← Danny Jones Podcast
Danny Jones Podcast
#334 - Dark Matter Expert on UFOs, Ancient Technology & The Quantum Brain | Matthew Szydagis
02:54:03
Loading summary
Transcript1,081 lines
- [00:08]
Danny
So what type of physics do you do?
- [00:10]
Matthew Shidagis
Well, so my mainstream effort is the search for dark matter. Okay. So I work on the LZ Dark Matter Experiment, which is deployed underground in South Dakota. It's the world's largest and best dark matter experiment. So I'm. I'm an astroparticle physicist.
- [00:25]
Danny
Okay. Can you explain what that dark, dark matter experiment is and how it works?
- [00:29]
Matthew Shidagis
Sure, sure. So I should probably start by explaining what dark matter itself is. So it's a hypothetical form of matter that we are very, very sure exists because we have indirect evidence, observational evidence, from astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology, primarily through gravity. So we know there's more matter than we can see, and we know it's not made of the same particles, constituents, as ordinary matter. And so one of the ways to look for dark matter is you actually create particle detectors. You deploy them deep underground. Because the idea is dark matter would pass through the Earth unimpeded, like neutrinos and similar particles, and interact with your detector. So in the LZ detector, we use a gigantic bucket. Basically, it's a thermos. Actually, the formal term is cryostat of liquid xenon. So xenon's very good element because it produces light when external particles interact with it. And so you get flashes of light whenever you have external particles extern radiation interact with the. With the xenon. So we have this deployed about almost a mile underground in South Dakota.
- [01:34]
Danny
Wow. Are there any images of this we can see? Like, that gives you like a good. How. How big is it?
- [01:39]
Matthew Shidagis
Absolutely. So it's. It's 10. It's 10 ton scale, liquid xenitecture. It's about. I'm a scientist, so I use meters. So just multiply by three for feet or just pretend I'm saying yards. So it's like one and a half.
- [01:51]
Danny
Meters similar to yards or meters and.
- [01:52]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, yeah, extremely similar. So it's one and a half meters tall by one and a half meters wide, roughly. But that's inside of a water tank and several other layers of shielding because we want to be sure if we have a detection that it's dark matter, not something else. So it has a lot of layers of shielding. So actually, we've got some images coming up right now. So you can see the diagram from Smithsonian there. There's a diagram of how it works right there. So a particle comes in, produces a flash of light as well as loosen some electrons off of the atom. So we actually get two signals. First, a flash of light, primary flash of light in the liquid and then a secondary FL of light up top from the, from the electrons that got ripped out. So the time between the two signals gives us the depth of the event and the hit pattern of the light gives us the radial position. So we have three dimensional position reconstruction of any incoming particles that interact with the detector.
- [02:46]
Danny
And what does this tell you specifically about dark matter?
- [02:50]
Matthew Shidagis
Well, we're looking for something extra beyond the ordinary particles that are going to constantly interact, like just gamma rays and just Betas and radiation from the environment. So we're looking for something extra that is going to be above the constant noise of the regular old school particles we know and love. So here's a picture of the actual experiment it's actually made of. It's white because it's made of Teflon, because Teflon actually reflects ultraviolet light. And so that helps bounce the light into the photo sensors at the top and the bottom. So we're hoping that a particle of dark matter comes in, bumps into an atom of xenon and makes a flash of light that we can detect reproducibly.
- [03:31]
Danny
How many particles of dark matter have you seen?
- [03:33]
Matthew Shidagis
None.
- [03:33]
Danny
None yet.
- [03:34]
Matthew Shidagis
No. So when I say we're the world's best dark matter experiment, it's because we've measured zero better than anybody else. So we actually know you. You would hear about it from the mainstream media if we had actually made a discovery because we've been.
- [03:45]
Danny
This would be a front page of material.
- [03:47]
Matthew Shidagis
Huh. Potentially just like the gravitational waves. Discovery was with LIGO a few years ago. So it would be a big deal.
- [03:52]
Danny
So dark matter is just a theory.
- [03:56]
Matthew Shidagis
That word is misused. So in science theory means fact. So the phrase just a theory is one of those things that like raises like my skin because there's no such thing. So a theory in science means incontrovertible fact Theory. Yes. When other people, when non scientists use the word theory, they mean hypothesis.
- [04:19]
Danny
Ah.
- [04:20]
Matthew Shidagis
So dark matter is a very well established theory in the sense that even though we don't have direct evidence, we have so many mountains of observational evidence that very few people doubt that there's something there.
- [04:35]
Danny
Got it. So for now it's just a hypothesis.
- [04:38]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, well it's kind of in a gray area towards theory because it's got so much indirect evidence in its favor. So it's sort of like people will refer to it as a dark matter theory. I prefer hypothesis because we don't have conclusive observation in the lab yet.
- [04:55]
Danny
And isn't it, isn't it don't we also have another hypothesis that dark matter has mass to it?
- [05:01]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh no, that's guaranteed. Oh, that's guaranteed that it's not separate. It has to have mass because otherwise it can't produce gravity.
- [05:07]
Danny
And that was because when we observed galaxies, we noticed that the center of the galaxy has the same spin rate as the rim of the galaxy. Meaning that there's like mass flattening the spin rate.
- [05:15]
Matthew Shidagis
Is that not close? Not quite. So at high radius there's a flattening when there should be a dropping off. So for example, take Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune is going to be orbiting the sun more slowly than the Earth. Okay, that's just a natural consequence of the law of gravity. Yes. However, what we see in galaxies is that the farther out you go, we didn't see that drop off. And that's been attempted to be explained without dark matter, without additional mass. There are theories of modified gravity, but the vast majority really don't work because they can't explain why. For example, you have galaxies apparently that we've discovered over the last several years that seem to be 100%, almost 100% dark matter and 0%. So that really implies that dark matter is stuff and you can have more stuff and less stuff.
- [06:05]
Danny
So the farther out you get into the galaxy, the stuff is spinning at the same speed as the stuff that's close to the galaxy.
- [06:12]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah. Instead of dropping off, which would be natural.
- [06:14]
Danny
Right, Right, Yeah.
- [06:16]
Matthew Shidagis
So it builds up. So there are slow speeds at the center. Then it builds up because you've got more mass essentially underneath you effectively. And so the speed builds up, but it's. There should be a peak and then a drop off, but we don't see that expected drop off that's predicted from both Newtonian mechanics as well as relativity.
- [06:35]
Danny
And dark matter is just like theoretically all around us. And it's just the invisible stuff that we don't see because it's electromagnetically undetectable. Right. Like so dark matter would be all around us right now.
- [06:45]
Matthew Shidagis
That's right. That's right. It's in this room. Well, that it also depends on the number density. We don't know the number density is. So dark matter, individual dark matter particles might be very rare. We think we know the average energy density, but we don't know like how many dark matter particles are there per unit volume necessarily.
- [07:02]
Danny
What do you guess that what are your thoughts on the John Wheeler it from bit stuff?
- [07:08]
Matthew Shidagis
You mean how everything is, is computational.
- [07:11]
Danny
Ones and zeros and like the dark matter is like computation, like A computational, you know, cloud of ones and zeros. Like Adam, like, the idea is everything is a yes or no. Right. If you, if you, like, boil everything down, atoms and protons and neutrons down to everything, it could be, it could be binary bits. Right? Is that basically what it from bit is?
- [07:31]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, but I completely disagree because with quantum mechanics, you have something in between 0 and 1. That's the whole point behind qubits in quantum computers is that you have more than just zero and one now for the first time. And so I think that it's interesting speculation and philosophy, but also I'm an experimental physicist. I don't like, I want to know what, what testable prediction can an idea make? If an idea doesn't have a testable prediction, then it's not a scientific theory. John Wheeler did a lot of excellent science. Outstanding. But he also did a lot of philosophizing, kind of, you know, metaphysics. Nothing wrong with that. But if you don't have a testable prediction, I don't, I, I'm agnostic towards something. I don't know what to think about.
- [08:19]
Danny
Yeah. I don't know how you would touch that. So you're saying quantum computing would render that irrelevant or render that.
- [08:27]
Matthew Shidagis
Well, he'd probably disagree because he'd say, well, it's still bits all the way down. But the thing is, with quantum computing, you have the ability to have indeterminate states. It is true that once you make a measurement, everything is still spin up or spin down, 0 or 1, but you also have the indeterminate states that exist prior to measurements, Schrodinger's cat and all that stuff. So that's why I'm not really comfortable with that. Over simplistic assessment. I would say that everything is zeros and, and ones because I think we're ignoring what fractions. You know, we're ignoring, you know, rational, irrational numbers. You know, PI is irrational number. It's not 0 or 1. So I just think that's kind of an oversimplification and the world is a lot more nuanced. A lot, A lot of supposed theories of everything really, like grossly oversimplify the world into one sentence and miss a lot of the, the nuances. Hard to explain with some of the, like, simplistic ideas.
- [09:21]
Danny
Yeah. It seems like in this realm of research, there's not many things that, that line up well. There's like, there's not many ideas that explain other things. Right. Like, like physics doesn't explain consciousness. Like there's, I don't I don't. I don't see how you can get from like protons and neutrons to consciousness. You know, Like, I could see how we could get from something like binary bits. If, like you say we live. We live in some sort of computation, then I would understand consciousness perfectly. Like, it's a computer. Right. But there's just some things that just don't make sense to me and that, like the. It's. It's just we try to. In science and in physics and in CA and cosmology and all these different lanes of. Of research. It's like we always try to find a consensus and a good way to fit this peg into this hole. But like, oftentimes it just doesn't work. You know what I'm saying?
- [10:20]
Matthew Shidagis
Like, when it doesn't work, though, that's when major new discoveries are made.
- [10:24]
Danny
Right?
- [10:25]
Matthew Shidagis
But yeah, consciousness, that's not really physics. Maybe it will be in the end. But I mean that, you know, we've got neurology, we've got biology. Although I often joke, this really annoys my biology friends and so is. Biology is just applied chemistry. Chemistry is applied physics. But then a mathematician can come and tell. This was an XKCD comic, Matt. Physics is applied math. So it's really. So the physics is the. I would say the bottom of science is the foundation. However, math, which is not a science, it's a tool. But math is an even deeper foundation than that. So if that makes sense, I. I'm actually a big, big proponent of the Luke Lucas Penrose argument. The Lucas Penrose argument, that humans are not machines. And they claim to be able to prove that using Godel's Incompleteness theorem. And so I'm a big proponent of that.
- [11:10]
Danny
Humans are not machines.
- [11:12]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah. The human consciousness cannot be explained as a classical computer. Are you familiar with the Lucas Penrose argument? I'm not familiar with it. So this is the idea that. It's a very deep idea in philosophy that it's an argument made by Roger Penrose and Lucas. I don't remember his first name, unfortunately at the moment, but they made this argument using. You're familiar with Goodell's Incompleteness theorem? Nope. Okay, so basically you can. It's possible to show that there are true statements that cannot be provable from your assumptions. But since a human being can know that, but a machine cannot know that, therefore humans are not machines, it's kind of. I'm grossly oversimplifying it. You know, I'm kind of summarizing.
- [11:53]
Danny
Can you say it again?
- [11:53]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah. So basically a human being.
- [11:56]
Danny
Yeah.
- [11:56]
Matthew Shidagis
Is capable of seeing a statement that they know to be true, but cannot be proven from a set of mathematical axioms or assumptions. But a computer can't do that. Therefore, the argument goes, computers. And therefore humans are not computers, at least classical computers, the human brain or human mind, if you will. There's another way to look at the argument, which is that as technology improves, biology, neurology, we learn more about the human brain. What if there comes a time where we know everything about the human brain, everything there is to know? Funk, we're using functional mri, everything. We're talking centuries from now, millennia from now.
- [12:38]
Danny
Sure.
- [12:38]
Matthew Shidagis
But now that we know that, now we can hack ourselves. Now we can change our own programming because we know the whole program and because we can think that thought, because I just spoke that thought. According to the Lucas Penrose argument, that proves that I'm not a machine or that my mind is not equivalent to a classical computer. Now obviously a lot of people have pushed back against this and don't agree with the argument and try to poke holes in it. So it's been going back and forth and back and forth. But I'm a pretty big proponent of this argument that humans cannot be reduced to just a classical computer.
- [13:14]
Danny
Yeah, no, I don't think you have to reduce us. I don't understand really what that even means, like reducing us to a classical computer. Basically, what even is a class like a classical computer? What do you mean by that?
- [13:25]
Matthew Shidagis
I'm saying basically, let's not think of it from a computing perspective. Let's switch to a more biological perspective. Another way of putting it is there's no free will. Everything is just chemical processes. It's basically mushy and wet. But it's the equivalent of silicon chips in a computer. But it's just biology. It's just the biological equipment, just a mushy equivalent of what we do with silicon computer chips. But there's no free will. We just, you know, we react to our environments. Every action a human being takes is predetermined from chemical processes, biological processes in the brain. So that's sort of the reductionist approach of explaining what consciousness is or what sentience is.
- [14:11]
Danny
Right, right.
- [14:12]
Matthew Shidagis
Does that make more sense?
- [14:13]
Danny
Yeah, that does make sense. And I, I would agree with you there that that's not what it is.
- [14:17]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, I vehemently, I disagree with that. But of course, you know somebody who believes that, say, of course you do. Of course you. Because I was pre programmed to have that disagreement right now.
- [14:29]
Danny
Right.
- [14:29]
Matthew Shidagis
Biologically I'm conditioned to have that, that belief.
- [14:33]
Danny
I've got to tell you, I am totally obsessed with Rag and bone infused denim. And thankfully they happen to sponsor this episode. Their denim feels like it was made for me. Slim where I want it and relaxed where I need a little extra give. But this ain't your typical old school denim. The first time I tried on a pair of their Infused jeans, I was blown away. They felt broken in right away. The stretch was where it counts and the structure where you don't want limp denim. I could actually move in them. Honestly, I forgot I was even wearing jeans. You can see it in the stitching, the weight and the way they hold their shape long after you slip them on. You know how other jeans are, they look awesome, but they fall apart. Or the ones that last are stiff. Not here. With Rag and Bone infuse, you finally get both. The look hits hard too. Infuse uses a proprietary eight step over dye and finishing process. So every wash has that rich dimensional color that gets better over time. I got mine in a deep indigo black wash. I get asked about them all the time. Rag and Bone has been obsessing over denim craftsmanship for 20 years. Their infused collection is built to last season after season. Soften and subtle with wear and lived in feel. If you want jeans that grow with you instead of wearing you out, infuse is where it's at. It's time to upgrade your denim with Rag and Bone. And for a limited time, our listeners are getting 20 off their entire order with code danny@rag-bone.com. that's 20 off at rag-bone.com with the promo code Danny spelled D A N N Y. When they ask you where you heard about them, please support the show and let them know we sent you. It's linked down below. Now back to the show. Yes, yes. It's just that there, when it comes to this stuff that there are, there are so many unique experiments that have been done that just are unexplainable. Right. Like there's like the, like the, the double slit experiment or the, like the Schrodinger's cat and all these things that, you know, they. I don't understand how to explain them like in, in the term, in terms of physics or like, you know, where do we go from there?
- [16:41]
Matthew Shidagis
You know, we don't need to understand something to use it. Nobody knows what time is. Can you define time for me? There is no definition of time and yet we manipulate it. So, for example, we use relativistic corrections for GPS satellites, in order to account for the fact that time is shifting because of speed and gravity. We know this, yet we don't even know what time is. We don't know what energy is, but we manipulate it. So just because we don't understand in a way that can be explained to everybody. We use quantum mechanics on a daily basis. Our computers, our phones wouldn't work without it. And yet nobody can explain to the satisfaction to non scientists at least, like, how can something be both a wave and a particle at the same time? But what's interesting, it doesn't matter. With no explanation, we can still take the mathematical consequences of what we know to be true, follow through with that, and we still have physics and engineering and technology without understanding the foundation. Very interesting.
- [17:45]
Danny
Yeah, yeah. We can, we can flip the switch and not have to know how. Exactly. How it works.
- [17:49]
Matthew Shidagis
Exactly.
- [17:50]
Danny
We're willing to get the light by flipping the switch without. We don't have to really understand exactly how all the electricity works.
- [17:55]
Matthew Shidagis
Exactly.
- [17:56]
Danny
All the little circuits.
- [17:57]
Matthew Shidagis
Exactly. Before the invention of calculus, for thousands of years, you could cross a room in violation of Zeno's paradox. Are you familiar with Zeno's Zenos paradoxes? The ancient Greeks? So he said, you cannot cross a room. It's impossible. I'll do it right in front of you. Right. So it's just, we laugh nowadays, modern people laugh.
- [18:16]
Danny
He said what? You cannot cross a room.
- [18:17]
Matthew Shidagis
You can't cross a room because let's say I'm crossing a room. If I cross half of the room, I still need to go half of the room. Right. But now if I cross half of that distance, I still have another half to go. And what he shows is that it's an infinite series. But that's because they didn't have the tools of calculus to show that infinite. A sum of an infinite number of numbers can sum to a finite number. But the thing is, for thousands of years before we understood that, that didn't stop us from crossing rooms.
- [18:48]
Danny
Right?
- [18:49]
Matthew Shidagis
Right. Do you see what I mean? So even before you understand something, you can still manipulate it, you can use. Human beings were able to create fire without understanding what fire is.
- [19:00]
Danny
Sure.
- [19:01]
Matthew Shidagis
For thousands of years. For hundreds of thousands of years.
- [19:03]
Danny
Right, Exactly.
- [19:04]
Matthew Shidagis
Exactly.
- [19:05]
Danny
So what would that do? What do you think would. Would change if we were able to use that little machine that was in.
- [19:11]
Matthew Shidagis
There and find dark.
- [19:12]
Danny
Find some dark matter.
- [19:13]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, Excellent question.
- [19:14]
Danny
How would you be able to apply that?
- [19:16]
Matthew Shidagis
Nothing. Nothing. It has absolutely no practical applications whatsoever. Period. It's the equivalent of the higgs boson. What has the Higgs boson done in your life today? The God particle, or whatever name you might be more familiar with, discovered 2012. Looking for decades. What has it done in your life lately?
- [19:36]
Danny
I mean, I've enjoyed some fun documentaries.
- [19:38]
Matthew Shidagis
On it, on the Particle Fever, maybe, or some of the other documentaries.
- [19:40]
Danny
Yeah, yeah.
- [19:41]
Matthew Shidagis
Nothing now. I'm gonna follow that up, though. When electricity was discovered, what was it good for?
- [19:49]
Danny
All kinds of stuff. Light bulbs.
- [19:51]
Matthew Shidagis
Nothing. No, no, no, no. I'm saying when it was first discovered, it was good for. Absolutely. When was it nothing? Well, it's not like one thing, because it was. It took decades. It took centuries of experimentation by different people. Faraday, Maxwell. Yeah. So basically, what I'm trying to tell you is here's. Here's a story. I don't know if it's true. There's a story that physicists tell that a man asked Faraday, one of the. You know, we've got Faraday's Law of Induction, one of the most important scientists working in the 19th century, figuring out what electricity and magnetism are. Allegedly. Someone asked him what electricity is good for, and he said, I don't know, but one day you'll be taxing it. And so, like, our electricity runs our lives. But let's go back to the 1840s. Electricity was worthless. It was a game for scientists and engineers to just screw around in the lab. It had no practical applications. So basically, my point of what dark matter is. I can't answer your question, what the practical applications are, because nobody knows. No one has the imagination to know what the application could be three centuries from now. Dark matter could be so integral part of our lives, like electricity is or the Internet. There's no way to know. I'll give you another example. Antimatter, another great example.
