think, if I'm not mistaken, this is asteroid

44:04 Speaker 2: twenty twenty four. Y are four exactly, and so again

44:10 Speaker 2: three percent, I mean that's all was at.

44:12 Speaker 1: The peak three percent, but now it's down to a

44:15 Speaker 1: few times teno mans five, so it's really negligible. Maybe

44:19 Speaker 1: it will hit the Moon. There is still a one

44:21 Speaker 1: percent chant. But the point is I was a bit

44:25 Speaker 1: disappointed that it's not a threat. Actually, as much as

44:28 Speaker 1: it sounds paradoxical, and the reason is that if suppose

44:34 Speaker 1: the likelihood for a collision with Earth would have risen

44:38 Speaker 1: to one hundred percent, Okay, then immediately we would calculate

44:43 Speaker 1: where it may hit on Earth, and real estate value

44:46 Speaker 1: would go down in those locations, you know, all these

44:49 Speaker 1: oh yea and people would migrate away from there. So

44:53 Speaker 1: it would become a big international issue. And then scientists,

44:59 Speaker 1: you know, astronomer would have the highest status in society

45:03 Speaker 1: because they could inform us about the whereabouts of this

45:06 Speaker 1: object and about the ways of deflecting it. And young

45:10 Speaker 1: adults would be attracted to science because they can contribute

45:13 Speaker 1: to humanity, and so that would have elevated science to

45:18 Speaker 1: the forefront. And you know, there was a society where

45:21 Speaker 1: astronomers were at the highest societal status, and that was

45:25 Speaker 1: the Mayan culture and culture. And because they believe that

45:28 Speaker 1: the positions of the planets or the stars are correlated

45:35 Speaker 1: with the success, let's say of a war, and so

45:39 Speaker 1: the politicians of the day said they want to have

45:43 Speaker 1: astronomers priests that advised them when to go to war

45:47 Speaker 1: based on the location of Mars and various other stars.

45:51 Speaker 1: And so that was a period of time where they

45:54 Speaker 1: collected future amount of data on the sky and astronomers

45:58 Speaker 1: were highly regarded as I think we should go back

46:01 Speaker 1: to those to that situation. And one way to bring

46:06 Speaker 1: a stormers to a high societal status is by discovering

46:11 Speaker 1: a threat or something from the sky that affects all

46:15 Speaker 1: of all humans on Earth and it will bring people together.

46:19 Speaker 1: So of course you can think about a big rock

46:21 Speaker 1: that may hit the earth, just like you know, in

46:24 Speaker 1: the case of the dinosaurs, they were not smart enough

46:27 Speaker 1: to look up and they died. But we are smart

46:30 Speaker 1: enough to perhaps notice it in advance and do something

46:32 Speaker 1: about it. But it could also involve finding a neighbor,

46:36 Speaker 1: you know, something that is not just a rock but

46:39 Speaker 1: actually a device manufactured technological civilization.

46:44 Speaker 2: Right these are then that's really an amazing it's an

46:48 Speaker 2: amazing way to like you said, it would take the

46:53 Speaker 2: conversation rather from Americans and Russians and it would be

46:59 Speaker 2: earth right, we need to protect Earth. And you know,

47:03 Speaker 2: you know now that you say, and while you were talking,

47:06 Speaker 2: I was kind of thinking to myself, you know, that's

47:08 Speaker 2: kind of what I really love about the UFO community

47:10 Speaker 2: in itself, is because when we're talking about UFOs and

47:14 Speaker 2: potential life beyond Earth. What we're doing is we're bringing

47:18 Speaker 2: everyone on Earth to a level playing field. Like you

47:21 Speaker 2: had mentioned, right, we're all one. There's no more nationalism

47:24 Speaker 2: or racism. It's we're talking about Earth as earthlinks right.

47:29 Speaker 1: And in fact, the President rigan mentioned that in his

47:32 Speaker 1: speech in the United Nations, and I think it's often forgotten.

47:36 Speaker 1: And yes, even when we notice anomalous things in the sky,

47:40 Speaker 1: then astronomers my colleagues immediately classify them as rocks, even

47:46 Speaker 1: if it's rocks of attack that we've never seen before.

47:50 Speaker 1: And then my point is we should be open minded

47:52 Speaker 1: and in fact, we should invest resources in doing the search.

47:55 Speaker 1: So after the last elections, UH, Peter Till appeared on

48:01 Speaker 1: a podcast and he said that you should never bet

48:04 Speaker 1: against Elon Musk because he's right. And a day later

48:11 Speaker 1: I placed the public bet against Elon mask Yeah, and

48:15 Speaker 1: I posted it on medium dot com, where I post

48:18 Speaker 1: my essays every couple of days. Uh. And the idea

48:22 Speaker 1: was that Elon I argued that we have responsibility for

48:27 Speaker 1: our cosmic future. Therefore we should go to Mars because

48:34 Speaker 1: we are probably he said, alone, and I argued, no,

48:39 Speaker 1: I don't think that we are probably alone. I think

48:41 Speaker 1: it's the other way around, because there are you know,

48:43 Speaker 1: hundreds of billions of stars like the Sun, with planets

48:47 Speaker 1: like the Earth, maybe a few percent of them or

48:49 Speaker 1: more and moreover, the Sun is came late to the scene,

48:54 Speaker 1: and those civilizations may have proceeded been around billions of

48:59 Speaker 1: year before us. It takes Voyager just a billionaeires to

49:03 Speaker 1: go from the Solar System to the opposite side of

49:06 Speaker 1: the Milky Way galaxy, so they had plenty of time

49:10 Speaker 1: to reach us. And I'm willing to put one percent

49:13 Speaker 1: of my net worth against one percent of ellun masks

49:16 Speaker 1: and networth, and that would make the sum of the

49:19 Speaker 1: two four billions text to him primarily, and we will

49:27 Speaker 1: use this money to search for the next decade for

49:31 Speaker 1: any technological debris that came from another civilization near Earth.

49:34 Speaker 1: And I actually came up with a concept for a

49:37 Speaker 1: space telescope that can do that. By looking even from

49:42 Speaker 1: objects that are ten meters in size, ten times smaller

49:45 Speaker 1: than a mumua was, we could attack them if they

49:49 Speaker 1: come closer to the Sun within the orbit of Mercury.

49:52 Speaker 1: They are close enough to the lamp post for us

49:55 Speaker 1: to see. So I said, if within ten years we

49:59 Speaker 1: don't see such a technological object. I'm willing to give

50:04 Speaker 1: it on another one percent of my networth, But to

50:07 Speaker 1: get it started, we really need billions of dollars before

50:11 Speaker 1: we can claim that we don't find anything. Right. So

50:14 Speaker 1: the point is that for other scientific projects, you know,

50:17 Speaker 1: we invest funds at that level. For example, we invested

50:23 Speaker 1: ten billion dollars in the Large Hadron Collider to discover

50:26 Speaker 1: the Higgs boson. We haven't found supersymmetry. And we invested

50:30 Speaker 1: ten billion dollars in the Web Telescope to find the

50:33 Speaker 1: first stars and galaxies. That's a subject that I pioneered

50:36 Speaker 1: about thirty years ago. Amazing, And then we should invest

50:41 Speaker 1: a similar amount of money on a question that is

50:43 Speaker 1: far more exciting to the public. Right now, there plans

50:47 Speaker 1: to invest, you know, in such that are not as

50:50 Speaker 1: exciting to the public, like the nature of dark matter

50:53 Speaker 1: or other questions. And I argue that, you know, we

50:58 Speaker 1: should listen to the public and we have the tools

51:02 Speaker 1: to conduct the search. Given that over the past decade

51:05 Speaker 1: we found the first interstellar objects, that some of them

51:08 Speaker 1: look anomalous, implies that you know, we should trace all

51:13 Speaker 1: the interstellar objects near the Sun. There are right now

51:16 Speaker 1: of the order of a million objects within the orbit

51:20 Speaker 1: of the Earth around the Sun that are roughly the

51:27 Speaker 1: size of a person. You know, that a huge number,

51:31 Speaker 1: and we just cannot see them because our existing survey

51:36 Speaker 1: telescopes cannot detect the amount of light reflected from it

51:42 Speaker 1: by given their size. But if we build special purpose telescopes,