- [21:16]
Danny
What's that?
- [21:17]
Matthew Shidagis
So antimatter is when you have. So for every single particle of matter, there's a particle of the opposite electric charge. Same mass, but opposite electric charge. So there's like, proton, there's anti proton, sure. Electron. Anti electron. But there's another thing that's very important. So when matter and antimatter come together, they annihilate into gamma rays, into radiation, into energy. So, like, a tiny little bit of antimatter would be. I mean, this was the. I think the plot of Angels and Demons would be better than a nuclear weapon. Way better. Like, way more efficient. So when antimatter was first discovered in the 1930s, I mean, it was hypothesized before that. But when we first Found antimatter in the lab. Who would have dreamt that 40, 50, 60 years later we were using it to diagnose cancer in PET scans. The P in PET scan stands for positron. That's an anti electron. In a PET scan, you're injected with a small, very safe, very small, safe amount of antimatter in order to diagnose where the cancerous tumor is because the cancerous tumors will gobble up more of the antimatter emitting sugar. And who would have dreamt of that? Antimatter was useless when it was first hypothesized. Useless was discovered. It didn't even have a practical application for at least I think four decades, maybe five. And so it's the same thing with dark matter. Previously I've hypothesized maybe dark matter could be useful as a fuel for interstellar travel in some way, because it's everywhere. Why would you want to take your fuel with you? Why not use something that's everywhere? Like I have. I don't know how it would work. I have no idea. There would have to be some kind of reaction or you'd suck it in, chuck it out the back. Like I'm not sure how it would be useful, but that's just an idea I've thrown out there in the past.
- [23:01]
Danny
Yeah, that's interesting. Have you, have you seen this new discovery of this cosmic microwave background radiation where they think it's from super early galaxy? The radiation from like suns of super early galaxies.
- [23:16]
Matthew Shidagis
You must be mixing up a few things because the cosmic microwave background was discovered in the 1960s. So that's very old news. And then.
- [23:22]
Danny
No, yes, but what I'm saying is this, this new discovery of early, early massive universes.
- [23:28]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, you're talking about the reionization time? I think.
- [23:31]
Danny
So basically they're saying that the majority, it could be anywhere between, I think 1.4 to like 100% of the cosmic background radiation could be from stars from these super early massive universes that they found. I have not heard with the James Webb telescope.
- [23:44]
Matthew Shidagis
I have not heard of this.
- [23:45]
Danny
Steve, so you can find this. Yeah, it's pretty insane because this kind of like blows up the whole Big Bang theory. Well, it pushes it back, like throws off the dates of everything.
- [23:55]
Matthew Shidagis
Well, that's fine. But here's the thing. The Big Bang theory, remember, theory means fact and science. It has overwhelming mountains of evidence. So nothing can overthrow the Big Bang theory, period. I'm going to say it right now.
- [24:05]
Danny
Maybe not overthrow it, but it significantly throws it.
- [24:08]
Matthew Shidagis
No we have to change it.
- [24:09]
Danny
Squirrelly as fog.
- [24:10]
Matthew Shidagis
No. So what we need to do is, for examp, the date could be wrong. So let me clarify what I mean, because we're gonna get all these.
- [24:14]
Danny
This would mean these. So these galaxies that they found in this new study with the James Webb telescope, they say that they were probably developed. They probably came into existence around 300 to 400 million years.
- [24:26]
Matthew Shidagis
Okay, okay, I know what you're talking about now, so.
- [24:28]
Danny
So it's like the typical galaxies take way longer.
- [24:30]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, yeah, no, so I know what you're talking about. So this. This I heard of before already. This has been just quote, unquote, discovered and rediscovered the past two, three years, actually. So there have been hints here and there, and James Webb is just the latest piece of evidence of it.
- [24:42]
Danny
O.
- [24:43]
Matthew Shidagis
Basically, what it boils down. Steve.
- [24:45]
Danny
So you can find anything on this? I think I sent you links.
- [24:47]
Matthew Shidagis
So what it boils down to is galaxies can come together much faster than we thought. So that's what it boils down to.
- [24:55]
Danny
Okay.
- [24:56]
Matthew Shidagis
However, it does not disprove that the universe that the. Oh, this is. Oh, no, this is not what I'm. This. Okay, this is something else.
- [25:08]
Danny
New paper shows the cosmic microwave background radiation can be explained entirely by energy. Recently discovered early mature galaxy.
- [25:15]
Matthew Shidagis
Crackpot paper. Yeah, this is.
- [25:17]
Danny
Why is it crackpot?
- [25:18]
Matthew Shidagis
The cosmic microwave background was created 379,000 years after the Big Bang. We've already established that. We've studied it for decades. Like, this is nonsense.
- [25:26]
Danny
Like, well, there is this. Can you zoom in a little bit, Steve?
- [25:31]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah. Where's the link to the scientific paper?
- [25:34]
Danny
Now that emg. Scroll down.
- [25:35]
Matthew Shidagis
Where's the link?
- [25:36]
Danny
Let's see. Let's see if we can find it. Scroll down. Keep going.
- [25:41]
Matthew Shidagis
Steve.
- [25:42]
Danny
There you go. Click on it.
- [25:43]
Matthew Shidagis
Okay.
- [25:44]
Danny
Bam. And the impact of Early Massive Galaxy Formation on the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation by Ido.
- [25:50]
Matthew Shidagis
And what journal is it published in?
- [25:52]
Danny
Oh, no. What journal is it published in? Does it say.
- [25:55]
Matthew Shidagis
Anyway, I'm not a cosmologist.
- [25:57]
Danny
Find out, Steve.
- [25:57]
Matthew Shidagis
So this could go off the.
- [25:59]
Danny
Okay.
- [26:02]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, this. This happens every few years.
- [26:04]
Danny
So the cosmic. Right, right.
- [26:05]
Matthew Shidagis
Someone claims to overthrow the Big Bang theory, and then it's disproven in five minutes. And then everybody goes back to work like this. This. I've seen this for the past 20 years, every couple months. So, yeah, this is not new.
- [26:16]
Danny
You've seen this how often?
- [26:17]
Matthew Shidagis
Every few months there'll be some guy who publishes some paper or two or pair of people like here that claims they've got Some new cosmological model, and it's always wrong because they always miss something obvious. Yeah, this is. Yeah, I'm not interested in this. No, not really. I see this every few months. Yeah, this is nonsense. I mean, the cosmic microwave background is a.
- [26:36]
Danny
Was it published? Steve, what journal was this published in?
- [26:40]
Matthew Shidagis
I'm still looking, but even if so, I would. I'm going to lay down. I would lay down some cash right now. This hasn't been published in any journal. It's only on the archive. Because this is. This is. Look, you can't wake up tomorrow and we can't undo something we already know. So let me explain. There's a lot we still don't know about the universe, but the little bit that we know, we know very, very well. So, like, for example, we can't wake up tomorrow and like, oh, Einstein is wrong. Surefire way to tell a crackpot paper. Physics is it starts with Einstein was wrong, therefore, blah, blah, blah. No, it's too late, because if Einstein was wrong, your GPS wouldn't work, your phone wouldn't work, your computer would work. Like, we know that our theories are incomplete, but they're not wrong. There's a difference between wrong and incomplete. So the Big Bang theory is incomplete. There's so much we still don't know about the beginning of the universe. But these papers that claim 100 wrong, I immediately know that paper.
- [27:34]
Danny
I don't think they're claiming it's 100.
- [27:36]
Matthew Shidagis
They are, they are. No, they're on the Twitter.
- [27:38]
Danny
It said. It's said on the Twitter that they think the CMB could. That the, the early massive galaxies could equate for between one and like a hundred percent. So they don't know. It could be any amount. Any. A certain percentage.
- [27:50]
Matthew Shidagis
How can they explain that the CMB matches the dark matter and dark energy ratio, that it has all these other cross checks that have been done with the supernova studies with the baryon.
- [27:59]
Danny
Well, we don't know because we didn't read the whole thing. Yeah, but what does this. Steve, it was published in Nuclear Physics B.
- [28:05]
Matthew Shidagis
Nuclear physics? That's not a cosmology journal. Oh, so how are they saying anything about cosmology? That would be the equivalent of, for example, you're gatekeeping. I'm not gatekeeping.
- [28:15]
Danny
You sound like you are.
- [28:16]
Matthew Shidagis
No, because they can publish in a cosmology journal and they can get peer review there. No, gatekeeping is when you don't allow something to get even peer reviewed. This should be peer review.
- [28:25]
Danny
You're discrediting It. Because you don't think it's in a qualitative journal. We haven't even read the whole thing.
- [28:29]
Matthew Shidagis
No, but here's the thing. I'm discrediting it because we already know what we know about the cosmic microwave background. It's too late for it to be that level of wrong. It could be 1% wrong. Absolutely 100% wrong. You said between 1 and 100%, you said.
- [28:42]
Danny
But between 1 and 100 is not possible.
- [28:46]
Matthew Shidagis
100 is not one. Absolutely sure 1%.
- [28:50]
Danny
So between 1 and 100 is absolutely possible. If you go back to that tweet.
- [28:53]
Matthew Shidagis
That's a very bold claim.
- [28:54]
Danny
Go back to the bottom of the tweet.
- [28:55]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, but that's a very bold claim.
- [28:57]
Danny
Go back to the bottom of the tweet.
- [28:58]
Matthew Shidagis
But look, if you. Look, if you go by every single new paper and every single tweet that comes out, you would have 20 different conflicting views of the universe. That can't all be right. So that's another way of looking.
- [29:10]
Danny
Well, you also have people who have dedicated their lives to studying for the microwave background.
- [29:14]
Matthew Shidagis
Exactly.
- [29:15]
Danny
And so you're gonna piss a lot of people off, and there's gonna be a lot of bias.
- [29:17]
Matthew Shidagis
And so it's not about pissing people off.
- [29:19]
Danny
Well, I mean, this is just normal human. This is just human nature of this is going to happen. You're going to have competition, you're going to have egos that are hurt, and you're going to have people that disagree.
- [29:30]
Matthew Shidagis
How can you hurt the egos of people who are dead?
- [29:33]
Danny
There's a lot of people that are alive, but a lot of the original decades doing this.
- [29:37]
Matthew Shidagis
I know, but. And. And they've spent decades.
- [29:39]
Danny
What are you looking at, Steve? What is this? So the tweet. Okay, so. So this Tweet happened in June 30th. Right. Okay, but it's referencing a paper that was published in May. Okay, so a month later. Oh, right. Yes.
- [29:55]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, but I'm not a cosmologist.
- [29:56]
Danny
Scroll up, scroll up. Let's. Let's read this. Let's see this. So zoom in.
- [29:59]
Matthew Shidagis
Has nothing to do with what I do.
- [30:04]
Danny
The new findings are.
- [30:05]
Matthew Shidagis
Accept.
- [30:06]
Danny
Are if the findings are accepted and there's no reason not to accept them.
- [30:10]
Matthew Shidagis
Exactly. See that sentence? That's a key crackpot red alarm sentence. No real scientist says that. Like, if I found evidence of aliens or of dark matter, I would never say, and there's no reason not to accept them. That's ego, and that's hubris.
- [30:25]
Danny
This is just somebody on Twitter, basically, Reese, like recycling it for somebody. This is not the scientist. This is just some Twitter guy.
- [30:33]
Matthew Shidagis
This is some know that you didn't say.
- [30:35]
Danny
This is some guy trying to summarize it for Twitter.
- [30:38]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, okay.
- [30:39]
Danny
So, okay, so here's what the implications are.
- [30:41]
Matthew Shidagis
Okay, okay. I think I know what's happening then. Oh, okay, okay. The paper's probably fine. This happens all the time. This is some random person on Twitter exaggerating and over sensationalizing a scientific claim. It would be the equivalent of somebody taking me and Kevin's UAPX paper where we went out and looked for aliens and putting out a tweet and saying that I found the proof that aliens exist. It's, it's, it's an exaggeration problem of what's in the real scientific paper.
- [31:11]
Danny
That's possible. That's possible.
- [31:13]
Matthew Shidagis
I mean, I see this all the time. All the time.
- [31:15]
Danny
So they're saying cosmic inflation loses observational justification.
- [31:19]
Matthew Shidagis
That's fine.
- [31:20]
Danny
CMB power spectrum loses predictive relevance. Dark energy inferred from cosmic microwave background may be mischaracterized.
- [31:30]
Matthew Shidagis
CMB power spectrum loses predicted relevance. That's really, really improbable. And it has nothing to do with egos. Has nothing to do with the fact that people spent decades on it. It's because that's been cross checked so many different ways so many times already. So, like, about half of these things on the list are not news to me. Like, yeah, of course that's wrong and needs fixing. We already knew that. And half of the list are things that are almost impossible to be wrong because there's too many mountains of evidence going back decades. It's not about hubris, not about ego. Truth is not by majority, not at all. Numerous times, numerous times in human history, we've been very wrong about our view of the universe. That's getting harder now.
- [32:16]
Danny
If you're like me, you could probably benefit from a little extra peace of mind. And that's where Cornbread hemps CBD gummies come in clutch. Sometimes I don't want to be blitzed. And Cornbread's gummies are like a backdoor relief without the mental effects. I take one of these 750mg CBD gummies whenever I'm feeling stressed or I can't sleep and I just wait for the calmness to wash over my body. Cornbread hemp uses the best part of the hemp plant, the flower for the purest potent cbd. They curate effects that specifically help with stress and discomfort. And I find the result to be remarkably effective. They also have formulas for sleeplessness too. There's no fillers or junk, just full spectrum goodness. They've made CBD their specialty. My favorite is the berry flavor, but they have several flavors, including capsules if you don't want the sugar. Their products are third party tested and USDA organic to ensure safety and purity. If you encounter as much stress as I do, then you should try Cornbreads cbd and you can thank me later. And for a limited time, they're offering you lucky listeners 30% off your first order. Don't miss out on this. Just go to cornbreadhemp.com Danny and use my code Danny at checkout, that's cornbread hemp. Cornhemp.coM-A-N n y and use that code Danny to get 30% off your first order. And thank you to Cornbread Hemp for sponsoring this episode.
- [33:42]
Matthew Shidagis
Do you know why that's getting harder? Ancient people. I mentioned Zeno's. Zeno was an ancient Greek philosopher. Earlier ancient people could just do armchair philosophy and science. They didn't have telescopes, they didn't have microscopes. They have anything. So as science progresses, it's getting very harder to be wrong. Completely. Like you can say, ah, this piece of that theory was wrong. Yeah, absolutely. But a wholesale paradigm shift that's getting less and less probable. It's getting harder and harder to do because you've got to explain then, why were you wrong the last 70 years? How is that possible? Now I have to go back and explain every single piece of data with the new paradigm that's getting harder and harder to do as we collect more data. Does that make sense?
- [34:25]
Danny
Yeah, totally.
- [34:25]
Matthew Shidagis
It's getting harder and harder.
- [34:27]
Danny
Well, also the people that people have to come up, people that have other theories or that have other data, they have to justify if there's something that, that comes out that proves it wrong or they have to look at it wholeheartedly and like fully consider, does this shatter my belief or does this shatter and discredit the work that I've spent years doing? And I think a lot of people are incapable of doing that.
- [34:49]
Matthew Shidagis
But I don't understand that because I couldn't care less if dark matter didn't exist. I wouldn't go, oh my God, oh, boo hoo, my ego. All my decades of my life have been wasted. No, not at all. Because as I've been working on dark matter, I've also been doing nuclear physics. I've been looking at neutrinos. So basically, the way I look at it is in my own world of looking for dark matter, I often encounter people who are like, oh yeah, what if dark matter doesn't exist and your whole career is wasted? And I'm like, and I would look at that person. I say, you have no clue how science works, at least how it works to me. I don't give a damn if dark matter is real or not. My goal is not to go prove dark matter is real. My goal is to prove or disprove. And so this whole thing about oh, cosmologists, you're saying egos. A good cosmologist is out there to find the truth. They don't care if they've been wrong for decades. A good scientist is out there to find the truth. Now you have bad apple out there who are people who are so full of themselves that they want their pet experiment or theory to be correct. I'm not one of those people though. Kevin, who you've had on the show, my good friend Kevin is also not one of those people. And earlier, look, I'm not gatekeeping. I have suffered from gatekeeping. I have had scientific papers rejected because people didn't like my idea, mainstream ideas. I'm not just talking about UFOs or UAPs. And so, so I think every scientific paper has a right to have peer review and not be, for example, rejected at the desk. But there's different levels of so called gatekeeping. If something is written by non scientists. I don't think that's the case here. If something's written by non scientists, some dude in his basement who has a bachelor's degree in physics and they're going to redo everything without a PhD and that's not going to happen. But a PhD scientist should not be gate, gate kept if that's a word from doing their work and including if they have controversial new ideas. Absolutely, it should be peer reviewed so that it could be challenged and there can be back and forth about it.
- [36:58]
Danny
Well, even peer review has been bastardized as well because I've seen plenty of cases where peer reviews have been done on credible academic research and books where people have peer reviewed something that don't even have the expertise in what they're peer reviewing.
- [37:12]
Matthew Shidagis
But that's, but that's right.
- [37:13]
Danny
And this happened in specifically in one case where I actually talked to the guy and I said, hey, can I talk to you about this peer review you wrote on this guy's book where you actually like completely destroyed it and now no one takes it seriously. He goes, well it's not really my expertise. You're the only one who did the peer review on it.
- [37:27]
Matthew Shidagis
Ridiculous. So the system is very broken. It's an imperfect system, but it's still the best we have. It's kind of like jury duty. We all hate jury duty, but can you imagine what our free, democratic society would be like without it? It's the same thing with peer review. There are problems you want to talk about, I'll give you countless examples. I had my colleague, Professor Cecilia Levy and I, we discovered a new type of radiation detector to look for dark matter, among other things, called the snowball chamber. We got rejected from multiple journals. We had one peer reviewer say to us, it doesn't smell. What's that supposed to mean? Is the math right, smell right? No. Exactly. He said, doesn't pass the smell test. So here's the thing. And also the peer review process can be abused and it can be manipulated.
- [38:16]
Danny
And with journals, with money.
- [38:18]
Matthew Shidagis
But the solution to that is you fix the process. You don't say, oh, I don't believe in peer review, so I'm going to read every scientific crack up paper and trust them all immediately. Now there's a middle ground between those extremes and there are plenty of peer reviewed papers that are wrong. This happens all the time in biology and psychology. Yes, physics too. But I'm gonna take the high horse and I look down on biology and psychology. I've seen statistics like something like 30%. I hope I'm not wrong on that because lots of people make up statistics on the spot. I'm not trying to do that, but I have heard it claimed, I don't know if it's accurate, that something like 30% of papers even in Nature magazine end up who pass peer review. They're wrong. And so what I'm trying to say is, is that not being peer reviewed doesn't mean you're automatically wrong, but at the same time, getting peer reviewed doesn't automatically mean you're right. Neither of those extremes are correct.