51:48 Speaker 1: we can look for them. And of course every now

51:51 Speaker 1: and then one of them collides with Earth and appears

51:53 Speaker 1: as a meteor, but that's very rare because the cross

51:56 Speaker 1: sectional area of the Earth orbits the Sun, it's very small.

52:00 Speaker 2: So right, and and I think that's one part of

52:05 Speaker 2: scientist's job is to get the public excited. So it's

52:09 Speaker 2: not it's not just enough to say we want to

52:13 Speaker 2: do this, it's you need to get the public involved.

52:16 Speaker 2: You need to get them excited. You know, we look

52:19 Speaker 2: at the early space race, right, it was a competition.

52:22 Speaker 2: We all everyone was involved and wanted us to be

52:25 Speaker 2: the first, right, right, So you know, with a more

52:27 Speaker 2: and more, I think you did that. You excited people

52:31 Speaker 2: and you people wanted to figure it out. But we

52:35 Speaker 2: only had a certain time frame.

52:36 Speaker 1: Because it was it was limited, and we didn't get

52:39 Speaker 1: as much information as needed. By the way, the thing

52:41 Speaker 1: that would make me happy is getting as much data

52:44 Speaker 1: as possible, because once we have a flood of data,

52:47 Speaker 1: there won't be a way for my colleagues to argue, oh,

52:50 Speaker 1: it's a rock of the type that we've never seen,

52:52 Speaker 1: because it wouldn't be clear if it if it is

52:55 Speaker 1: a technological gudget, it would be very different than any

52:58 Speaker 1: you career. Yeah, So all we need is very high

53:01 Speaker 1: quality data. And my hope is if we get funded

53:05 Speaker 1: to the next expedition, we might find, you know, in

53:07 Speaker 1: the wreckage of that metia, or perhaps there would be

53:10 Speaker 1: some kind of a technological object, maybe with buttons. And

53:14 Speaker 1: the question is should depress about it? But if we

53:19 Speaker 1: image the sky for long enough, we might see something

53:22 Speaker 1: unusual near Earth. Or there will be the Rubin Observatory

53:26 Speaker 1: in Chile that will start operations this year and we'll

53:29 Speaker 1: monitor the entire southern sky every four days with the

53:34 Speaker 1: camera that is unprecedented with three point two gigapixels, and

53:38 Speaker 1: so that could discover uap and it could discover or

53:42 Speaker 1: more muli like objects every few months. And so my

53:45 Speaker 1: hope is in twenty twenty five that will have exciting

53:50 Speaker 1: results coming out.

53:51 Speaker 2: Right and so pardon me if maybe this doesn't sound

53:58 Speaker 2: as scientific as maybe you would say it.

53:59 Speaker 1: But it's my.

54:02 Speaker 2: Understanding that when we look at when we go and

54:07 Speaker 2: we look at early solar systems and star systems, we

54:14 Speaker 2: expect them to be a certain way, but we're finding

54:19 Speaker 2: the opposite, that they're more right.

54:21 Speaker 1: No, so right now, first you have the techniques that

54:24 Speaker 1: we are using are selecting systems that are not necessarily

54:27 Speaker 1: the same as the Solar system. And in nineteen fifty

54:30 Speaker 1: two there was an astronomer named Ottos Truve who said,

54:33 Speaker 1: imagine having a star with a Jupiter like planet very

54:37 Speaker 1: close to it. This is called the hot Jupiter that

54:40 Speaker 1: is getting hot by the illumination from this the star.