- [39:10]
Danny
There are top, there's a top Stanford neurosurgeon who came out, who's still practicing, who said between 80 and 90% of all the medical, medical literature in schools is wrong or outdated.
- [39:24]
Matthew Shidagis
I believe it. I believe it in physics. You can't say that though, because physics is so foundational, the whole, the whole edifice would collapse. Remember earlier I said how biology is applied chemistry, chemistry is applied physics. There is truth to that statement. And so physics. So in fact I always get angry at the textbook companies. You can be like, how does this connect to anything? You're just saying the basic physics that freshmen learn has been the same for centuries. Okay, why do I need the 10th edition? Why do I need the 11th edition? It's a money making scheme. So like physics, you don't learn any cutting edge physics or new physics until your senior year or graduate school. I'm talking about college, of course, not high school. And so like, why do we need a new textbook on Newtonian mechanics?
- [40:10]
Danny
I've seen this.
- [40:10]
Matthew Shidagis
It makes no sense.
- [40:12]
Danny
I saw the statistics on school textbooks, like the amount of money that they make with no new stuff, just the printing. Can you find the stats on that, Steve?
- [40:19]
Matthew Shidagis
All they do is shuffle the homework problem numbers around. But so my point is that I believe that about the medical research claim you just said, but with physics, no, that's like, mean you can do basic experiments to show that most of physics is correct. Like, so the basic foundation of physics has been solid for centuries. What's new is like we've got relativity and quantum mechanics. We're not fully there yet, but classical mechanics is like forces, energies, that's like that foundational structure is very, very solid. You don't need a new textbook for that every few, every, every year to like, just get money, more money from the students.
- [40:54]
Danny
Right? What is this, Steve? Oh, textbook revenue. In 2022, the K through 12 textbook segment in the United States has generated 5.6 billion in revenue, reflecting 16 growth compared to the previous year.
- [41:07]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah.
- [41:07]
Danny
Oh my God.
- [41:08]
Matthew Shidagis
Why do I even need a textbook if I can just get a PDF?
- [41:10]
Danny
Despite these increases, the textbook publishing industry has, has generally decline in revenue since 2015, when it reached 11.9 billion.
- [41:19]
Matthew Shidagis
Well, it's declining because of the Internet.
- [41:22]
Danny
Right.
- [41:22]
Matthew Shidagis
And because of, you know, sneaky professors like, I just use the old edition. Why do I need a new edition? The physics hasn't changed. Why do I need a new edition for freshman physics?
- [41:32]
Danny
Right, right. That's very true. And then the other problem with academia is people are afraid to speak out of their lane. They're, they're, they're, they're afraid to venture out because, and I've experienced this too on the podcast, I've experienced people in academia that are afraid to go on podcast because how they're gonna be viewed by their, by their peers or by the people that run their department.
- [41:57]
Matthew Shidagis
I, I couldn't care less, I couldn't care less about what people think about me. You know why? I'm interested in only one thing, Danny, and that's to find the truth. And I don't care.
- [42:06]
Danny
Easy to say when you have people threatening to take your funding away.
- [42:09]
Matthew Shidagis
Well, I do. I do have. I've already had funding taken. Taken away.
- [42:14]
Danny
Have you?
- [42:14]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah. So. So if that was meant to be a dig at me like that backfired because I already had Doge already freeze my grants. I just. They were frozen for a while.
- [42:24]
Danny
Doge froze your grants.
- [42:26]
Matthew Shidagis
Dark matters apparently woke. Yeah. So. So. And I. So. So you're not going to tell me that I'm sitting here saying that theoretically. Oh, you know, I'm just here to do the truth. And I'm an idealist. And then I don't face consequences. I face consequences all the time. I have people making fun of me on a regular basis that I work on UFOs. I've been passed up for jobs because I work on UFOs for better jobs than I currently have. I've been passed up for promotion. So you're not gonna tell me that, like, I haven't faced the stigma or taboo because I work on UFOs. UAP, yes, I have. But I'm lucky that I'm at a university now that cherishes what I do and that actually allows it, that I'm very, very lucky. Me and my colleague Kevin, you've had on the show, and my friend. Our friend Cecilia. We're lucky. You're right. That many people are not that lucky. They speak out and funding things happen. Absolutely. I'm not trying to downplay that at all. That happens.
- [43:22]
Danny
Well, a lot of people that happened to.
- [43:23]
Matthew Shidagis
Friends of mine. Friends of mine. I got lucky. My grant was unfrozen. They decided dark matter's not woke and I can have it back. Oh, did they really? Yeah. Yeah. So basically. But I have friends who've lost everything, who've lost NSF funding, who've lost NIH funding. So. So I know people. I have friends and colleagues who lose funding. And some of. Sometimes it's because they have too big of a mouth, so to speak. Right. Which is wrong. Right. I'm saying I support them. I wasn't saying there's an insulting way. I'm saying those are the. That's what their critics would say.
- [43:54]
Danny
So.
- [43:54]
Matthew Shidagis
And no. But the thing about the positive side of academia is when you get tenure, you can't get fired. And that's what's so beautiful. That's why I can work on UFOs with Kevin. That's why John Mack was able to, you know, work with experiencers, abductees, because he had tenure. They still tried to fire Him. They still try to do it. But guess what?
- [44:16]
Danny
They ruined his life. Tried to.
- [44:17]
Matthew Shidagis
They tried to. But it backfired. Because here's the thing. For all of its flaws, academia allows you to work on whatever the hell you want after you have tenure and you're unfirable. Tenure is under assault right now. There are several states, actually, I'm not sure. I think Florida might be one of them. I know Ohio is one of them. Where tenure no longer exists. And so now if you're a professor, you're gonna stay in the closet forever on whether it's UFOs, aliens or whatever, you can get fired like that. Now, like what happened with John Mack. I'm not saying tenure's perfect. Absolutely not. But notice what happened with him. Him, it backfired. Did he get fired in the end? No, they couldn't do it. They couldn't find any wrongdoing. And he had tenure. And so there, there are, there are guardrails that allow people like me to just go off and, you know, work on UFOs.
- [45:04]
Danny
Wow, I didn't know tenure was removed in Florida. That's crazy.
- [45:07]
Matthew Shidagis
I, I, we should check that to see if that's accurate in Ohio. For sure. For sure. This just happened.
- [45:12]
Danny
And is this something they're trying to, they're trying to do nationwide? Yes. And who's behind it?
- [45:17]
Matthew Shidagis
Well, a lot of MAGA folks are behind it.
- [45:20]
Danny
Are they really?
- [45:21]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah. So they see. Which I don't understand because in my in, I have known for years, tenure protects conservative professors. They can come out of the Republican closet after.
- [45:32]
Danny
Jordan Peterson's a great example.
- [45:33]
Matthew Shidagis
Jordan Peterson. I like Jordan. Yeah, he's a great. You gotta have tenure. And so they're the, it's, you know the old expression, cutting off your nose despite your face. So they're just doing a self. It's a suicidal, it's very damaging because tenure protects Republican and conservative professors. Oh yeah. Here's a list. Florida's on the list.
- [45:52]
Danny
See, as of 2025, several states have either removed or significantly weakened tenure protection for educators.
- [45:57]
Matthew Shidagis
Exactly. Florida's on the list.
- [45:58]
Danny
North Carolina, North Dakota, Kansas, Wisconsin.
- [46:01]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, I don't know why Ohio's not listed there, but definitely Ohio. It has happened to as well. So, but what this does is it means it's worse than what you said earlier. Danny. It's.
- [46:12]
Danny
Why are they doing this, though, Steve, can you find out why they're doing it?
- [46:14]
Matthew Shidagis
Because it's a punishment for liberal schools. Is the idea is we're gonna fire all the liberal professors but what they don't understand, just to fire all the liberals.
- [46:22]
Danny
That would be firing all of them.
- [46:24]
Matthew Shidagis
I didn't know there'd be no professors left. No, that's not true. But the thing is. But tenure protects the freedom you get. There's a term for this. Academic freedom is a beautiful thing. Sure. So when you're funding, let's say your federal funding is cut.
- [46:40]
Danny
Right.
- [46:40]
Matthew Shidagis
You know what you can do?
- [46:41]
Danny
Protested the war.
- [46:42]
Matthew Shidagis
You can find, you can go find private donors, you can continue your work. I'm not saying it's easy, but you can keep going.
- [46:48]
Danny
Right.
- [46:49]
Matthew Shidagis
And so that's what Kevin and I are doing is we're looking for private, you know, donors to get to keep the UFO work going. Yeah.
- [46:56]
Danny
It seems like a lot of the UFO stuff is funded by private institutions.
- [47:00]
Matthew Shidagis
Well, there's no federal funding because, you know, there's still so much stigma.
- [47:03]
Danny
Well, there's a lot of federal funding, but it's just dark black, but.
- [47:05]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, yeah, yeah, of course, absolutely. But see, I want transparency and openness.
- [47:11]
Danny
Yeah.
- [47:11]
Matthew Shidagis
On this topic, which we sort of. Which we'll never get started sliding into.
- [47:15]
Danny
Want it all you want. We're never going to get it.
- [47:17]
Matthew Shidagis
Of course we're not going to get it. Of course we're not. That's why people like me and Kevin are doing our own thing.
- [47:23]
Danny
Right.
- [47:23]
Matthew Shidagis
Without government funding, without their blessing. Because we know it's hopeless to wait for disclosure. That's not happening.
- [47:30]
Danny
One other thing I wanted to ask you about. Did you see this new planet they discovered?
- [47:36]
Matthew Shidagis
There have been so many new ones discovered.
- [47:37]
Danny
I know.
- [47:37]
Matthew Shidagis
Which one?
- [47:38]
Danny
This one was just a couple weeks ago, called Ammonite.
- [47:41]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, that must be its nickname. Usually the name is like Kepler 75.
- [47:45]
Danny
It was called, it was called K14.
- [47:47]
Matthew Shidagis
Okay.
- [47:48]
Danny
K. So many planets. Oh my God. So it's got this crate. So they, they said that it weakens the sixth planet theory or the ninth planet theory.
- [47:59]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, you mean within our system?
- [48:01]
Danny
Yeah. Oh, yeah.
- [48:02]
Matthew Shidagis
They're saying you're not talking about an exoplanet.
- [48:04]
Danny
They think it's. They think it's like a, a planet that was a. Originally a part of our solar rogue planet that was.
- [48:10]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah. It was ejected. Yeah.
- [48:12]
Danny
Now it's got this crazy like oblong.
- [48:15]
Matthew Shidagis
Yes, yes, yes. 2024. Yes.
- [48:19]
Danny
KQ14. Yeah.
- [48:21]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, it was a couple years ago. 2023.
- [48:23]
Danny
Oh, okay. I just saw it recently.
- [48:25]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, this is very interesting. It's one of those, like, objects that are out past Pluto's.
- [48:29]
Danny
I sent you a whole thing on this, Steve. On your, on your, on your texts. But yeah, no, it's, but we're constantly.
- [48:35]
Matthew Shidagis
Making new discoveries in astronomy like this. For the most part, it's stuff outside of our solar system, but we're also making discoveries inside of ourselves.
- [48:42]
Danny
Right, right. Or just like on the edge of our solar system. It shows like how little we know just about like outside this, the, the, the borders of our solar system. It's crazy.
- [48:51]
Matthew Shidagis
Well, you know, to tie this back to. Also, we talked a lot about my, my mainstream scientific effort, which until a few, until, you know, until the last, until the current presidential administration was never controversial. Mainstream scientific effort was dark matter.
- [49:06]
Danny
Yeah.
- [49:07]
Matthew Shidagis
And that effort. One thing I forgot to say earlier is that dark matter, we think makes up 25% of the universe. Dark energy, 75%. That leaves. And so of the, of the 25% matter, about 20% is dark matter, about 5% is ordinary matter, roughly.
- [49:24]
Danny
Okay, what's the difference between dark matter and dark energy?
- [49:28]
Matthew Shidagis
They're completely different. We just share the word dark. But here's what's really interesting. We understand something like 4.6% of the universe. This ties into everything we were talking about earlier. Because how do we know this pie chart that I just told you, we know this based on the cosmic microwave background radiation that we were talking about earlier. So. And how do we know that's not wrong? Because earlier we're talking about, oh, cosmic microwave background's wrong. This is new paper. Here's how we know it's not wrong. Wrong because we cross checked the cosmic area background studies with supernovas with what's called baryon acoustic oscillations, with a whole bunch of other things. So. But the bottom line is we understand about 4.6% of the universe. So what does that mean? There's over 95% of the universe that we have no idea what it is. So my point earlier was like that this theory is correct or that what I was trying to say is the little part we know, we know it very well because we wouldn't have our modern technology without we know that 4.6% very well. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a whole bunch more to discover. There is dark matter, dark energy. We don't know what those things are, but it's even worse than that. So of that 4.6%, 3/4 is hydrogen in stars, in galaxy, one quarter is helium. See a problem? Any problem with what I just said? What does that Add up to? 3/4, 1/4 a whole. Exactly. So where's oxygen Carbon. Where's everything else? Everything that's inside of you and me, Right? We are this, we are all of life is the sub, sub, sub 1% dregs of the universe. We're not even important enough to come up on the cosmic pie chart. And so what I'm saying is there's still so much more to learn and so much more to discover, but earlier. So when I get mad, when I'm like, oh, somebody says we don't understand this 4.6. We understand the 4.6% very well. The thing is, we don't need to keep overturning what we already know. We need to look to new frontiers. We have new frontiers of things we know nothing about. We've been studying the cosmic microwave background for decades. We've been studying galaxies for decades. Decades. We have no idea what dark energy is or dark matter is. Well, some theory. Theoretical physicists say they have some ideas. Nobody knows for sure. We understand a tiny sliver of the universe.
- [51:52]
Danny
Right. Yeah.
- [51:54]
Matthew Shidagis
Could we see the pie chart?
- [51:56]
Danny
Actually, it's also, it's all. It's also crazy how as far as far as, like, things like particle physics, how we've done these things, like we have the large Hydron collider and all this stuff and like, we've, we've got, we've done nothing. We've figured out nothing ever since. You know, there's. And there's also theories out there that like, I think Eric Weinstein talks about, like, how string theory was, like, supposed to be a smokescreen to, like, get us off the path of, of moving forward in physics.
- [52:22]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, I, you know, it's. No, no, no, that's the wrong, the wrong chart. The. There at lower left. There, there, there. That's the chart I was talking about. This is the pie chart of the entire universe.
- [52:33]
Danny
Dark matter, dark energy.
- [52:34]
Matthew Shidagis
See what I. And see, look at. And that 4. Approximately 4%. That's, that's, that's the ordinary matter.
- [52:41]
Danny
And that's like you and me.
- [52:43]
Matthew Shidagis
Exactly. Except not because Most of that 4% is hydrogen and helium.
- [52:47]
Danny
So.
- [52:47]
Matthew Shidagis
See, most of its star, a lot of its stars in those stars is hydrogen and helium.
- [52:51]
Danny
Yeah.
- [52:51]
Matthew Shidagis
Look at where the heavy elements are. 0.03%. That's the heavy elements.
- [52:57]
Danny
Wow.
- [52:58]
Matthew Shidagis
And by heavy elements, it doesn't mean ultra heavy. It literally means, I think in this chart, anything heavier than hydrogen or helium. My point is here is that, look, I walk a balance. I walk a balance between confidence and what science has already figured out, balanced with the humility that there's still so much more to figure out. But I'm not at either extreme. I'm not at the extreme that we already know everything. There's nothing left to figure out that is so wrong, that is compactantly false. And then I'm not at. I'm not at the other extreme that, oh, we know nothing and we're still figuring things out. That's not true. We know a lot. All right, so. But the thing is, the truth is somewhere in the middle. But the truth is also, there's a lot we still don't understand.
- [53:46]
Danny
You know when someone asks you how you're doing and your automatic response is, I'm great. And that got me thinking, what if I actually meant it? And that's where today's sponsor, Headspace comes in. Headspace is an app that has helped me and over 100 million people actually improve their mental health and well being. Guided meditations, breathing exercises, mindfulness practices, it's all there. Since I've started using Headspace, I feel way less stressed. I sleep better, my mind is clearer and my mood is more elevated. And it's nice to feel this way without having to use any kind of medications. What I like is how personalized it feels. Whether you're brand new to meditation or you've been at it for years, there's always something that fits. Even on crazy busy days, I'll throw on one of their on the go programs. It's just a few minutes and I feel totally reset. And when I want to dive deeper, there's over a thousand hours of content taught by real experienced teachers. For me, the biggest shift has been learning how to slow down and quiet my mind at night. And that's been huge for improving my sleep and my energy the next day. Headspace really makes mindfulness practical. So the next time somebody asks, how are you? You can actually mean it, feel good, and mean it when you say it. For a limited time. Get headspace free for 60 days. Just go to headspace.com Danny Jones that's H-E-A-S-P-A C E.com Danny Jones to unlock all of Headspace for free for 60 days. Headspace.com Danny Jones it's linked down below. Now back to the show. What, what, what do you make of the idea? Do you, how much do you know about, like, what was going on with physics research in the 50s? I think it was with, like, this gravity research that like, went dark and supposedly, like, went underground.
- [55:30]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, I've heard a lot about this. I have. You're I have a very controversial take on it.
- [55:34]
Danny
You know, like, I love controversial takes.
- [55:36]
Matthew Shidagis
I think it went dark because it doesn't work.
- [55:38]
Danny
Oh really?
- [55:38]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah.
- [55:39]
Danny
Interesting.
- [55:39]
Matthew Shidagis
I mean, there I.
- [55:41]
Danny
Have you looked into Thomas Townsend Brown?
- [55:42]
Matthew Shidagis
Yes, I have. Yes, I have.
- [55:44]
Danny
What do you make of him?
- [55:45]
Matthew Shidagis
I. If, if he had, if there were actual revolutionary ideas that work, they would have been reproduced or. You can't keep science dark forever because someone else would accidentally stumble upon the same idea. So let's say, for example, take an example. Say you suppressed Einstein and tried to stop relativity. Let's say you were a time traveler and for whatever reason you wanted to stop human advancement. Kind of like in the three body problem, Right? Let's say you wanted to stop Einstein. Wouldn't have worked because Minkowski would have come up with relativity. Or if not Minkowski, then poencare was very close to relativity. And so you can't stop an entire field of research and ideas because someone else would accidentally stumble upon it. Might take decades. Don't get me wrong. Well, it might take decades.
- [56:29]
Danny
Well, it could very plausibly. What could have happened was if they could have been monitoring everybody who's been even getting remotely close to it and then pulling them in through time.
- [56:41]
Matthew Shidagis
It's possible, but I'm skeptical. And the reason is because conspiracies would fall apart eventually. I'll give you an example. So for a long time, so astronomers developed something for our new telescopes for the ground based ones. You know, we were talking about James Webb. There's also ground based telescopes like Giant Magellan telescope.
- [56:57]
Danny
So we developed one, the Subaru. Is there one called Subaru?
- [57:00]
Matthew Shidagis
Not that I know.
- [57:01]
Danny
He's in like the South Pole.
- [57:02]
Matthew Shidagis
But yeah, I'm not an astronomer, so unfortunately I don't know the names of all the telescopes, but so for the Giant Magellan telescope and for other telescopes like it, we're using something called adaptive optics. So what adaptive optics is, is where you cancel out the twinkling of stars and astronomical objects. The way you do that is you fire a laser into the sky and you use that laser as your calibration of the, you know, like the thermal convection and like the atmospheric aberration. That's a way to get as good or almost as good or even better images right from the ground as from outer space. Saves money, right? You still need space based telescopes like James Webb, Vera Rubin. Right. But here's the. But when astronomers invented adaptive optics, guess what happened? The U.S. navy said, oh yeah, we developed that 30 years ago.
- [57:53]
Danny
Right.
- [57:53]
Matthew Shidagis
It was secret. So yeah, Things like this can happen, but my point is they can't last forever. So there's hope. There's hope. So even if there was anti gravity, but also I don't even understand what anti gravity means. And I have good friends who research this. I have good friends in Falcon Space and Flux Space. Mark Sokol, Jared Yates, Tim Ventura, a lot of these guys in apec, the Alternative Propulsion Engineering Conference. I'm good friends with these guys. But the thing is, but I think they appreciate my skepticism with them. And we go back and forth. I told them, look, anti gravity already exists. It's called a superconductor or a magnet, a repelling magnet. As a physicist, I don't even know what that word is supposed to mean, because to me, we already have anti gravity. I can do it. Right now, an airplane is anti gravity. It uses Bernoulli's principle, Newton's third law. So, like, I don't even know what that word's supposed to mean anymore. You know what I mean? Like, I hope that, like, there are forces. This is Physics 1. This is Physics 101. Textbook Physics. I can take forces and I can cancel them out. That's Physics 101. If I have gravity pulling me down, I create an equal opposite force the other way. Like, this is centuries old physics. So I'm not sure, like, when. Usually when people use the term anti gravity, they mean some magical thing we haven't thought of yet. When, when I think of it, I'm like, but we already, we already have anti gravity. We have airplanes, we have magnets. So I don't.
- [59:13]
Danny
Well, I mean, I'm not the kind of person to describe this to you, but a lot of people have been on the show and described how and then been on other podcasts as well and explained theoretically, you know, how this would work. And there's been lots of experiments to try to do it. I know.
- [59:24]
Matthew Shidagis
And the experiments all fail. Well, I'm friends with Mark Sokol and Jared Yates. You should have one of them on the show. Actually, both a. Their entire. They've been laughed at as crackpots. They've been insulted by people. I love these guys. They're not crackpots. You know what they do? They take every crazy idea and they're like, hey, what if that anti gravity idea is true? They test. It doesn't work.
- [59:43]
Danny
Have you ever heard of Jack Sarfatti?
- [59:45]
Matthew Shidagis
Yes. I can't stand him. I will do anything for him. That's shocking for him to get off his email list. If it means I have to tell him now on this show that he's the best physicist who ever lived. I will do anything to get off his email list.
- [60:00]
Danny
What do you think about his theories of, like, warp drive?
- [60:02]
Matthew Shidagis
I cannot say.
- [60:03]
Danny
Have you looked into it?
- [60:04]
Matthew Shidagis
I have. Thoroughly. I cannot say because he'll threaten to sue me for libel. He already has. And I just don't want to deal with that because, look, I have a wife and who doesn't work. I have four kids. I already take huge risks working on UFOs. There's a stigma.
- [60:17]
Danny
I thought he's not going to.
- [60:19]
Matthew Shidagis
No, I don't think he has the money to do so. But still. But I'm also going to get an angry email. If I tell him what I actually think about him right now in the show, I'll get an angry email.
- [60:28]
Danny
Who cares?
- [60:29]
Matthew Shidagis
Okay. If he was right about this stuff that he's doing, he could go to Home Depot and do it. He claims he can warp space time with a 9 volt battery. Go do it. Do it right now. Prove it to everybody. So, like, I cannot stand Jack. He just spouts theories with no experimental evidence.
- [60:45]
Danny
Do you know what the Byfield Brown effect is and how it works?
- [60:48]
Matthew Shidagis
Yes. Yes, I do.
- [60:49]
Danny
So do you know that that was.
- [60:50]
Matthew Shidagis
It's a great effect and it's real.
- [60:51]
Danny
We can do it.
- [60:52]
Matthew Shidagis
Yes, we can. But there's no new physics there.
- [60:54]
Danny
So for people who don't know, can you explain what it is? Like, can you distill it down to something that's easy to understand?
- [60:58]
Matthew Shidagis
Yes, absolutely. It's when you can. So there is a way. And they tested this on mythbusters as well, and it works. What you can do is using high voltage, you can ionize the air, and that produces a force that counteracts the force of gravity and allows you to have an aircraft or airship that floats in the air. There's no new physics involved. It's just engineering. It's just new engineering. So people.
- [61:26]
Danny
This is like ion wind, right?
- [61:27]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, exactly. People worship this effect as if it's magic. It's not magic. It's well known physics that's been around for decades. It's cool. It's a cool trick. And we could have ships that capitalize it. Absolutely. There's nothing weird about that at all. We might have some black ops project that uses it. Absolutely.
- [61:44]
Danny
Well, the B2 bombers are coated in, like, something. They're covered. Not the B2, the stealth bombers. The B2 stealth planes, they have this sort of a. Like a skin on them.
- [61:53]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah.
- [61:54]
Danny
That's supposed to have some sort of an extra ion wind up there.
- [61:57]
Matthew Shidagis
It's entirely possible. But here's the thing.
- [62:00]
Danny
Steve, can you. By the way, sorry to interrupt real quick. Steve, can you find that video that we, that we had? Jeremy, show us of the. Yeah, there we go. Oh, do you know what this is? How is this working? This is. This is in a vacuum.
- [62:13]
Matthew Shidagis
I'm there. I'm off camera during this.
- [62:15]
Danny
Are you really?
- [62:16]
Matthew Shidagis
I was visiting Falcon space during this test.
- [62:18]
Danny
No way.
- [62:19]
Matthew Shidagis
Mark Sokol is my friend at Falcon Space. This is what I'm trying to tell you is Mark is one of those guys who tests every crazy idea. Occasionally the idea works. This is an idea that actually works. The vast majority of anti gravity ideas are garbage.
- [62:35]
Danny
So what is. Can you explain this?
- [62:38]
Matthew Shidagis
So can you zoom out so I can refresh my memory?
- [62:41]
Danny
No, this is the frame.
- [62:42]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, no, no, no. Just the description of the video. Yeah, yeah, yes. The B fold brown effect.
- [62:46]
Danny
So basically in a vacuum chamber.
- [62:48]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, so basically. But what's weird here is you should need air for the effect to work. And so what's really interesting here is it seems to be working without air, where you're getting propulsion from electricity, but in a high vacuum. And that's interesting. That's very interesting. It could suggest something now. And I said this to Mark. I told you, I'm good friends with Mark, but we get in fights and arguments. I tell him, look, it rotates. Prove it better to me. You show it taking off. He can't because while he's cramped in his lab, he can't just make it take off in one direction. So I'm not convinced it would be useful for outer space.
- [63:23]
Danny
Wow, it looks like it's ramping up there.
- [63:25]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, it's. Well, he's too. He can be. He's tuning the voltage. But yeah, I was literally there during the test. One of these tests, at least I don't know for the YouTube video one, but. But yeah, Mark is a great guy and what he's doing is he tests all these crazy anti gravity ideas.
- [63:40]
Danny
So how could you theoretically test this on like, like make this bigger and make this something? That's what I would.
- [63:45]
Matthew Shidagis
What I would do is try to send it in a straight line instead of rotating. He's got it rotating because he's got a tight space. Sure. You know, in his lap. I would send it in a straight line because the reason is in physics there's a difference between angular momentum and linear momentum. So just because something can spin on its own Without a propellant doesn't mean it can go straight on its own. Those two things are not necessarily equivalent, but. But you have to. So another thing I would do is pull even higher vacuum because I'm wondering if there's residual air. There's always. You can never get. There's no such thing as a perfect vacuum. I'm wondering if it's ionizing the residual air in there. Mark says no. Like I said, I've had back and forth with him. But see, this is the difference between theory and experiment. Anyone can come on a podcast with their grand anti gravity theory, but these are the guys who are trying to make it a reality. People like Mark at Falcon Space, they're actually trying to make something happen. Mark will be the first person to tell you this. The vast majority of the ideas he tests, garbage, they're nonsense. Occasionally though, he gets something promising. But the vast majority of anti gravity theories are wrong. Well, they're self contradictory. Right. You've got dozens of people say, oh, it's this effect, it's that effect. It can't be. Is it gonna be all those effects? And so occasionally though, you hit upon something that looks promising, like this. Like in this case with the bifield Brown effect. I have very little doubt. I'm sure we have black ops, you know, planes that use something like this. Absolutely. But to me, this is not new science. This is new engineering. There's a big difference. So this is a beautiful example of the difference between science and engineering. I'll give you another one like this. Take a guess what year it was when humans finally understood how to make airplanes. Take a guess. Like understood how? Theoretically.
- [65:35]
Danny
Theoretically.
- [65:36]
Matthew Shidagis
Theoretically.
- [65:37]
Danny
1800S, 1700s.
- [65:41]
Matthew Shidagis
Earlier.
- [65:42]
Danny
Really?
- [65:43]
Matthew Shidagis
1687. Newton's physics. 1687, Newton's. Once we had Newton's physics, we knew how to make airplanes. So my question to you is, what the hell took humanity so long to do it?
- [65:53]
Danny
Right?
- [65:54]
Matthew Shidagis
You know what the answer is? Engineering. So there's a difference between physics and a difference between engineering. We have Einstein's theory of relativity.
- [66:06]
Danny
How come we can't make better planes? How can we use the same planes?
- [66:10]
Matthew Shidagis
We've been using the same planes for decades. Did you know that when we canceled the Concord, that was the first time in human history that technology has gone backwards instead of forwards?
- [66:28]
Danny
Well, also you could argue the Apollo. The Apollo program as well.
- [66:32]
Matthew Shidagis
That's a. Yeah, but it's around the same time. Apollo wasn't canceled yet, so. No, my statement still stands. Apollo was still doing multiple missions in the 70s.
- [66:40]
Danny
Well, they.
- [66:40]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, it was not canceled yet.
- [66:42]
Danny
After 72, they completely there.
- [66:44]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah. So it's around the same time.
- [66:45]
Danny
If you ask ChatGPT what happened to the Apollo technology, it will tell you that NASA's official statement was they accidentally overwrote the hard drives with all the data, so we accidentally erased it all. Sorry.
- [66:55]
Matthew Shidagis
Apollo's another example. But let me go back to my Concord example. Because it affects our daily lives.
- [67:00]
Danny
Yes. Sorry to derail.
- [67:00]
Matthew Shidagis
You know, it's okay. For the first time in human history, it took more time to cross the Atlantic or Pacific instead of less.
- [67:10]
Danny
Wow.
- [67:11]
Matthew Shidagis
Do you realize I get so. I get so angry with everybody who tells me technology, oh, it improves exponentially. Bullshit. If it actually improved exponentially, I could get on a plane right now and in five minutes I'd be home in New York. If technology improved exponentially, why aren't airplanes improving exponentially? I'll tell you why. It's because of economics. It's because of practicality, you know, what people will pay for. And so that's why I'm not going to completely dismiss. I'm skeptical, but I'm open to the possibility that there's some secret anti gravity program. You know why? Because it would upset the apple cart of all the airlines who are suddenly out of business. Right, right, totally. People on your podcast have said the same thing, I'm sure. Exactly.
- [67:58]
Danny
Well, also, these companies, they control. They control every. They have a monopoly on what they do, like the Boeing and these companies. And not only that, but they. Worse than that, they literally own Congress. Right.
- [68:13]
Matthew Shidagis
Worse than that, they pretend not to have a monopoly. Do you know what the trick is?
- [68:18]
Danny
Kill people.
- [68:19]
Matthew Shidagis
No, no, no, no. Well, sometimes in extreme cases, I'm sure.
- [68:23]
Danny
How many Boeing whistleblowers accidentally committed.
- [68:25]
Matthew Shidagis
No, no, no. Like, you're right, that happens too. But that's not where I was going. But you're right. And in Russia, you have an accident. You have an unfortunate window accident. That's how they do you in Russia. Or you find polonium in your borscht. It's the other way. But you're partially right about that. I was going a different direction, but the direction I was going to. They have a secret game they play where all companies do this. By the way, I forget what the exact term is of this. It's not a monopoly. It's like an oligopoly, I think, where basically you don't shit in my turf and I stay out of your turf. So, for example, with airlines, there are some airports where only one airline flies there, and there's another airport. A different airline flies to that one because they've all made a deal. Yes, you stay away. United, Delta, America, stay out of our hubs. It's the same thing with Internet. At home, my wife and I and kids have the absolute shittiest Internet service you can imagine. What can we do about it?
- [69:25]
Danny
Right?
- [69:26]
Matthew Shidagis
What can we do? Nothing. Can we switch to another provider? No. You know why? There's only one provider. And if you go to Philadelphia, there's one provider, you go to Boston. And they. Oh, we're not a monopoly because they're in different parts of the country. So that's the sneaky stuff they do. So, yeah, I believe there's probably secret stuff and military industrial complex and all that. But the story I told earlier of adaptive optics makes me hopeful. People like Mark and his work at Falcon Space make me hopeful that other people are going to rediscover the secret stuff. And now in the age of Internet, it's impossible to stop everyone and bring everyone in. It's not going to happen. It's going to fall apart. So I'm optimistic. I'm optimistic.
- [70:11]
Danny
What happened with the Concorde?
- [70:13]
Matthew Shidagis
Safety. It crashed once or twice. And people like, oh, my God.
- [70:17]
Danny
And what made it, what made it so special?
- [70:19]
Matthew Shidagis
Well, it was, it was, it was supersonic. You could, you could cross the Atlantic in four hours. Okay, so it was the best air. It was the. It was the fastest commercial airplane ever developed. You could get on a plane in New York.
- [70:30]
Danny
And what you.
- [70:31]
Matthew Shidagis
It was canceled in the 70s.
- [70:33]
Danny
The 70s.
- [70:33]
Matthew Shidagis
It was around the same time as Apollo. Apollo. Apollo is another good example you gave me. Did you know that Elon Musk's fastest rocket that he wants to use to get to the moon, it's about equal to the Saturn V or slightly slower. Again, where's the exponential technology improvement?
- [70:53]
Danny
Well, Elon also said to get to the moon, they would have to have, I think it was five refueling stops. Was that right, Steve?
- [70:59]
Matthew Shidagis
That's insane. We didn't need that in 69 or in 70s.
- [71:03]
Danny
We got their first try in 69.
- [71:04]
Matthew Shidagis
That's the example of technology moving backwards. I'm optimistic. There was never again. Oh, let's not go there.
- [71:12]
Danny
See, that's another academia problem. Academics aren't allowed to talk about the moon landing not happening.
- [71:17]
Matthew Shidagis
No, because there were multiple landings. So the moon landing thing is one of the things that really. That's one of the buttons that pushes me to really push me off.
- [71:23]
Danny
That's the one where you're an autom. You're an automatic fool if you question it.
- [71:27]
Matthew Shidagis
Correct. And I'm saying that not as.
- [71:30]
Danny
Not as bad as. It's not as bad as flat earth, but it's the next one.
- [71:33]
Matthew Shidagis
Yes, but I'm not saying that as an academic. I'm saying it as a rational human being.
- [71:37]
Danny
Right.
- [71:38]
Matthew Shidagis
Because hundreds of engineers would not have been. Russia would have. Look, we could spend three hours debunking the moon landing because I can do it and crush every single thing any moon hoaxer has ever said, but it would take three hours. And I think that's not where we want to. We want to spend the rest of our time to correct.
- [71:54]
Danny
Correct.
- [71:55]
Matthew Shidagis
But that's a good example. But here's the thing. My reaction there seemed emotional, but my. It's like flat earth. My rejection is, as a rational human being, I know so many hundreds of things that disprove it that to me, it's a waste of time to talk about. Does that make sense? Whereas, and someone would say, oh, you're being hypocritical with UFOs and aliens. I'm like, no, are you kidding me? There's mountains of evidence for UFOs. Like, well, from everywhere, from all directions.
- [72:21]
Danny
And during, also during that period in time, during the Cold War, there was more bullshit happening in the US Government than ever. There was more lying. There was more.
- [72:29]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, but Russia, if we faked the moon landing, Russia would have outed us immediately. They'd be like, oh, suckers, you faked it. They would have outed us immediately. Immediately. Soviet Union would have been like that. You know what that would have done to world politics to embarrass the United States on the world stage? That by itself disproves the entire moon hoax conspiracy without going to all the other reasons. By itself.
- [72:53]
Danny
Well, it would have been. It wouldn't have been as easy as it is today with the Internet to discredit. And there was also a lot of Russian people who came out and in the US and wrote books and started. Tried to start movements basically proving that the moon landing was fake.
- [73:04]
Matthew Shidagis
I know. So what I would love it was.
- [73:05]
Danny
It was a war. It was an information war between Russia and the US I've gone deep on this and there's. They, I think they tried and there's actually, I think there's overwhelming evidence to say the otherwise, I'm not convinced. But we don't have to go there.
- [73:16]
Matthew Shidagis
I want to take every single person who thinks moonlight happened, send them to the moon. We should send you to the moon. I would love to go Right there.
- [73:22]
Danny
Actually, no, I take that back. I don't think I want to go to the moon.
- [73:24]
Matthew Shidagis
I do.
- [73:24]
Danny
I'd rather stay here.
- [73:25]
Matthew Shidagis
I want to go.
- [73:26]
Danny
Really?
- [73:26]
Matthew Shidagis
Absolutely.
- [73:27]
Danny
200. What's the temperature? 250 degrees in the sun. And the negative? 250 in the shadows.
- [73:32]
Matthew Shidagis
That's fine. I want to step on another world.
- [73:34]
Danny
Yeah.
- [73:35]
Matthew Shidagis
By the way. So there's no such thing as the moon landing. It's plural. We landed multiple times. So you're gonna tell me we faked every single one. Really? Like there was an entire Apollo program. There are multiple photos. Kevin Knuth, whom we have in the show. The footage looks so stupid.
- [73:50]
Danny
Looks really dumb.
- [73:51]
Matthew Shidagis
Look, let's not go there. The other one is simulation hypothesis. I will. I want. I'm going to. Personally, I just. Never mind.
- [74:01]
Danny
You don't like simulation hypothesis?
- [74:02]
Matthew Shidagis
No, I hate it. I think it's just one of the stupidest ideas ever invented.
- [74:05]
Danny
You know why Elon says one in a billion chances that we're not in a simulation?
- [74:09]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, he made that number up. How does he know that?
- [74:11]
Danny
I don't know.