54:43 Speaker 1: And he said, if that happens in nature, we could

54:46 Speaker 1: find such systems because this very massive planet, Jupiter like

54:51 Speaker 1: planet would tug the star back and forth, so we

54:54 Speaker 1: can see that it's moving. But also if it comes

54:57 Speaker 1: in front of the star, it will block a significant

54:59 Speaker 1: fraction of the light because Jupiter is ten times smaller

55:02 Speaker 1: in size than the Sun, so it blocks at least

55:06 Speaker 1: one percent of the light from the star. But then

55:11 Speaker 1: for about forty years people ignore that suggestion. They said,

55:16 Speaker 1: we understand why Jupiter is so far from the Sun.

55:19 Speaker 1: It formed in a region where ice water ice could form,

55:23 Speaker 1: and there is no reason to suspect that Jupiters may

55:27 Speaker 1: exist close to their host star. And then, by so

55:32 Speaker 1: time allocation committees on telescopes did not allocate observing time

55:37 Speaker 1: to look for such systems even though they were detectable,

55:40 Speaker 1: until in nineteen ninety five there was such an observation

55:43 Speaker 1: that discovered forty years. Yeah, more than forty years, and

55:48 Speaker 1: of course it received the Nobel Price for the first

55:52 Speaker 1: discovery of a planet closed to a Sun like star.

55:57 Speaker 1: But I looked at their paper from nineteen ninety five

56:01 Speaker 1: and there was no reference to the paper by autos

56:04 Speaker 1: true in that paper. So what does it tell you

56:07 Speaker 1: about the way science is done? That Very often scientists

56:10 Speaker 1: do have a set of priors. They assume something about

56:16 Speaker 1: what they might discover, and they are not taking any risks.

56:19 Speaker 1: Why waste time and look for how jupiters when we

56:22 Speaker 1: don't think that they exist. I mean you you might argue, okay, well,

56:25 Speaker 1: put ten percent of your observing time and search for this.

56:28 Speaker 1: I mean you wouldn't lose too much. No, But it

56:30 Speaker 1: was zero four years later, and then once it's found,

56:35 Speaker 1: then whoever proposed this method is forgotten. You know. So

56:41 Speaker 1: science is not very efficient because there is a lot

56:44 Speaker 1: of resistance to taking risks. And the whole idea of

56:48 Speaker 1: tenure in academy I was invented to allow people with

56:51 Speaker 1: job security so they can come up with new ideas

56:54 Speaker 1: and go against the mainstream. But it's not being practiced

56:57 Speaker 1: because people just want to amplify their status by getting

57:02 Speaker 1: honors awards and also getting money for their students and

57:07 Speaker 1: post docs by committees which are dominated by people who

57:15 Speaker 1: don't take risks that are thinking alike. And so as

57:19 Speaker 1: a result of that, you don't see much innovation as

57:22 Speaker 1: much as you might want to have. And there is

57:24 Speaker 1: often a lot of resistance to anyone that deviates from

57:28 Speaker 1: the beaten path. So if there was an object that

57:31 Speaker 1: is anomalous, like and I try to say, let's open

57:34 Speaker 1: the possibilities because right now we don't understand it as

57:37 Speaker 1: a rock that we have seen before, then people resist

57:40 Speaker 1: and invent rocks that we have never seen before as

57:43 Speaker 1: the doctrine or dark comments just not to discuss the

57:50 Speaker 1: other possibility. And I say, let's collect as much data

57:54 Speaker 1: as possible before we converge on anything. But in order

57:57 Speaker 1: to be curious, in order to seek the data, you

57:59 Speaker 1: have to allow yourself to find something new. If you

58:03 Speaker 1: don't allow yourself to find something new, you will be

58:05 Speaker 1: in the same situation as when Ottos Truvez suggested looking

58:09 Speaker 1: for Jupiters. Nobody would believe you, and then for four

58:12 Speaker 1: years nothing will happen. Now there might be a miracle

58:14 Speaker 1: four years later and someone would just try it and

58:17 Speaker 1: then find it. So things like that can happen, but

58:21 Speaker 1: the time delay is so significant that you know it

58:25 Speaker 1: would be more than a generation before we know the answer.