- [74:11]
Matthew Shidagis
So simulation hypothesis is not a scientific theory. It's a religious belief. Because. Because there's nothing I can do to disprove it.
- [74:18]
Danny
It. Right.
- [74:19]
Matthew Shidagis
Tell me one thing I could do to disprove the simulation.
- [74:21]
Danny
To disprove the simulation, it's impossible.
- [74:24]
Matthew Shidagis
Because any evidence I present to a believer, they'll say that's what the simulators wanted you to.
- [74:29]
Danny
You're right.
- [74:30]
Matthew Shidagis
You can't. So it's a religious belief. It is.
- [74:33]
Danny
Is there any way to disprove the simulation hypothesis? Steve, we need to find this out. I need to see this chat.
- [74:38]
Matthew Shidagis
GPT isn't God.
- [74:40]
Danny
But we'll ask Rock is God. No, it's about to be God. Yeah, it'll be God soon.
- [74:44]
Matthew Shidagis
But anyway, we somehow went off in different directions there.
- [74:47]
Danny
But that's how you. Well, the con. I mean, I was making the point of like what happened in the Cold War. Like the moon. Like the moon landing was smack dab in the middle of. Do you believe JFK with Lee Harvey Oswald was the only. Only shooter?
- [74:59]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, the fuck no.
- [75:00]
Danny
Okay. Well, it was right between JFK and Water.
- [75:03]
Matthew Shidagis
Damn. It's the same reason that I believe in the JFK conspiracy. That I think the moon landing actually happened. It's for the same reason. Because I'm a rational human being who looks at all the facts. Give me a break. Come on. Lee Harvey Oswald to conveniently gets killed before going to trial. Really? Really. Well, you know so my point is, Danny, is some conspiracies are true, but not all of them. Correct. I'm very open minded. Not as open minded as Kevin, I think, but I'm very open minded. But I'm not so open minded that I fall.
- [75:34]
Danny
There's no definitive way to disprove the simulation hypothesis.
- [75:37]
Matthew Shidagis
I told you so. Which means, well, hey, it's not science.
- [75:41]
Danny
Don't be a party pooper. It's still fun to talk about. There's so much. It's. It's such a compelling idea.
- [75:47]
Matthew Shidagis
It is. But here's. Here's the time and place for simulation hypothesis. Time and place for simulation hypothesis is 3am over beers.
- [75:56]
Danny
Yeah, well, maybe because. Or a podcast.
- [75:58]
Matthew Shidagis
It's not science, it's philosophy.
- [76:00]
Danny
Yes.
- [76:01]
Matthew Shidagis
I'm not claiming it's wrong, by the way. All I'm saying is there's nothing you or I could ever do to prove it or disprove it.
- [76:09]
Danny
Right.
- [76:09]
Matthew Shidagis
There's no way. It's impossible. And so it's fun to speculate, but there's nothing we'll ever be able to do to prove or disprove it.
- [76:16]
Danny
Well, right. Even though there's no way there's no way we'll be able to prove or disprove it, it's. It's reasonable to suggest that in hundreds of years, with the development of technology and video games and VR, we'll be able to create virtual worlds that are indistinguishable from reality.
- [76:31]
Matthew Shidagis
Like the Thronglets from Black Mirror, if you've seen the Black Mirror episode. Or the holodeck on Star Trek the Next Generation. Yeah, so? So you see. Are you familiar with the holodeck from Star Trek? You just walk into a. I actually watch Star Trek. Really?
- [76:45]
Danny
No.
- [76:46]
Matthew Shidagis
All right, so Kevin and I are huge.
- [76:47]
Danny
Have you seen the 13th floor?
- [76:49]
Matthew Shidagis
I have not. By her. It's really good.
- [76:50]
Danny
It's very good. Yeah.
- [76:51]
Matthew Shidagis
It's basically the Matrix before the Matrix.
- [76:53]
Danny
Earlier came out the same year.
- [76:55]
Matthew Shidagis
Same year. Okay. I'm going to see it. I'm going to check it out. Yeah, absolutely. Now again. Yeah. Like I'm saying, I'm not saying simulation hypothesis is wrong. I'm just saying it's a waste of time for scientists to talk about it because we'll never prove it or disprove it. All we can do is do this. All we can do is go in circles arguing. There's no way to get an answer ever. We will never have an answer.
- [77:15]
Danny
Right, Right.
- [77:16]
Matthew Shidagis
Impossible.
- [77:16]
Danny
Yeah, that's a good point. That's a Good point. But like, so, by the way, string.
- [77:20]
Matthew Shidagis
Theory, you could say the same thing. And my string theory friends hate it when I say this, but I say string theory is not a theory. They get really mad because it's not provable, it's not disprovable, at least because you'll just say, oh, it's beyond human technology forever. We'll never prove or disprove string theory. Yeah, I have a problem with that. I do have a problem with that. And so does Eric Weinstein. Sorry, I probably mispronounced.
- [77:45]
Danny
Yeah, he makes a point about, like, Ed and Lewis Whitten.
- [77:48]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, yeah. And Lee Smolin has also said this. People hate him. Oh, the hate that this guy gets. In academia, I believe that crazy ideas should be permitted. That's the whole spirit of academia, like I was saying earlier about academic freedom. So, yeah, I think string theory, it's had a good run. Let's explore other possibilities. My string theory friends get rid. Next door to me, to the left and to the right on the third floor where my office is in the physics department, are two string theorists. They're literally my next door neighbors. But, you know, I kid with them. Them with love, you know, but I just mess with them.
- [78:24]
Danny
Right.
- [78:25]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah.
- [78:25]
Danny
So how did you get into this whole UFO thing?
- [78:27]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, my friend Kevin, whom you had under the episode. Oh, yes. He convinced me that there's real shit going down and he's the one who got me into it. Yeah.
- [78:36]
Danny
How did, how did you meet him and how did he convince you?
- [78:37]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, he's in the same department as me. His department. So I've known him since I was there in 2000. I've been at the Department of Physics since 2014.
- [78:45]
Danny
Okay.
- [78:45]
Matthew Shidagis
So I've known him from when I first joined at University of Albany in New York. Yeah. Kevin's the one who's like. And I'll be honest with you, you at first, again, because of the stigma, the brainwashing, Right. I was like, kevin, he's crazy. You know, UFOs. But then the 2017 New York Times article came out by Leslie Clay, Leslie Kane and Helen Cooper and Ralph Blumenthal.
- [79:11]
Danny
And I was like.
- [79:11]
Matthew Shidagis
And then Lou Elizondo's on tv, and I'm like, holy shit, this stuff's real. And so that really helped push me over the edge to join forces with Kevin and start researching UFOs. You know, from childhood, I was always interested. I mean, who isn't? I watched Unsolved Mysteries with Robert Stack. I saw like the, the Cash Landrum Incident, Reynolds from force incident. That stuff scared the hell out of me as a little kid. And so the seeds were already planted there for me to be interested in UFOs. But then the seeds blossomed thanks to Leslie Kane's reporting and thanks to Kevin.
- [79:46]
Danny
So how do you, how are you applying your understanding of physics and the work you do into this stuff?
- [79:52]
Matthew Shidagis
So basically I'm bringing some of a particle physics perspective. So a lot of people use cameras obviously to look for UFOs. Cameras.
- [80:01]
Danny
Right, right.
- [80:01]
Matthew Shidagis
But I'm bringing more to the table because this ties into the earlier discussion about my work on dark matter. One of my expertises is particle detection. I'm a particle physicist. There are all these stories, these claims of people who've been hurt physically.
- [80:20]
Danny
Yeah. By UAP radiation.
- [80:21]
Matthew Shidagis
Ionizing radiation. Exactly. There's the. I'm sure. Conspiracy guy. Like you know, you know all these stories. I'm sure. Right. Falcon Lake incident, Rendles and Forest, Cash Landrum. They sue the government.
- [80:34]
Danny
I don't even know what that one is.
- [80:35]
Matthew Shidagis
So. Cash Landrum. So it was 1980, I think or 79, December in Texas. There was a, a family that saw a diamond shaped craft. They ended up getting skin burns. Oh, it's like a sunburn. They got cancer.
- [80:47]
Danny
Right.
- [80:48]
Matthew Shidagis
And so they sued the government. So there's evidence.
- [80:50]
Danny
Yeah.
- [80:51]
Matthew Shidagis
Of ionizing radiation.
- [80:52]
Danny
Right. And this stuff goes back, right? Yeah, there's a, there's like, there's like stories from antiquity of people and they think it was like religious related stuff where people were getting burned. I think St. Francis of Sisi was one of them.
- [81:02]
Matthew Shidagis
Well, UFOs in general, they didn't just magically start in 47. It goes back hundreds if not thousands of years. Absolutely. Some people think a lot of the ancient alien guys. Oh, I'm friends with all the ancient aliens. It's like Travis Taylor and like. Yeah, so I, I went. Oh you. I went backstage actually at the Ancient Aliens live show. You should have seen the dirty looks my wife and I got from all the super fans when security was extorting, escorting me and my wife backstage because I know Travis Taylor, he's on also Skinwalker Ranch. And oh yeah, these. Oh man, where was I going with the ancient. Oh yes. One hypothesis is that a lot of religious experiences were actually extraterrestrial, some other form of non human intelligence.
- [81:45]
Danny
I think that one makes a lot of sense.
- [81:46]
Matthew Shidagis
I really think we can't discount that. It sounds crazy, but to me that's something you could prove or disprove. That's reasonable. It's Wild. And when I say that, yeah, my reputation, when people watch the show now, yeah, my reputation goes down. But like I said, especially when you.
- [81:59]
Danny
Look at like James Fox's version, latest documentary where he goes to Brazil and he interviewed like dozens and dozens of witnesses of this being that they explained having cloven feet and smelling like sulfur, which is exactly how demons.
- [82:12]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, I've only seen clips. I've have not seen the whole thing yet, unfortunately. But yeah. Do we laugh at those people and say they're making stuff up? I'm inclined to think they're described. They might be describing a real physical experience.
- [82:25]
Danny
Yeah, I think that's really that Varginha one. I, I've never heard of a case, whether it be a UFO or anything, but this one's a being more corroborating. Corroborating witnesses. Yeah, that's the, that's the most in any story I've ever heard in this topic.
- [82:38]
Matthew Shidagis
It's amazing. But where we were going with this is what I bring to the table with ufo. So ufo, uap, whatever you call them, I think we can all, we can agree it's an interdisciplinary problem. You're not going to solve the mystery with just one group of scientists. You need physicists, chemists, biologists, engineers. You need a multidisciplinary approach. And what I bring to the table is my knowledge of particle and nuclear physics. Because if UFOs are producing radiation, do you know how hard that would be to hoax? You can hoax a video. How are you going to hoax ionizing radiation from controlled substances? Right? You know, like, from like uranium, plutonium, California, things like that.
- [83:24]
Danny
So how many people have been affected by or injured by this radiation?
- [83:29]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, nobody knows. It depends on who you ask. Right.
- [83:31]
Danny
How many people have been cataloged or how many people do you know of?
- [83:35]
Matthew Shidagis
I know of a small number, but I've only been looking at U of P for a while, so I know of only the three incidents I mentioned earlier. But there are more. If you talk to Gary Nolan, for example, I'm sure he can list way more. Remember, I'm still young. I haven't been doing this for decades, like Kevin Gary. So I still don't know. I wouldn't know off the top of my head how large the number is. I'm only aware of three cases, but one of them, the Rendelstrom Forest case, John Burroughs, a US veteran, got disability for getting hurt by a UFO. That's like Senator John McCain had to help him out. Did you know this story? I don't think so what happened was he, his medical records were classified. He couldn't see his own medical records.
- [84:27]
Danny
Wow.
- [84:27]
Matthew Shidagis
How messed up is that?
- [84:28]
Danny
That's crazy, man.
- [84:29]
Matthew Shidagis
And so to me, that inspired me that, like, you know what? I can bring my expertise on radiation detection into the field of UFO studies.
- [84:42]
Danny
Wow.
- [84:43]
Matthew Shidagis
So that's my angle, obviously. I'm still using cameras with Kevin, everything else, but that's my personal angle of what I added. That's the extra that I added to the field.
- [84:51]
Danny
So of the three people that you're aware of, what have you found with them?
- [84:56]
Matthew Shidagis
Well, all we have is, unfortunately, you know, like a couple old grainy photographs, if that, or just, oh, you haven't actually counts.
- [85:02]
Danny
Okay, I gotcha.
- [85:03]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah. No, no. So I, I, I don't personally have any connections. Gary does at Stanford, Dr. Nolan does. But, you know, I'm not saying I have any personal connection, but rather I've studied their accounts like on the web and tv.
- [85:16]
Danny
Right.
- [85:16]
Matthew Shidagis
And to me, I'm not claiming I believe them all immediately, but to me, the approach I take is, what if they're right? What if there is radiation we can detect? Then we should be bringing radiation detectors, not just cameras, to our UFO parties. And that's. So that's the angle that I, that I've brought Right. To UAP studies, ufology. I'm not saying I brought it completely by myself. People have been using geiger counters with UFOs. So I'm not saying I'm first or anything like that. I'm saying. But that's the angle that I bring into the teams that I work on for, for, for looking for UFO evidence. To answer your original question about what did I bring?
- [85:54]
Danny
Right. Right.
- [85:55]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah.
- [85:56]
Danny
And if you were, if you wanted to use radiation detection, how would you go about doing that? Like, was there specific places you would, you would do this? Or like, like, how do you, how does that work out?
- [86:08]
Matthew Shidagis
Well, it's challenging because, you know, a lot of encounters are like, ma', am, it's over. Right.
- [86:13]
Danny
Yeah.
- [86:13]
Matthew Shidagis
And so the philosophy of the team that I work on, which is a uapx, you know, we published a paper only a couple months ago from our expedition to Catalina, which was in the movie A Tear in the sky by Carolyn Corey. If you haven't seen the movie, you should. So Kevin and I are, are in that.
- [86:28]
Danny
I tried to watch it.
- [86:29]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah.
- [86:30]
Danny
Last night, but it was like, trying to make me jump through all these hoops and like, get some subscription to some crazy service or something. Oh, I couldn't figure it out.
- [86:37]
Matthew Shidagis
Ah. Dang. Okay, well. Well, that's because the movie's several years old now. It was easier when it first came out. But basically, to answer your question, we need to go to alleged UFO hotspots. That's the solution is you go to places where people claim to see these.
- [86:52]
Danny
Oh, go to nuclear bases.
- [86:54]
Matthew Shidagis
That's hard to do to get permission. No, but you're right. You're absolutely right, but we can't do that. But we can go to like, for example, Catalina area.
- [87:01]
Danny
They wouldn't let you go there. They wouldn't let you go there and install some of some like detection equipment or anything.
- [87:05]
Matthew Shidagis
No way. No way. If I was at an important university, sure. So I'm sure Avi's gonna try that for Galileo project with Harvard. I'm sure he's gonna try that. But I'm at a lowly university. It's not an Ivy League. I don't have the clout to tell the US Government, hey, can I install some UFO sensors on your nuke silo? That's not happening. Believe me. Kevin and I would be thrilled, believe me. We know all about Salas. Robert Hastings. We know all about the story of the. Yeah, absolutely. No, I'm saying something that's a little bit more achievable, easier, which is go to other non nuclear, you know, hotspots.
- [87:37]
Danny
Yeah.
- [87:38]
Matthew Shidagis
And so the idea here is, is you go to hotspots and you set up permanent or semi permanent stations because you're not going to catch fleeting encounters. Right. And so what you need to do is identify hotspots taking into account things like population density, obviously, and things like that. And so. But yeah, for the radiation detection. Yeah, we're looking for anything above normal background radiation, because there's radiation all around us all the time now, Right now there's cosmic radiation coursing through our bodies right now. Not just dark matter, you know, neutrinos, cosmic ray protons, all kinds of stuff going through. And we're fine, it's a small amount. And so. So we're looking not for something above zero. That's ridiculous. There's always a little bit of radiation everywhere. It's in your sweat, it's in a banana, it's in a Brazil nut, it's everywhere. However, what we're looking for is a statistically significant increase in radiation, either in energy or in like count rate that is correlated with a visual sighting in the camera systems. So that is our angle. Like a multi modal study, just like Galileo project is doing.
- [88:42]
Danny
Yeah, I'm not familiar With Galileo Project, what specifically are they doing?
- [88:45]
Matthew Shidagis
So, so Galileo Project is led by Professor Avi Loeb of Harvard. And they're, they want to also, they want to set up also equipment at UAP hotspots and, and look for uap. But it's kind of a. It's got other facets as well. Recently Avi tried to get, and he believes he succeeded, and you got pieces of an interstellar meteorite from the bottom of the Pacific that some people thought was maybe, you know, an alien ship that crash landed, not actually a meteor. So Galileo Project is doing a lot of stuff as well at Harvard. Yeah, well, it's not just Harvard. They also have other institutions like Wellesley College and it's a multi university.
- [89:21]
Danny
I think it's most likely that with whatever these UFOs are, they're already here. I don't think they necessarily came from, I mean, I think it's possible they came from like other galaxies, if you want to say that. But I think the, I think the most likely explanation, and I think the vast majority of them have been here for a long time and they're just into where they're sent, like how we are to ants. You know, they just, they exist here on a higher plane and they've probably been here, whether it's under the oceans or somewhere. They managed to be undetectable unless they really want to be.
- [89:49]
Matthew Shidagis
It's possible. It's possible. That's what Kevin says, that they're all already here. It's entirely possible. But yeah, I wouldn't say that from other galaxies. That's too far away.
- [89:56]
Danny
Other than especially. Especially when you have accounts of these things like coming out of oceans and stuff, you know, back into antiquity.
- [90:03]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, well, the oceans are a great place to hide. That's what my friend Kevin says. And also you have to keep in mind, let's speculate. This is Kevin's idea, not mine. Full credit to him. He suggests that water's pretty safe because no matter where you are in the universe, water can only be a liquid in a very narrow, limited range of temperature and pressure. So if you're an extraterrestrial from somewhere else, you know, to expect with water, air can be different. Atmospheric compositions can differ wildly. Water is water. Everywhere in the galaxy, everywhere in the universe, water is water because it exists as a liquid only in a limited. Most. In most of the universe, water's, you know, either a gas or a solid. It only exists as a liquid in a very limited temperature and pressure range, very narrow temperature. And so if you're used to water, you can go find another water planet. Yes, that's Kevin's idea.
- [90:55]
Danny
Oh, wow. Yeah. And so I forgot he told me that.
- [90:57]
Matthew Shidagis
Exactly. And so he thinks that's the connection. That's why UFOs are often seen around water and near water, coming out of water, going into water. I have to say it's an absolutely fascinating idea. And my friend Kevin has also published a paper that suggests that if we've been discovered by extraterrestrials, on average he ran a, you know, a giant computer simulation of the galaxy. And, and he suggests that we. If Earth was discovered randomly, then the most probable time that happened was 1.1 million years ago.
- [91:32]
Danny
Why just.
- [91:34]
Matthew Shidagis
There is no why. He just ran a computer simulation.
- [91:36]
Danny
Oh, it's just like the computer said.
- [91:37]
Matthew Shidagis
Put all the factors into the computer. That would be like asking ChatGPT. Why did you just.
- [91:41]
Danny
It didn't give any sort of like reasoning behind it at all.
- [91:44]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, the reasoning is all in a scientific paper. There, there is no one liner way to explain it because it's all the factors. How many habitable planets are there in the galaxy? How big the galaxy is, how fast they're going. Like there's like literally dozens of factors that went into the calculation. So this is not some, it's not some cut and dry thing where there's like a.
- [92:02]
Danny
Is there a way we can find the paper online?
- [92:04]
Matthew Shidagis
Absolutely, absolutely.
- [92:05]
Danny
See if you can find it.
- [92:06]
Matthew Shidagis
If you go to knuth lab.org k n u t h lab.org I'll point you to this paper by my friend.
- [92:13]
Danny
Kevin, Steve, so you can find it.
- [92:14]
Matthew Shidagis
He didn't, he didn't bring it up when he was on the show.
- [92:16]
Danny
He probably did. It's been a while.
- [92:18]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah. This is my friend Kevin's website. Yeah, My good colleague. I think it would be under UAPS and techno signatures. Click. No, no, you're going too far. Left, left. UAPS and techno signatures. You're like right there. Yeah. Okay. Scroll down to. Oh, sorry, it's not there. I'm sorry. Go back, go back. He must not have populated it there yet. Scroll down slowly from on the main page. Let's see if we can find it here.
- [92:46]
Danny
Was there a search?
- [92:48]
Matthew Shidagis
No, this is his private website. So it's not like perfect. It's definitely here. So just bear with me a moment. I know he's got it here somewhere. Click. Maybe current projects. Try that. Try current projects. It's right there.
- [93:01]
Danny
Right there, Steve.
- [93:02]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, yeah.
- [93:04]
Danny
Boom. Foundations, astrophysics, cyber physics, Bayesian data.
- [93:09]
Matthew Shidagis
No, no, no, it's not here either. I. Oh, there it is. UAP library on the left. UAP library, Left, very left column, Steve, left column. Yeah, UAP library, go there. Aha. There's my paper.
- [93:22]
Danny
Okay.
- [93:23]
Matthew Shidagis
And there's Kevin's history of UFOs. There it is. Simulating the characteristics. That's the one we were just discussing. So in that this is one that.
- [93:31]
Danny
Says 1.1 million years ago on average.
- [93:33]
Matthew Shidagis
But with a huge error bar. But basically what's really interesting about that result is it seems to suggest that they, that whoever they are, they've been here a long time.
- [93:46]
Danny
Right.
- [93:47]
Matthew Shidagis
Like you just said. But here's.
- [93:48]
Danny
Well, maybe they, maybe they came, maybe they evolved here.
- [93:51]
Matthew Shidagis
That's possible too. Have you. There's Hal put off, has a paper on this called the Ultra ultra Terrestrial Model or hypothesis. Yeah, absolutely. Another possibility.
- [94:01]
Danny
Yeah, it's totally possible that they got. Go back to it, Steve. Remember, we don't want to read the abstract of it. It is generally believed that it is unlikely that our civilization is alone in the galaxy. This belief is central to the premise of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, SETI which has focused mainly on searching for radio signals or originating from extraterrestrial communication, since it is believed that extraterrestrial craft visiting Earth would be extreme unlikely event. However, the fact that we ourselves are currently working on developing probes to send to the Alpha Centauri system by 2069 strongly suggests our expectations by considering.
- [94:43]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, you skipped the line.
- [94:44]
Danny
Strongly suggest that other other civilizations may make similar or more ambitious efforts. Therefore, it is reasonable to inform civilizations to find.
- [94:54]
Matthew Shidagis
To inform our expectations.
- [94:56]
Danny
To inform our expectations by considering what characters. Can you zoom in a little bit, bro? There we go. Considering what characteristics and capabilities would be required for an interstellar civilization to find or visit Earth. In this paper, the physics based analytical analytic model of expanding interstellar civilizations is developed. A million civil million civilizations that encounter Earth are simulated and their statistics are studied to determine their characteristics.
- [95:27]
Matthew Shidagis
There you have it. One of the characteristics that he found is that if Earth is found, it was probably found a long time ago. And that's because the galaxy is over 13 billion years old. That's a mind boggling amount of time. So if you had a civilization evolve early on a long time ago, can you imagine how much more advanced they'd be than we are today? Like we can't even guess technology a hundred thousand years from now. Imagine a civilization that's been around for millions or billions of years. We can't even fathom what that would look like, what they would look like.
- [96:03]
Danny
Right.
- [96:03]
Matthew Shidagis
You know, it might be incommensurate with our understanding.
- [96:06]
Danny
Right. Well, and even the idea that it could have been us, like that. That version of us could have evolved and gotten so advanced.
- [96:12]
Matthew Shidagis
Yes.
- [96:13]
Danny
And. And there could have been some sort of breakaway civilization that either went under the oceans or to the moon or to another planet in our solar system.
- [96:20]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah. Kevin and I call that the Wakanda hypothesis.
- [96:22]
Danny
Yeah. And then they came back after things settled down. You know, maybe there was thousands of years of instability here. You know, maybe. Maybe, you know, or like an ice age or whatever and. Yeah.
- [96:31]
Matthew Shidagis
Well, another thing that's possible is if you. If you're familiar with the work of Professor Mike Masters, Montana State.
- [96:37]
Danny
Oh, yeah, of course. He thinks time travel.
- [96:39]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah. He thinks it's not aliens, it's humans from the future.
- [96:41]
Danny
Yeah. I think that makes. I think that makes a ton of sense.
- [96:43]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah. Yeah. So we. The fact is, we don't know. We don't know, but it's fun to speculate. But for me, it's even more fun to try to go find the.
- [96:52]
Danny
Well, one of the biggest. I think one of the biggest pieces of evidence that this could have been humans or people that lived here and this was their home are things like the pyramids and things like, you know.
- [97:00]
Matthew Shidagis
Why are they so perfect?
- [97:01]
Danny
These types of things? These are made. This is a 3D model of a grant or a. A red granite vase that was measured in a Rolls Royce light scanner at Rolls Royce Aerospace. And they found out is perfectly symmetrical from top to bottom on each side within less than a deviation of like 1.1,000th of a human hair. This couldn't even be made on a CNC machine today. And it was made allegedly 4,000.
- [97:22]
Matthew Shidagis
Well, MC. There's all kinds of stuff on ancient aliens, puma, punkuff.
- [97:26]
Danny
Yeah.
- [97:26]
Matthew Shidagis
And all the crazy, like.
- [97:27]
Danny
Yeah.
- [97:27]
Matthew Shidagis
Straight lines and stuff.
- [97:28]
Danny
So they were obviously on a trajectory that we can't even fathom. Like, they weren't. They weren't doing the same. They weren't making things the same way we make things today. Because with our tools, there's no way we. And we have no reason to make stuff like this either. Right. So.
- [97:44]
Matthew Shidagis
So we do have one reason. So actually, the. The. The. The best. The most precise object ever created by humans and was a ball that was used on Gravity Pro B to test Einstein's theory of general relativity. That ball was so perfect that I think it was off by way better than what you just quoted. It was like One atom off maximum in one direction. So if the Earth was that perfect of a ball, I think the Earth would have like one hill the size of this desk or something. Like it was a perfect ball. It was necessary for this gravity experiment in the 90s or I think early 2000s. So nowadays we have this technology. Did we have that in 4000 BC? Right? It's like. Yeah. So it's interesting, but remember earlier how I said technology, it doesn't just always improve, it goes forward, it goes back. Controversial discovery. Few years ago. Did you know we found evidence that the ancient Greek Archimedes, he was recently in the Indiana India, you know, fictional. Archimedes was in Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. Turns out Archimedes may have discovered calculus several thousand years.
- [98:57]
Danny
Really?
- [98:57]
Matthew Shidagis
Before.
- [98:58]
Danny
How did they find this out?
- [98:59]
Matthew Shidagis
Because they found it on a tablet.
- [99:01]
Danny
A tablet?
- [99:02]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah.
- [99:02]
Danny
When was Archimedes alive?
- [99:04]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, we should look that up.
- [99:05]
Danny
Yeah.
- [99:06]
Matthew Shidagis
But they found on a tablet that was erased and written over, but using modern technology. It's called a palimpset.
- [99:13]
Danny
Can you find the story, Steve, about what he's talking about discovering calculus.
- [99:16]
Matthew Shidagis
Look up Archimedes. Integral calculus and a palimp set. P A L, I, M, P, S E, T. A palimpset is something that you. It's like. It's like Etch A Sketch.
- [99:28]
Danny
Right, right.
- [99:28]
Matthew Shidagis
It's the ancient form of Esther's Get.
- [99:30]
Danny
Right.
- [99:30]
Matthew Shidagis
So somebody over wrote over what he wrote.
- [99:34]
Danny
Oh, wow.
- [99:35]
Matthew Shidagis
And it turns out he may have discovered Riemann integration that we teach in like, you know, calculus 101 thousands of years. There it is. You.
- [99:44]
Danny
Is it that?
- [99:45]
Matthew Shidagis
Yes. No, no. Yeah. I don't know if that's it, but the paragraph that was describing it is correct.
- [99:50]
Danny
Archimedes is not considered the inventor of integral calculus, but his method of exhaustion is regarded as the precursor to integral calculus.
- [100:00]
Matthew Shidagis
Exactly. Thousands of years before Newton and Leibniz. But what this tells you is maybe the ancient alien guys aren't so crazy. But there's another angle to this.
- [100:09]
Danny
Is this a new thing they found?
- [100:10]
Matthew Shidagis
It was a few years ago. Okay, it's not that new. Yeah, it was a few years ago. But basically my point is that humans are also pretty smart. We might not even need help from aliens. Your point earlier, Break away human branches and stuff like that. Sometimes we don't give humans enough credit. Sometimes. It could be that some of the weird anomalies are really that humans came up with clever technologies and we're too arrogant to admit that ancient people were actually pretty damn smart. I don't know if You've heard of the Baghdad Battery? Also, there's apparently this battery from ancient Iraq. What? Oh, yeah. They tested on Mythbusters and it worked.
- [100:48]
Danny
The Baghdad Battery.
- [100:49]
Matthew Shidagis
You never heard of the Baghdad Battery? It's one of the greatest.
- [100:52]
Danny
Like, oh, my God.
- [100:54]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah. So basically, I think ancient people were a lot smarter than we give them credit for.
- [101:00]
Danny
Find this, bro.
- [101:01]
Matthew Shidagis
But what if. There it is.
- [101:02]
Danny
See what 2000 year old artifact found in Iraq that is hypothesized to be an ANC battery. Consists of a clay jar, copper cylinder and an iron rod. While some believe it could be used for electro plating or even electrotherapy, its exact purpose remains debate. Can you find a better picture of this?
- [101:21]
Matthew Shidagis
Dude, they tested it on Mythbusters.
- [101:24]
Danny
No way.
- [101:25]
Matthew Shidagis
And get. And it kind of works, but it works better. They cheated on mythbusters and they.
- [101:30]
Danny
Is this actually it right here?
- [101:31]
Matthew Shidagis
Car battery.
- [101:32]
Danny
Whoa.
- [101:35]
Matthew Shidagis
I mean, what do you do with something like that?
- [101:36]
Danny
This was the Parthian empire it was supposed to come from was allegedly illiterate.
- [101:42]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, but see, look. Look how little we know about our own ancient past.
- [101:47]
Danny
So what is the theory? What is like the conventional theory for this thing?
- [101:51]
Matthew Shidagis
I'm not aware of a conventional one. All I know about it. I'm not aware what the. I'm not aware what the BS conventional explanation supposed to be. Be. Would you believe the conventional explanation for it?
- [102:02]
Danny
I don't believe the conventional explanation for many things. It starts with ancient Egypt, with the. With the Egyptologists.
- [102:08]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, but. So, so. So you're asking me for the conventional explanation. To me, the battery is the correct explanation, Right?
- [102:13]
Danny
It is the correct one. But I would also be interested to hear how academics try to explain it.
- [102:17]
Matthew Shidagis
I haven't heard a single credible alternate explanation of it.
- [102:20]
Danny
See what you can find.
- [102:21]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, yeah.
- [102:22]
Danny
Even like things like the Antikythera device that was found in the bottom of the ocean, like that's the basis of.
- [102:27]
Matthew Shidagis
Indiana Jones 5 and the Indiana Jones Dial of Destiny.
- [102:31]
Danny
Wow. And that's. I think that's the only device like that that's ever been found.
- [102:35]
Matthew Shidagis
It took us a long time to finally figure it out what was for.
- [102:38]
Danny
Okay. The conventional explanation for the Baghdad Battery is that it was not a battery in modern sense, but it was rather a storage vessel used for keeping sacred scrolls or other items. Okay, okay.
- [102:49]
Matthew Shidagis
And it just happens to have electrical properties.
- [102:51]
Danny
Okay, okay. Yeah, sure.
- [102:52]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, sure. Why not?
- [102:54]
Danny
This fits our theory.
- [102:56]
Matthew Shidagis
Well, it's like you said earlier, right? It's about ramming square pegs into round holes.
- [103:01]
Danny
Yes.
- [103:01]
Matthew Shidagis
Sometimes we try to Force the data to fit our models.
- [103:06]
Danny
They hate it when there's new data that doesn't fit their theories.
- [103:09]
Matthew Shidagis
I don't. I love it.
- [103:11]
Danny
Yeah.
- [103:11]
Matthew Shidagis
You know why? Because there's more for me to do then. I'm an experimentalist, not a theorist.
- [103:15]
Danny
Right.
- [103:16]
Matthew Shidagis
So to me, that's great. All right, let's go explore.
- [103:18]
Danny
Right.
- [103:18]
Matthew Shidagis
To me, that's when the most exciting things happen, is when something doesn't fit our preconceptions. That's when real learning happens.
- [103:25]
Danny
Happens, yes.
- [103:26]
Matthew Shidagis
But most academics don't think that way. They think they, they're more stuffy than I am.
- [103:31]
Danny
Most of them.
- [103:32]
Matthew Shidagis
Right, yeah, of course.
- [103:33]
Danny
Yeah. Right. Which explains why they're, you know, just going back to the Great Pyramids, why they have. There hasn't been any more excavation on there. You know, you see those things they found with the rods that go underneath them?
- [103:41]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, yeah.
- [103:42]
Danny
There was that big thing that came out where they had.
- [103:43]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, yeah. Using particles. That's my, my, my shtick. I'm not saying I didn't, I didn't participate in that. But it's using particle physics. They're using like muons, using particles to basically X ray, except it's not X ray. Right. Yeah. It's amazing. Why aren't we. Why can't we just go in there?
- [103:57]
Danny
Spirals that apparently go down for miles underneath the pyramids.
- [104:01]
Matthew Shidagis
What are those things? Why is nobody interested in learning more about them?
- [104:04]
Danny
Right. That story just kind of like disappeared.
- [104:07]
Matthew Shidagis
How did you disappear?
- [104:08]
Danny
There was a. Italian. There was a group of Italians.
- [104:10]
Matthew Shidagis
You know what my friend Kevin says, I don't know if he said this on your show. Some scientists suffer from a profound lack of, lack of curiosity. That's a serious problem.
- [104:21]
Danny
Yeah.
- [104:22]
Matthew Shidagis
I'm a scientist because I'm curious, not because I'm incurious. Does that make sense? I'm curious. So I want to know the answers for everything, right?
- [104:31]
Danny
Yeah. No, I would be really curious to see, like, what would happen if we were able to dig under those things and look under that.
- [104:36]
Matthew Shidagis
Some of that is politics. I'm sure the Egyptian government's not going to want that. I don't think it's all conspiracy or stigma against it.
- [104:41]
Danny
Sure.
- [104:42]
Matthew Shidagis
Some of it's.
- [104:42]
Danny
There's a lot of bureaucracy.
- [104:43]
Matthew Shidagis
Bureaucracy to get through.
- [104:45]
Danny
But I think one of the things that I'm optimistic about is there's a lot of, of young upcoming Egyptian archaeologists and Egyptologists who are considering the, the pseudo science hypothesis hypotheses and like, the, the unconventional theories of, like, what these things could have been and that are coming up in academia that are, that are actually considering them and not just brushing them off as like complete pseudoscience.
- [105:08]
Matthew Shidagis
There, there, there is occasionally, occasionally something that was considered suicience turns out to be correct. I'm going to give you six examples or maybe more.
- [105:18]
Danny
Six.
- [105:19]
Matthew Shidagis
I can give you a few more, probably. You want more or is that too few?
- [105:22]
Danny
I can do six.
- [105:23]
Matthew Shidagis
Okay. Germs. There's no such thing as germs. Did you know that? There were doctors. I'm saying this is what people would say. There were doctors who would literally go from delivering a baby to an autopsy without washing their hands to prove to all those idiot doctors who believe in germs and washing hands, I'm like, okay, like, germs were pseudoscience at one point. Well, it gets better. Relativity was pseudoscience at one point. Einstein was insulted repeatedly as a crackpot, as a pseudoscientist. In Germany, you know what they said to him? Oh, that's Jewish science. In the uk, you know what they said? Oh, that's German science. Remember, there's World War I, so the UK, they hated Germans. So to the British, Einstein was German. And to the Germans. But my point, Continental drift. Continental drift. Oh, yeah, here's another one. Did you know that Ludwig von Boltzmann committed suicide because he was so deeply insulted by academia and the scientific community. They ruined his career because you know why? He dared to say that atoms are real and that atoms exist, and he was driven to suicide. So there's atoms, germs, relativity, continental drift. Meteors. Meteors. Another great example. Did you know that for a long time, people left. Oh, meteors. Rocks don't fall from the sky. Those are just, you know, crazy people telling you stories. What does all this sound like to you? Doesn't this sound like a lot like UFOs?
- [107:01]
Danny
People didn't believe that at one point.
- [107:03]
Matthew Shidagis
Meteors. For centuries, scientists used to laugh at meteors. That's nonsense. It wasn't until the 19th century, the 1800s, until finally the French figured out, oh, wait, meteors aren't made up, they're real.
- [107:18]
Danny
When did we. When did we. I'd be curious to know when we came up with the explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs.
- [107:26]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, it was recent. When I was a kid, we were still debating, we still didn't know until we found the crater in the Yucatan. And then it was like, game over. Then it was obvious. Obvious. We were still arguing. Was a disease. Was it this? And then we found it was in the 90s I think I was a kid when we finally figured out, oh yeah, it was a giant rock that fell from the sky.
- [107:44]
Danny
Crazy how recent. A lot of these big mainstream discoveries.
- [107:47]
Matthew Shidagis
Have happened to make fun of the idea that a meteor killed the dinosaurs. People used to think that was pseudoscience.
- [107:52]
Danny
What do they think? How do they think they got killed?
- [107:54]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, they just argued about that was disease, it was some random plague or something yet. But I'll tell this, you know what do you know what separates in my opinion but you know, it's kind of an expert opinion. But that's what my. What separates science and pseudoscience? I have an answer that'll differ from any other answer.
- [108:10]
Danny
You'll hear ideology.