58:28 Speaker 2: Right now. Now, I think if we you know, if

58:31 Speaker 2: we had found that planet when proposed, yes, right, how

58:34 Speaker 2: far along.

58:35 Speaker 1: We be exactly exactly? And think about Galileo. He was

58:38 Speaker 1: putt in house arrests for really yeah, looking at the

58:42 Speaker 1: four moons of Jupiter. And by the way, a few

58:46 Speaker 1: weeks ago I received a donation from the most accomplished

58:49 Speaker 1: sculptor in the US called Greg Wyatt. He created sculptures

58:56 Speaker 1: that are that are in New York City, Washington in

59:00 Speaker 1: Arlington Cemetery, he created one of Galileo looking at the

59:06 Speaker 1: four moons of Jupiter and gave it to me as

59:09 Speaker 1: in recognition of the Galileo project. So it's now in

59:12 Speaker 1: my office. And he also made watercolors that he's sending

59:15 Speaker 1: my way that I will put there. And then, you know,

59:19 Speaker 1: so Galileo suggested the fact that you have moons around

59:24 Speaker 1: Jupiter imply that we are not at the center of

59:26 Speaker 1: the universe that are not circling us Jupiter, and he

59:31 Speaker 1: was put in house arrest because he wouldn't comply with

59:34 Speaker 1: the doctrine at the time that the Vatican publicized. Then

59:39 Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety two, the Vatican admitted that Galileo was right.

59:43 Speaker 1: And that was two decades after humans landed on the Moon.

59:47 Speaker 1: I mean, so eventually they admitted that they were wrong,

59:52 Speaker 1: but that was like three hundred and fifty years after

59:55 Speaker 1: Galileo was died. Yeah, And so the point is that

1:00:01 Speaker 1: the process is very inefficient because people just don't want

1:00:05 Speaker 1: to deviate from their belief system. And the best way

1:00:11 Speaker 1: not to deviate from a belief system is not to

1:00:13 Speaker 1: take new data, not to seek new knowledge. Basically, if

1:00:17 Speaker 1: you say I don't want to look for hot jupiters,

1:00:19 Speaker 1: you will never find them. And then the fact that

1:00:22 Speaker 1: they don't exist would be supported by the fact that

1:00:26 Speaker 1: you don't have any any data on such an object.

1:00:30 Speaker 1: And then you can argue that it's even an extraordinary

1:00:33 Speaker 1: claim to say that there are hog jupiters, and it

1:00:36 Speaker 1: requires extraordinary evidence. But if you don't seek it, you

1:00:38 Speaker 1: will never find it exactly. So that's a circular argument

1:00:42 Speaker 1: that is often made in the context of looking for

1:00:45 Speaker 1: technological debris or objects near Earth from another civilization. It's

1:00:50 Speaker 1: not an extraordinary claim to think that there are things

1:00:53 Speaker 1: like us near other stars. That's not extraordinary at all.

1:00:57 Speaker 1: In fact, to me, it sounds like common sense, like

1:01:00 Speaker 1: the most ordinary thing to think about, right, And ordinary

1:01:06 Speaker 1: claims require ordinary evidence. You just need to invest the

1:01:10 Speaker 1: time to look evidence.

1:01:13 Speaker 2: Right. So, with that being said, looking ahead, what is

1:01:18 Speaker 2: on the horizon for the Galileo Project, What breakthroughs or

1:01:22 Speaker 2: milestones do you hope to see in the next few

1:01:25 Speaker 2: years that could bring us closer to these answers.

1:01:28 Speaker 1: We just need as much data as possible about the

1:01:31 Speaker 1: objects that surround the Earth or within the Earth's orbit

1:01:35 Speaker 1: around the Sun. And so the Galileo Project observatory is

1:01:39 Speaker 1: there will be three of them operating by the end

1:01:42 Speaker 1: of summer twenty twenty five, and hopefully within a year

1:01:46 Speaker 1: we will have a million, you know, millions of objects

1:01:49 Speaker 1: that we monitor, and perhaps one out of a million

1:01:52 Speaker 1: will be extraterrestrial. And the point is the US government

1:01:56 Speaker 1: is focused on national defense, and obviously they are happy

1:02:01 Speaker 1: if they identify maybe ninety seven percent of the objects,

1:02:05 Speaker 1: but that's not good enough for a scientific search, because

1:02:10 Speaker 1: even if one in a million is from outside the Earth,

1:02:12 Speaker 1: that would be huge news.

1:02:14 Speaker 2: The implications all like I said, all it takes is

1:02:17 Speaker 2: one exact implications are tremendous, exactly.

1:02:22 Speaker 1: And then moreover, you know, it's my day job to

1:02:25 Speaker 1: find objects from outside the solar system, it's not the

1:02:28 Speaker 1: government's job. And then if they are puzzled by something

1:02:32 Speaker 1: they cannot understand, they would prefer to keep it under

1:02:35 Speaker 1: wraps because suppose it's made by an adversarial nation. They

1:02:39 Speaker 1: don't want to show the weakness of their intelligence, and

1:02:43 Speaker 1: so they would prefer nobody to know about it. You know,

1:02:47 Speaker 1: they would prefer not to release it to the public

1:02:49 Speaker 1: or to scientists.

1:02:52 Speaker 2: But then you know, there's hinders that hinders science, and

1:02:57 Speaker 2: just I.

1:02:58 Speaker 1: Think it does, because I think that any information about

1:03:00 Speaker 1: the universe at large, especially our cosmic neighborhood, whether we

1:03:04 Speaker 1: have neighbors or not, that should never be hidden from

1:03:08 Speaker 1: the public's eyes. I mean, everyone should know about it.

1:03:12 Speaker 1: It may be shocking, but at the same time, you know,

1:03:15 Speaker 1: it's just like suppose you live with your family at

1:03:18 Speaker 1: home and you don't know whether you have neighbors, but

1:03:20 Speaker 1: then you go out one evening and you find a

1:03:23 Speaker 1: tennis ball that was thrown by a neighbor. Then you

1:03:25 Speaker 1: have the dilemma of whether to bring it up during

1:03:28 Speaker 1: dinner with your family members. And you might think that

1:03:33 Speaker 1: it's better for the family member to sleep well and

1:03:37 Speaker 1: be at peace not to know about it. But my

1:03:40 Speaker 1: advice is to let them know about it, because one

1:03:42 Speaker 1: day the neighbor may show up in your front door

1:03:45 Speaker 1: or backyard, or may affect your life in a way

1:03:48 Speaker 1: that is significant and your family needs to know about it.

1:03:53 Speaker 2: Might I say that you are very good at painting

1:03:56 Speaker 2: a picture like using real world examples, This is just

1:03:59 Speaker 2: off key, but you're very good.

1:04:01 Speaker 1: At that well, because I explain only things that I

1:04:05 Speaker 1: fully understand, and I don't think very differently than a

1:04:09 Speaker 1: common person. You know, I don't I ended up as

1:04:12 Speaker 1: a scientist, by chance, by coincidence, as a result of circumstances.

1:04:16 Speaker 1: But the way I think is trying to use common sense.

1:04:20 Speaker 1: But what surprises me is not that it is the

1:04:23 Speaker 1: fact that some scientists regard it as controversial, which to

1:04:28 Speaker 1: me implies that common sense is controversial sometimes in academia,

1:04:32 Speaker 1: which is really demonstration what a notion.

1:04:36 Speaker 2: And you know, for those of us who are inspired

1:04:41 Speaker 2: by this quest, not just maybe the search for life,

1:04:45 Speaker 2: but what you're doing specifically, how can the public join

1:04:48 Speaker 2: in and what role could everyday people play in supporting

1:04:52 Speaker 2: the Galileo's project mission?