- [108:12]
Matthew Shidagis
No, no it doesn't, no it doesn't.
- [108:15]
Danny
Because people can label real science pseudoscience just to can fit their, their.
- [108:18]
Matthew Shidagis
That's misuse of the labels. I'm saying what separates actual pseudoscience from actual science, not what.
- [108:25]
Danny
Well what do you, how do you define pseudoscience?
- [108:29]
Matthew Shidagis
Very easy. I'm glad you asked. That's what I was about to say. Okay, if you test your idea and your idea doesn't work, you abandon it. You don't double down. That's the difference between a scientist and a pseudoscientist. It's not about ideology, has nothing to do with ideology. Nothing. That is what the gatekeepers use. It's not about ideology. Real pseudoscience is when you've been disproven and you won't shut up. That's pseudoscience. Real science is where and when something that's called pseudoscience isn't pseudoscience. It's when you have the proof but your ideology blinds you. To see that continental drift atoms, these are all examples of that. So that is the difference if 20 years from now it turns out 100% of the CMB going back to other things like was the early light, it was nothing else. I'm like oh you know what, great, I was wrong because the proof came up. Oh, I'm not going to double down because I'm like oh yeah, that's proven wrong. But a pseudoscientist when confronted with facts will double down on the incorrect idea that's already been disproven over and over and over and over again because they're like no, you didn't do it right. You got to tweak the experiment a little bit. No, it's gonna work. I've got the anti gravity, you didn't do it right. So that's the difference. But it's misapplied. The term is misapplied in the modern age. To shut down rational discourse and silence critics.
- [110:06]
Danny
Yes.
- [110:07]
Matthew Shidagis
So I'm not interested in ideology. Neither is my friend Kevin. We're interested. What do the facts say? What does the data say? Do you have data to support your claim? If so, let me see it. Baghdad Battery, great example. There's support of that claim. If you don't have support in your claim, go away. Come back to me when you have proof and I will listen to you. I won't shut you out. But if you're gonna just make stuff up without evidence, I don't wanna hear it. I don't have to hear it. So that's the difference between science versus pseudoscience as an ideology versus how it should actually be honestly applied. You shouldn't use insults as a way to shut your critics up. Yeah, that's not how rational discourse 100.
- [110:50]
Danny
But unfortunately, that's the way discourse happens online these days.
- [110:53]
Matthew Shidagis
Online is a toy. Like never read the comments on a YouTube video.
- [110:57]
Danny
The Internet and X are the best thing for the government that has ever existed because it's so. It makes it so much easy for them to keep secrets because you can't.
- [111:06]
Matthew Shidagis
Tell what's the truth anymore. There's so much noise.
- [111:09]
Danny
Cauldron of bullshit.
- [111:10]
Matthew Shidagis
I'm telling. Do you know I'm not on social media.
- [111:12]
Danny
Oh, good for you.
- [111:13]
Matthew Shidagis
I don't have X. I have Facebook page that I look at once a year because it's historical. I got peer pressured into joining Facebook when it was new. So I have Facebook. I never had Twitter. Don't have X because you know what? I have better things to do.
- [111:25]
Danny
It can be fun. It can be fun to like peek in. It's like. It's like going to Vegas. Well, the best, the first, the best parts about going to Vegas are the day you arrive and the day you leave. It's like the same thing with, with like looking in. Sometimes you can just like peek in and like look around. Like, especially UFO Twitter.
- [111:41]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, yeah.
- [111:42]
Danny
I don't know if you've ever heard of UFO Twitter, but this is of course the thing. It's a community.
- [111:44]
Matthew Shidagis
I've been insulted already by UFO Twitter. People tell me it's crazy.
- [111:48]
Danny
Everybody, everybody's a fed. Everybody is working for the deep state.
- [111:52]
Matthew Shidagis
I've heard it all.
- [111:53]
Danny
And if. And this is one of the greatest things the way. Great. One of the greatest ways to dismiss people is to call them a fed and to say that they're working for The CIA or whoever.
- [112:01]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, I. Jack Sarfatti said I was a Russian agent.
- [112:04]
Danny
He's friends with Russia.
- [112:06]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, now he's friends with Russia.
- [112:07]
Danny
He brags that Putin.
- [112:08]
Matthew Shidagis
I know Putin. Putin invited me to 16 times. No, he didn't. No, he didn't. And Trump did not invite him to Mar A Lago.
- [112:15]
Danny
Oh, yeah.
- [112:16]
Matthew Shidagis
And so, yeah. Oh, look, like I said, look, if. If Jack is listening to this. If you take me off your email list, Jack, I will proclaim to everyone you are the greatest scientist who ever lived. I will do anything if you just stop fucking emailing me.
- [112:31]
Danny
Oh, Jacket.
- [112:34]
Matthew Shidagis
I can't.
- [112:34]
Danny
You can't.
- [112:35]
Matthew Shidagis
You know why? Because he ccs everyone instead of bcc, he doesn't have an email list. So anytime anyone else replies, yeah, you get it. I'm back on the list.
- [112:47]
Danny
There's gotta be technology. We can't. We can't. We're that low tech. We can't figure out how to block Jacks or fatty email chains.
- [112:52]
Matthew Shidagis
But anyway, but let's not go off on that tangent before, Jack. Where were we going? I forgot you had asked me something important.
- [112:58]
Danny
What did I ask him, Steve? Y' all were talking about pseudoscience.
- [113:01]
Matthew Shidagis
No, no, no, we finished that.
- [113:02]
Danny
Oh. We were talking about, like, ufo, Twitter and discourse. Yeah.
- [113:05]
Matthew Shidagis
Yes. I was saying, you. I what? I've been called the Russian agent. I've. I've. It's. It was said that I work with child. Like, you should see the stuff.
- [113:14]
Danny
But, you know, a lot of prominent physicists went to Epstein Island. I don't know if you know that.
- [113:19]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, but not me. Right? But I was like a fetus.
- [113:22]
Danny
You're a little too young.
- [113:23]
Matthew Shidagis
Okay, all right. So, yeah, I'm. So, anyway, my point is. But you know how I look at that? I look at it as a positive. You know why? There's an old saying in the military, if you're catching flack, that means you're over the target. So if I'm catching shit and Kevin's catching shit, I'm like, good. That means we're pushing buttons. That means we're asking the wrong questions. That means we're actually getting closer to the truth.
- [113:48]
Danny
Truth, sure.
- [113:49]
Matthew Shidagis
So I don't care what anyone says about me on X. Like I said, I don't even have an account, so all I hear is secondhand. Oh, hey, Matthew, you know what they said about your social media? I'm like, I don't care. I've got science to do. I've got real work to do. Rather than know what some you know, you know, some 13 year old in his mom's basement thinks about me and my work on UFOs. I don't care.
- [114:09]
Danny
Right, Right.
- [114:10]
Matthew Shidagis
It's just.
- [114:10]
Danny
Right. Yeah. It gets really bad when you mix like Boone or boomers and older people with social media because they don't really, they don't really understand how to use it.
- [114:19]
Matthew Shidagis
You know, I've already had. This already happened to me where I get AI slop, like AI generated video sent to me by my mother in law thinking it's real or my father in law. This has already started happening. So they're already falling for the, like, the AI generated.
- [114:32]
Danny
I, I fell for it yesterday because I saw a video on Instagram of the Texas floods and it looked like, it looked so real. It looked like towns like being flooded and it was supposed to be like security camera footage in the town of like, sped up time lapse of the rivers flooding and literally just wiping out the town. I thought it was real. I'm like, this is insane. Then I, I was like, hold on a second before I send this to 100 people. Yeah, I'm going to make sure, I'm going to read the comments. And then I went through the comments and sure enough, they confirmed, like, there's no way this is Texas. This is like architecture from Eastern Europe. There's. This is just not. This is definitely not Texas. And it was, it was confirmed, it was AI but it completely tricked me. I thought it was for sure. The only reason I knew was because I decided to read the comments.
- [115:11]
Matthew Shidagis
I have two, I have two ways of fighting, writing AI out. Count human fingers. It can't do fingers, right?
- [115:19]
Danny
It messes up fingers. It messes up.
- [115:21]
Matthew Shidagis
And the other one is it can't do letters, it can't do words. So you remember this, like fake photo and video of Trump getting arrested? It was like, like violently.
- [115:30]
Danny
There was one that he, he released one yesterday of Obama getting arrested by the FBI.
- [115:35]
Matthew Shidagis
No, this is old. This is like years ago.
- [115:36]
Danny
Okay.
- [115:37]
Matthew Shidagis
You look at the police, you look at their armbands, and it's just hieroglyphs. It's just hieroglyphs. Gobbledygook. It's like, what the hell? And so those are. It's getting better, though. It is getting better every day. It's getting scary. Yeah, I know. I'm still waiting for Star Trek level AI. As far as I'm concerned, AI is still dumb.
- [115:54]
Danny
Yeah. So what I was saying earlier was that it's shocking to me how many of the foundational discoveries of our universe and our species and in. And our planet in general are so recent. Like, you know how Mike. Mike Masters explains that there's 20 different species of hominids, and out of all those 20 species, we're, like, the only one that has developed technology to escape the Earth?
- [116:20]
Matthew Shidagis
Are we?
- [116:20]
Danny
Well, five. Five of those species have been discovered in, like, the last 10 years.
- [116:26]
Matthew Shidagis
I know.
- [116:27]
Danny
And there was. There was just this thing. This video that came out that we pulled up the other day, Steve, was an Instagram video of these Peru mummies. They found these. These things that look like aliens, and they're. These mummies. They look like powdered donuts. And they have three fingers.
- [116:42]
Matthew Shidagis
I know. They brought them before the Mexican.
- [116:44]
Danny
This is different. This is different. This is new. This is not the Jaime guy. This is a different set of mummies.
- [116:50]
Matthew Shidagis
That's a different set.
- [116:50]
Danny
And one of them had a fetus inside.
- [116:53]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, yeah, yeah, I saw this.
- [116:54]
Danny
Watch this, watch this. This is crazy.
- [116:56]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah.
- [116:57]
Danny
And they think it's a new species of hominid. Can you give us some volume into the rock. Thousands of years ago, when I visited Maria, I saw no apparent signs of manipulation on the hands or the feet. One of the mummies has a fetus inside. And rumors are starting to spread that the images are showing the fetus to also have three fingers. I contacted the lawyer of the American scientists, Josh McDowell, who told me that the current imaging isn't good enough to say either way whether or not the fetus has three fingers. Some notable oddities regarding the mummies. Maria has 32 vertebrae, while most humans have 33. Not an impossible anomaly, but still notable. Maria has abnormally large eye sockets and a protruding mouth. Dr. Zuniga told me that the metal implants had organic tissue fused to them, indicating that they were alive whenever these were placed. This is a process called osseointegration, and it takes about half a year to fully complete. Complete. If these are fake, then this would be one of the greatest hoaxes of all time. If they're real, this would be one of the greatest discoveries of all time. I'm an independent journalist. Super interesting.
- [118:00]
Matthew Shidagis
Not necessarily alien, like you said. Could be a different.
- [118:02]
Danny
Not necessarily alien, like the most reasonable explanation is this a new spin, a new species of hominid, you know, just to jump straight to alien, you know.
- [118:08]
Matthew Shidagis
But people are going to dismiss it immediately because there have been a lot of these mummies, and unfortunately, some are proven fake, some are hoaxes, unfortunately. And, you know, that really damages a lot of the. Then increases the stigma and taboo against the so called fringe topics that you specialize right on your show. Like increases the stigma when you've got people doing hoaxes. It's just. But that would be really hard to hoax what we just saw.
- [118:34]
Danny
Yeah.
- [118:35]
Matthew Shidagis
So.
- [118:35]
Danny
Totally.
- [118:36]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, yeah.
- [118:37]
Danny
No, the, the, the idea that, you know, that there's only 20 hominids and like, like we were the ones that were able to develop the technology to get off the Earth means that we are. Human beings are like 0.0001% of all cataloged species on Earth. Right. So we're super rare on Earth as it is. So if you extrapolate that out into the universe, like that is just exponentially more rare than we even thought. Right. Like, just, just to say there's life, like, I think it's pretty. I, I completely believe that there has to be tons of life out in the universe. But just judging by the fact that we are 0.0001% of living species on Earth, what are the chances that there are that there are other beings, life forms that have evolved to be as intelligent as us and to be upright bipedal hominins like us, with a brain that sits directly on top of the head?
- [119:33]
Matthew Shidagis
The chances are very high to be evolved that way, not that shape, but intelligent life. Yes. Because that tiny number you just quoted. Yeah, I can cancel that out very easily. There are trillions of planets in our galaxy alone. So that tiny number has to face the gigantic number of all the exoplanets out there, of all the potentially habitable planets. That's Kevin's field of research, actually. Exoplanets. So is there intelligent life out there? Almost certainly. Is it going to look like us? No. That's highly improbable.
- [120:03]
Danny
Right. Because the atmospheric conditions.
- [120:05]
Matthew Shidagis
Exactly.
- [120:05]
Danny
Gravity is going to be different. They're likely going to be like. Like if we evolved in water. What about like all the water worlds that we.
- [120:11]
Matthew Shidagis
That's exactly why Mike Masters says probably not aliens. The Grays are probably humans from the future. He's got a good point.
- [120:19]
Danny
That's the. I think that's the strongest point.
- [120:21]
Matthew Shidagis
That's a damn good point. But Gary Nolan has a counterargument.
- [120:24]
Danny
There's a couple car.
- [120:25]
Matthew Shidagis
He says the Grays aren't aliens. He says they're like. They're CIA, the aliens.
- [120:29]
Danny
No, no, that's what Stephen Greer says.
- [120:31]
Matthew Shidagis
Like in a, in a zipper.
- [120:32]
Danny
No, no, no, no. He thinks that they're. They're CIA constructed robots, basically.
- [120:36]
Matthew Shidagis
Like that's similar to what Gary Nolan says. Gary Nolan says they're alien constructed robots that are meant to be similar to humans.
- [120:43]
Danny
Yeah, yeah, that's what Gary Nolan believes that.
- [120:47]
Matthew Shidagis
I've heard him suggest that on numerous shows. He says that the Grays are sort of like. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but yeah, I think he says they're avatars. That's the word he used.
- [120:57]
Danny
Right.
- [120:57]
Matthew Shidagis
But not, not CIA avatars, but actual alien avatars. And the aliens look nothing like, like us. To me, that is a lot more plausible than saying that somewhere light years away, a bipedal creature evolved. Again, really? Really. So, no, Mike Masters has a good point, a very good point on.
- [121:15]
Danny
Well, another point that's been made to me is, is that are you familiar with morphic resonance? Sheldrake? Rert. Sheldrake's morphic.
- [121:26]
Matthew Shidagis
I've actually met Rert Shell at a conference a few years ago. Yeah.
- [121:29]
Danny
So like, the idea is basically if like a problem gets solved in one side of the world or one side of the universe, it could be EAS quickly gets solved on another side because it's like. And this, this reconciles with, with like the, the simulation hypothesis that we're in a computer program. Like, it's conserving processing power. So if a problem gets solved in one place, some people break a world record in one part of the world, it gets broken soon after in another part of the world. Right. So like, if, if evolution got solved here on Earth, maybe it could get solved somewhere else using more morphic resonance on another planet in another part of the.
- [122:02]
Matthew Shidagis
That's reasonable. Yeah, yeah, I've heard it. I've heard that case made that. Oh, yeah, there will be bipedal. It's an efficient structure. It just convert convergently evolved in another place.
- [122:12]
Danny
Yeah. I've had a lot of smart people tell me that that's a super likely scenario.
- [122:18]
Matthew Shidagis
I. I don't know what to think until we get some more facts right, some more data on what's going on.
- [122:22]
Danny
Right, yeah, totally.
- [122:25]
Matthew Shidagis
I've actually got. So one of the papers I recently published, actually, if you want to pull it up, could you go back to archive.org that I brought up earlier before the show started? Yeah. Can you look for the search for the word not there, like search on the page, do control F and search for catastrophic. There you go. Click that, click that one. Number eight. Yep. So this is a paper I recently published in Limina, the Journal of UAP Studies. By the way, I say that to anybody in academia. Journal of UAP Studies. They Roll their eyes because of the stigma. I think this is one of the most important things I've ever written. It's only eight pages. I basically, I calculate the probability of somebody accidentally capturing evidence of a Roswell style crash on their smartphone. Because I got sick and tired of people saying, oh, if, you know, crashes were real, somebody would have gotten it on their iPhone already. You know, we hear this all the time. Oh, Bigfoot's real.
- [123:27]
Danny
You mean a video of a crash?
- [123:29]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, yeah. And you know what I concluded, you know what I discovered actually, because the earth is mostly water and because we don't have the population of New York City everywhere. Right. Most of the world is rural. I actually calculate and determine, you know what, but it's actually reasonable that there hasn't been any iPhone or smartphone. According to my paper, I conclude that if David Grush is right, and it's an average of 10 crashes per century of NHI craft, if they're real or not necessarily NHI, you know, breakaway civilization, doesn't matter who it is. According to my calculations, again, huge error bar. I say it's going to be until about like 2040, 2050. Again, that's a random number. So it could be tomorrow, could be in 20 years. I'm basically calculating, based on the David Grush's claim of a crash rate, what is the most probable year? Just doing a simulation like Kevin did, just running all the stats, what's the most probable year of the first video of like an actual. Someone captures video of crash, and I estimate about 2440.
- [124:41]
Danny
Well, you know, there is one that has been on video which was during Operation Starfish Prime. Are you familiar with this?
- [124:49]
Matthew Shidagis
I am not.
- [124:49]
Danny
During Operation Starfish prime in the 60s when they were detonating nukes in the atmosphere and in outer space.
- [124:56]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, oh, yes, yes. Is this with the ship that came in and zapped the nuke?
- [125:00]
Danny
No, that, that was, that was, that was Vandenberg.
- [125:03]
Matthew Shidagis
Vandenberg. You're right. I mixed them two. Okay, so.
- [125:05]
Danny
So Operation Starfish Prime Time. There was another name for it too. I forget what the other name was, but there was a, a nuclear detonation in the atmosphere and it was on video. And Harold Malmgren was part of this. And they, when they were observing it, they saw, they were filming the, the blast and out of the blast an object just fell, fell straight to the to. Into the ocean. And these people were just calling it, calling it a tag along. Like nobody, nobody thought it was anything, but he was like, this is definitely something fell out an Object.
- [125:37]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah.
- [125:37]
Danny
Fell out of this.
- [125:39]
Matthew Shidagis
No, but you see, you said ocean, but that's not what I'm focusing on in the paper. So that's what I'm saying, hasn't happened yet. I'm saying on land, I'm saying like Roswell style. I'm saying there's a saucer and someone's got an iPhone 16 video of like a gray alien. That's what I'm talking about. So you're, what you're talking about, that's old school video technology. I'm talking about on a smartphone. Someone whips out their phone and gets the evidence. People check it, they know it's not AI. They know it's not fake video. And what I estimate is that the reason why it hasn't happened yet, it's not necessarily because it's not real. Hasn't happened yet because the earth is mostly water and population is spread thin. I've driven across the country multiple times. I hate flying. Driving is so much easier. I can stop my car and I can go pee. Nobody runs over goes, sir, sir, you gotta get down. You say, I love driving. I've driven a corner across the United States multiple times.