1:04:54 Speaker 1: Right, So, one thing I hope to do is one

1:04:57 Speaker 1: of the observatories will provide data that can be viewed

1:05:00 Speaker 1: by the public in real time, so that we could

1:05:04 Speaker 1: get reports if our machine learning artificial intelligence software is

1:05:11 Speaker 1: unable to recognize something quickly, but the public notices something,

1:05:15 Speaker 1: we can look into that and whoever identifies that kind

1:05:18 Speaker 1: of a thing would be recognized in the paper that

1:05:22 Speaker 1: we write about it if it ends up being an

1:05:24 Speaker 1: interesting object. So that will hopefully happen with one of

1:05:29 Speaker 1: the observatories that we will build. There is another one

1:05:32 Speaker 1: that is planned for a STEM education center that will

1:05:37 Speaker 1: be built in the future, and I hope they're to

1:05:40 Speaker 1: train students and young people to be excited about science

1:05:46 Speaker 1: discovering something new. In terms of public helping the mission

1:05:50 Speaker 1: of the Galag project, I think funding is really essential.

1:05:53 Speaker 1: So for example, in order for us to use a

1:05:57 Speaker 1: robot and go to the expedition to the Pacific again

1:06:00 Speaker 1: to find bigger pieces of the original metea or from

1:06:03 Speaker 1: interstellar space, we really need the six and a half

1:06:06 Speaker 1: million dollars. And if there is a way for the

1:06:09 Speaker 1: public to provide that, we will fulfill our mission and

1:06:13 Speaker 1: report back whatever we find. If a single donor gives

1:06:18 Speaker 1: us that that the donor is most welcome to be

1:06:20 Speaker 1: on the ship and see what we find. I mean

1:06:22 Speaker 1: to be part of the of the team. This is

1:06:26 Speaker 1: one example of making something really happen. And I hope

1:06:33 Speaker 1: we also have another meteor that we identified from interstellar

1:06:37 Speaker 1: space and that could be the next expedition after that one.

1:06:41 Speaker 2: Right and.

1:06:45 Speaker 1: As far as the Guarilleo observatories are concerned, you know,

1:06:48 Speaker 1: we are able to build observatories if we have proper

1:06:52 Speaker 1: funding for that, So that's another opportunity for helping us.

1:06:56 Speaker 1: Right And as of now, we are mostly missing scientists

1:07:00 Speaker 1: that can be engaged in the data analysis, and for

1:07:05 Speaker 1: me to hire people, I need to have the funding

1:07:10 Speaker 1: to do so. And for the hardware. We received enough

1:07:14 Speaker 1: funding to build these three additional observatories to the one

1:07:17 Speaker 1: we have, but we still need people that will be

1:07:20 Speaker 1: able to analyze the data. For that, I really need

1:07:23 Speaker 1: the financial donations in addition to what we have right now.

1:07:28 Speaker 2: Absolutely so, I want to end with a bit of

1:07:31 Speaker 2: a wonder. So, if you had the chance to ask

1:07:36 Speaker 2: an extra chest of civilization, one question, what would it be?

1:07:42 Speaker 1: What happened before the Big Bang? And the reason is, first,

1:07:45 Speaker 1: it represents our cosmic roots if we want to understand it.

1:07:48 Speaker 1: You know, it's the first chapter of Genesis in the

1:07:51 Speaker 1: Old Testament in God. But obviously there would be a

1:07:55 Speaker 1: different version there because they probably, I mean, if they

1:08:00 Speaker 1: are very advanced, they would know the details. You know.

1:08:03 Speaker 1: And by the way, you know, the breaking news is

1:08:06 Speaker 1: that the universe was not created in six days. It

1:08:10 Speaker 1: took thirteen point eight billion years, and God did not

1:08:13 Speaker 1: rest after the six days, because we would find evidence

1:08:16 Speaker 1: if God rested, we would see a pattern, a special

1:08:20 Speaker 1: pattern in the cosmic microwave background brightness fluctuations. We don't

1:08:24 Speaker 1: see that. You know, six days after the Big Bank

1:08:26 Speaker 1: there was nothing unusual according to the data that we

1:08:30 Speaker 1: have as of now. So clearly you know, the story

1:08:34 Speaker 1: that was written thousands of years ago or was delivered

1:08:37 Speaker 1: thousands of years ago, it's not accurate in the details,

1:08:40 Speaker 1: but it had one insight, which is everything started at

1:08:44 Speaker 1: one point in time, the Big Bang, which is what

1:08:47 Speaker 1: the modern scientific version says. But the aliens may know

1:08:51 Speaker 1: much more about it, and I would like to understand

1:08:54 Speaker 1: because it will also suggest how to unify quantum mechanics

1:08:57 Speaker 1: in gravity, and that's something we don't have have and

1:09:00 Speaker 1: perhaps if we had that knowledge, we could have designed

1:09:04 Speaker 1: new ways of moving from different one point to another.

1:09:09 Speaker 1: For example, people talk about wormholes, or about red drives

1:09:13 Speaker 1: or anti gravity propulsion. All of these concepts require new

1:09:19 Speaker 1: physics beyond the current understanding of gravity and quantum mechanics.

1:09:24 Speaker 1: We need something that unifies them in a way that

1:09:27 Speaker 1: perhaps can be engineered. And then if they tell me

1:09:31 Speaker 1: what happened before the Big Bang, I could reconstruct the

1:09:34 Speaker 1: theory of gravity that may do that.

1:09:36 Speaker 2: Right. Wow, thank you, and I really do want to

1:09:39 Speaker 2: say thank you for setting down with me today contact

1:09:43 Speaker 2: in the desert. What are your plans for what you'll

1:09:47 Speaker 2: be presenting.

1:09:47 Speaker 1: I will discuss the latest findings of the Gerilla Project

1:09:51 Speaker 1: and the plans that we have for the coming year,

1:09:54 Speaker 1: making twenty twenty five very exciting year.

1:09:56 Speaker 2: Right from everything that you've said, sounds like twenty twenty

1:09:59 Speaker 2: five is going to to really be let's say, you're

1:10:01 Speaker 2: the gallet or project and things coming together. So I

1:10:06 Speaker 2: just want to say thank you again for doing this,

1:10:09 Speaker 2: and it was truly a pleasure to sit with you today.

1:10:12 Speaker 2: You know, as a boy, did you ever think that

1:10:14 Speaker 2: you'd be doing this?

1:10:15 Speaker 1: No, because but in a way, I haven't changed in

1:10:20 Speaker 1: the way I look at the world. You know, as

1:10:22 Speaker 1: a kid, I was full of wonder, I was curious.

1:10:25 Speaker 1: I wasn't afraid to ask questions, and I remained the

1:10:27 Speaker 1: same way. I refuse to surrender. What I often say

1:10:31 Speaker 1: to young adults is never pretend to be the adults

1:10:35 Speaker 1: in the room. Maintain your childhood curiosity, Because at the

1:10:39 Speaker 1: dinner table when I was a kid, I remember asking

1:10:43 Speaker 1: a question and then the adults in the room would

1:10:45 Speaker 1: dismiss it or say something that didn't make sense. I

1:10:48 Speaker 1: thought that by becoming a scientist. I could answer the

1:10:51 Speaker 1: question myself, and that applies also to the UAP subject.

1:10:56 Speaker 1: Rather than listening to all the noise that you hear around,

1:11:00 Speaker 1: let's just figure.

1:11:01 Speaker 2: It though, right. That's a wonderful great note to end on.

1:11:04 Speaker 2: Thank you, doctor Low for your time today, and I

1:11:06 Speaker 2: really can't wait to see what you have in store

1:11:08 Speaker 2: for contact in the desert. I'll be there. I'm probably

1:11:11 Speaker 2: gonna interview you right off the off the stage. I

1:11:13 Speaker 2: think that's what they have me set up doing. So

1:11:16 Speaker 2: here's to the next tide.