- [126:36]
Danny
Yeah. It's amazing how much of it's unpopular.
- [126:38]
Matthew Shidagis
Freaking empty.
- [126:39]
Danny
Yeah. How even flying you can look out the window and just.
- [126:42]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, of course here, there's a cow, there's a horse. It's this empty land. So like, what people don't realize is just because there's no smoking gun evidence yet.
- [126:53]
Danny
Right.
- [126:53]
Matthew Shidagis
That doesn't mean something's not real, Right, Totally. That doesn't mean it's not real.
- [126:58]
Danny
See if you can find a video, though. I want to see a video.
- [127:00]
Matthew Shidagis
Starfish Prime.
- [127:01]
Danny
That Starfish prime video.
- [127:03]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah. I haven't heard of this before. Before the ufo I did study the. The other case, the Vandenberg with the. Like that one.
- [127:09]
Danny
Yeah, I know that one's crazy. I think they interviewed one of the.
- [127:12]
Matthew Shidagis
Officers they did investigation Alien George Knapp interviewed one of the guy, the lieutenant.
- [127:17]
Danny
Yeah. This was a long time ago, but allegedly. Yeah. There's a we.
- [127:21]
Matthew Shidagis
Allegedly. The video exists. It was confiscated.
- [127:24]
Danny
Yeah. But I've seen there was video online at one point and I think we found it. And then it was just really hard to find after that. Like they buried it. And that's another problem with this whole thing, is that if somebody did capture this on their iPhone, with the way that the Internet is just regulated by the government these days, I don't think it would ever survive.
- [127:43]
Matthew Shidagis
No, it would survive.
- [127:44]
Danny
I don't know.
- [127:45]
Matthew Shidagis
I disagree. Respectfully disagree. Because I'm optimistic. Let me explain why you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Because it gets copied on tick tock, YouTube, Vimeo. There's. There's no way it's easy for them.
- [127:55]
Danny
To scrub all this. That.
- [127:56]
Matthew Shidagis
No, no, it's not. It's not. Because you can't scrub all the private copies also on hard drives and everything. So the. If. If I ever captured incontrovertible evidence of something truly anomalous, I would make multiple copies. I would bury some of them in the ground on hard drives. There's no way government could.
- [128:12]
Danny
What was it called, Steve? Operation what?
- [128:13]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, so.
- [128:14]
Danny
So I think you're Dominic 1 and 2. Okay.
- [128:16]
Matthew Shidagis
I think you're giving the government too much credit. They're incompetent. You're right that they could scrub everything. But you know why it wouldn't happen? Because some bureaucrat would forget to fill out the correct form.
- [128:25]
Danny
Sure, I agree with you. They're incompetent. But this stuff is classified. According to Harold Malmgram.
- [128:30]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah.
- [128:31]
Danny
Two levels above the Manhattan Project.
- [128:32]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah. Yeah.
- [128:33]
Danny
So this is like super, super secret.
- [128:34]
Matthew Shidagis
And that's one of the reasons why we're not making progress, by the way. It's too highly classified. So you don't have enough people looking at it. You don't have enough eyes on the problem.
- [128:42]
Danny
Yep. All right, so here's the blast.
- [128:45]
Matthew Shidagis
So this is a nuclear bomb test.
- [128:46]
Danny
This is a nuclear bomb test in the upper atmosphere here. I don't know if you can see it from this angle. Fishbowl. I don't know if we can.
- [128:55]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, there. Was that it?
- [128:56]
Danny
No, that wasn't it. You can see this thing falling directly. Oh.
- [128:58]
Matthew Shidagis
So.
- [128:59]
Danny
Okay, stop. Pause it. So they altered this and they added that white triangle. This is the blast right here. Okay, but it was in. See that white triangle on the bottom?
- [129:07]
Matthew Shidagis
Yes, I do.
- [129:07]
Danny
They added this onto it after it happened. It fell right down through that. Where? That triangle.
- [129:12]
Matthew Shidagis
I see. I see.
- [129:13]
Danny
Go to. Doctored. Go to. Yes, go to Jesse Michaels. Jesse Michaels. Type in Jesse Michaels. Harold Mal Grin. And if you. Go to. Oh, God. If my memory serves me correctly, about.
- [129:25]
Matthew Shidagis
An hour in here. Something doesn't make sense here, though. Are you say. Are you saying an advanced ship was somehow damaged by the blast? Yes, but that shouldn't be possible. I'll. I'll explain why. Actually, Travis Taylor did the math on this. You know Travis, right? Of course. Ancient alien skinwalker ranch.
- [129:40]
Danny
Yeah, yeah.
- [129:41]
Matthew Shidagis
So he did the math on this and I, I can check his math because I'm a physicist. It's easy if you have an interstellar craft that can get through this assumption. Right. Because they could be here. Just saying. Let's use the assumption of an interstellar craft. If you can travel the stars, that means you could. That means that there's a serious problem, which is if you're traveling between the stars at relativistic speeds, speck of dust has more energy than that, has more energy than its Tsar Bomba, the largest nuke ever created. Soviet Union. So basically, if they can travel interstellar space, our nukes would be like nothing mosquito to them. And so it, it really bugs me if there's some supposedly advanced tech. The new a nuke should be nothing to them. They should be able to fly right through a nuke and it would be nothing to them.
- [130:31]
Danny
Yeah. Well then, I mean, how would you explain all the other UFO crashes?
- [130:33]
Matthew Shidagis
I don't know.
- [130:34]
Danny
Like how would you explain a lightning bolt taking out the. The one that happened?
- [130:38]
Matthew Shidagis
Well, Kevin has an explanation. Kevin says they're not used to traveling in atmospheres.
- [130:42]
Danny
There, there it is, Steve, there it is. Go back right, a little bit forward. Right around here. Yeah, go ahead, play it. Well, these are nukes in the. Give us some audio. This is it.
- [130:52]
Matthew Shidagis
You know, somewhere. Did you know somewhere there's a. There's a memorial somewhere on a distant planet or in another dimension that says for all of the lives lost on Earth are on Soul three. Oh yeah, like an alien memorial. There's an alien memorial somewhere for all the crashes on Earth.
- [131:11]
Danny
That's funny. Operation Dominic was a class. Operation Dominic. You were just on it, dude. Running from April To October of 1962, Operation Dominic was a classified American program conducting 31 nuclear test explosions in the Marshall Islands. These tests were designed to study the effects effects of nuclear detonations in high altitudes in space and near space. One of these tests, Starfish prime, created an electromagnetic pulse that extended over 1400 kilometers, knocked out street lights, triggered burglar alarms and caused electrical surges in nearby Hawaii. It also produced an artificial aurora visible from Hawaii to New Zealand. Zealand. And it even created a man made radiation belt similar to the Van Allen belt that destroyed multiple satellites. The last few tests of this series were the Bluegill tests which involved a unique X ray based missile defense system. And Harold was put in charge of doing all of the cost assessments for this test. Tell us about the Bluegill triple prime. So just hold on. Click on the video, make it double speed. You can see clearly from the Kettle one footage of the nuclear blast. Give us the volume on the official report written about this test at the time. Was written by the Flight Dynamics Laboratory at Wright Patterson Air Force Base. The report tries to explain the presence of this second thermal source in the footage, quote, unquote. There is no evidence to indicate that even the closest pod was ever immersed burst in the fireball. So it definitely wasn't one of the instrumentation pods on the missile in the film. Yeah. If that's not weird enough, these videos were declassified to the public in 1998. At the declassification review, the Defense Special Weapons agency, led by Dr. Byron L. Wristvet, applied a large white triangle to the footage, sanitizing it right where you can see the object tumbling out of the plume in the Kettle one foot footage.
- [133:23]
Matthew Shidagis
There's well known animosity between Los Alamos.
- [133:26]
Danny
And Lawrence Livermore Labs.
- [133:28]
Matthew Shidagis
Lawrence Livermore ran one aircraft, Los Alamos ran the other. The reason why the Kettle one footage was declassified in Kettle two wasn't was.
- [133:38]
Danny
Simply a personal difference in what should.
- [133:42]
Matthew Shidagis
Remain classified and what shouldn't then.
- [133:45]
Danny
Crazy. And we know that. We know that those things have, you know, throughout history just been all around nuclear bases. And there's also, you know, Navy pilots from submarines talking about, you know, weird things happening around nuclear submarines.
- [133:57]
Matthew Shidagis
USOs.
- [133:58]
Danny
Yeah, yeah.
- [133:58]
Matthew Shidagis
And they can turn the. They can turn missiles on. They can turn them.
- [134:02]
Danny
Yeah, yeah.
- [134:03]
Matthew Shidagis
You know, the story of World War Three almost started because the UFO started up, Right. The countdown on Russia missiles.
- [134:09]
Danny
Yeah.
- [134:09]
Matthew Shidagis
And of course, Wall Street Journal had some bogus article how that's fake and oh my God, I'm just.
- [134:14]
Danny
Oh, it was some elaborate hazing experiment.
- [134:16]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, give me a break. You don't haze people on something that can cause the end of the world. Give me a break. Like, so you asked me earlier what could. How. What got in, got me into UFOs. I forgot to tell you. My. My snarky answer to that is at some point, the debunker explanations got dumber than just admitting. Okay.
- [134:38]
Danny
Right.
- [134:38]
Matthew Shidagis
Could be. It's probably alien.
- [134:39]
Danny
Totally.
- [134:39]
Matthew Shidagis
You know, like, at some point I've had enough of Mick West's seagulls and, you know, and Chinese lanterns and like, give me a break, okay? Like, at some point I was like, sometimes, okay, there are so many encounters, so many stories and events now where the simplest explanation is like, there was some advanced non human craft, they're like, that's the simplest explanation.
- [135:04]
Danny
Yeah. I think some of those videos, though, that came out around 2014. I think it was 2017 when the New York 17, like the go Fast video. I think those things can be explained. Explained way pretty easily. Like the one, the one with the. It looks like somebody. It looks like this thing flying above the water.
- [135:18]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, yeah.
- [135:19]
Danny
What they know people don't realize is like the plane is flying in one direction.
- [135:22]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah.
- [135:22]
Danny
There's a water in the background and then there's something that's flying the opposite direction above the water. So it's like this parallax effect.
- [135:28]
Matthew Shidagis
Yes.
- [135:28]
Danny
So that, that could very easily be a bird flying the opposite direction.
- [135:31]
Matthew Shidagis
That's right. But that can't explain the Tic Tac. No, that can't.
- [135:34]
Danny
That cannot explain. But we haven't, we don't have. The problem is we don't have video of the Tick Tock. We only have frame or.
- [135:39]
Matthew Shidagis
No, we do have video, but we only have a little bit. We have the little bit of the gun cam or the app flare public.
- [135:45]
Danny
Yeah, the Tic Tac.
- [135:46]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, it's one of the three videos. You can even see the little legs under the tick. Under the Tic Tac.
- [135:51]
Danny
Talking about the gimbal one.
- [135:52]
Matthew Shidagis
No, no, no, I'm talking about the third video. There's three.
- [135:55]
Danny
Okay.
- [135:55]
Matthew Shidagis
There's gimbal, there's Go fast, and then there's an actual tic tac video. It's a Tic tac with two little legs.
- [136:00]
Danny
Oh, okay.
- [136:01]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, no, and so like we have that and there's no, there's no explanation nation.
- [136:06]
Danny
Right. But there's got to be so much more. There's got to be so much more.
- [136:10]
Matthew Shidagis
Of course we're not going to see that.
- [136:11]
Danny
They're just not going to release ever.
- [136:12]
Matthew Shidagis
Of course not.
- [136:15]
Danny
Yeah. That one's crazy. Like, what the is that? And then it starts rotating.
- [136:20]
Matthew Shidagis
So that's the gimbal. Yeah, the gimbal is also hard to explain. And then there's a third video. There were three videos that came out in 17. Yeah, they often get mixed up. Some of them are west coast, some of them are east coast.
- [136:31]
Danny
Yeah.
- [136:31]
Matthew Shidagis
Some of the roads, Roosevelt Limits, they get mixed up all the time. But yeah, the, the, the, the Tic Tac video was analyzed by my friend Kevin. He published a paper. This is the one where. Yeah, I'll give Mick west this one. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'll give him this one.
- [136:43]
Danny
Yeah.
- [136:44]
Matthew Shidagis
But the Tic Tac cannot be explained that easily. Recently actually, There was a YouTube video by a Professor Simon who's like, oh, Tic Tac. That was the Lockheed Martin device. I'm like, really?
- [136:52]
Danny
Well, what's his name came out and said it's undeniably 100% Lockheed Martin technology.
- [136:57]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, Ross.
- [136:58]
Danny
Ross Kohlhar said that?
- [136:59]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, yeah. And that. Interesting. So they didn't read Kevin's paper that shows it was. It had accelerations beyond human capability. I mean, like, there are published papers by me, by my friend Kevin showing that's not possible. And everyone conveniently pretends they don't exist.
- [137:14]
Danny
Why couldn't it be possible that there couldn't have been some. If physics. If there's some sort of physics that was. Went dark in the 50s and they've been working on it ever since and they've been developing it and what they wanted to test it against like our. Our Navy fighters. Wouldn't. That even if there weren't wasn't humans in there, that wouldn't be like liquefied moving around. Couldn't. They wouldn't. Isn't it.
- [137:33]
Matthew Shidagis
Great question. Great question. You gotta read Kevin's paper. It's because even if it was unmanned at the accelerations that Kevin has calculated, there doesn't exist a material that could withstand that. It would just crush. And I know what you're gonna say. Oh, some breakaway civilization. No, you don't understand. There's literally against the laws of all physics.
- [137:53]
Danny
Yeah, but what if the material isn't actually going against air like that?
- [137:58]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know.
- [137:59]
Danny
It's like, what if it's like creating a cavity, A cavitational type.
- [138:01]
Matthew Shidagis
Doesn't matter. Matter doesn't matter. These are simple basic laws of physics we've known for centuries. Is one of the points of Kevin's paper is the accelerations are not possible. They would destroy any material. I don't care if it's in air. I don't care if it's in vacuum. And conveniently, everyone who spouts off, they think they have figured out the Tic Tac. They all pretend that Kevin's work and my work doesn't exist. They don't read it. They don't. In fact, did you know I have proof that Sean Kirkpatrick lied under oath and nobody's listening to me. Every. No news media outlet would carry the story for me. I said I can prove it. Nobody listened.
- [138:43]
Danny
How do you prove it?
- [138:44]
Matthew Shidagis
So here's what happened. What happened was this might be the first time, I'm saying on a podcast, but I don't care. I'll get in trouble, but whatever. I'm just sick and tired of all the lies and the obfuscation so during one of the hearings, former head of Arrow Sean Kirkpatrick said to Senator Gillibrand, to her face, under oath. It was one of those mini hearings. There was like almost nobody there. It wasn't the full Congress, I think it was like. It was just Sean Kirkpatrick, Senator Gillibrand and a few people. Okay. It was like a subcommittee meeting of some. He said, I'm going to paraphrase, but I wrote down the exact quote. Of course he said something like, there is no. There are no published scientific papers claiming that the Tic Tac encounter might have been aliens. And then he sneers, he laughs, like. And if you think otherwise, you're welcome to publish. We already published a paper. Kevin did. So can we go back to knuthlab.org and I'll show you the paper? This is many years old already now.
- [139:51]
Danny
Okay.
- [139:51]
Matthew Shidagis
It's paper published. Estimating the flight characteristics of anomalous.
- [139:55]
Danny
Maybe he just wasn't aware of it.
- [139:57]
Matthew Shidagis
I know you're gonna say that, but guess. So then he was. So then he's ignorant and he's not good at his job. He's the head of Arrow. But what if I could tell you. What if I told you that's not the case because I told him about it. So Kevin and I, uapx, we had. We actually had. We were told not to talk about it, but you know what? Screwdriver them. I'm so sick of these people. We actually talked to Arrow. We had a, like Google Meet or Microsoft Teams or whatever, Zoom or whatever the hell software. We met with them. We actually talked to them and we actually brought up Kevin's paper and it's like, look, it turns out in the Nimitz encounter these accelerations, if you apply them to interstellar craft, these would be good. Interstellar craft. You could cross the galaxy in a few months. And like we told Sean Kirkpatrick, I heard his voice. He asked me a question. I know Sean Kirkpatrick was on the call. And so. So you're not going to tell me he didn't know. So either he didn't know, in which case he's ignorant of facts that he needs for his job. Fortunately, he's not head anymore of arrow number two. Okay then. Or he's lying. Or he forgot, conveniently. Okay, so you're right. I can't prove he's lying. But he's either lying, ignorant or forgetful. Which of those is the better option? All of those options are bad. But anyway, he's aware of this paper could you go back to. Could you please click on a UAP library again like last time? So Sean Kirkpatrick knew about this paper because we told him about it. We're like, oh, and Kevin has written this great paper in this paper which Ross Callhart has conveniently forgotten exists because he knows about it too. Because I've talked to Ross. I've talked. Kevin's talked to him in it. Kevin and his friends Robert and Peter from the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies scu. They show that the Nimitz encounter demonstrates velocities, accelerations beyond human capabilities. And Mick west poo poos this. He says it's bs. It's a jet or a Seagull or whatever, the usual. This is a scientific paper.
- [141:56]
Danny
Wow.
- [141:56]
Matthew Shidagis
It passed peer review. But then you know what the critics say? Oh, it doesn't count. You know why it doesn't count? Oh, Kevin's the editor of the journal. He's not the only editor. He recused himself. And that's what they always say, say, my crash paper, that doesn't count. That's in Limina. It's a UFO journal. You know, it's the one paper they can't say doesn't count. Kevin's history of ufo, of UFO studies is in progress in Aerospace Sciences. That's a major journal. And my paper on the UAPX results is also progress Aerospace Sciences. But yeah, basically, people, skeptics always find a way to pretend that this doesn't count, that these facts, these numbers, these results are wrong or they don't count.
- [142:35]
Danny
Right?
- [142:36]
Matthew Shidagis
But what's really incredible to me is like the past week I hear all this nonsense that the Tic Tac was Lockheed Martin people. Why are they not reading the facts? Like, Kevin did a study, SCU did a study of this and it shows that this is incredible. Let's now take the perspective of like, I'm very skeptical, but let's take your perspective. Let's say, ah, it's not alien, some super advanced tech. Then I got some questions. Okay, number one, why isn't David Fravor, Top Gun Academy pilot? Why isn't he flying it? Why are we still wasting time with F16s if we have this?
- [143:12]
Danny
Because it has to be kept secret. Super classified.
- [143:15]
Matthew Shidagis
But why don't we then? Okay, I have another answer for that then. I've had this same conversation multiple times. Why did we lose Afghanistan? Why has America lost every single war it's been in since World War II? If we had this, we should be flying this shit around. We should be going To Ukraine, bailing, killing out Ukraine.
- [143:33]
Danny
It's not worth, it's not worth deploying in those types of things. We don't, we don't give a, about the people in Ukraine or Afghanistan, all that. All those wars are just about money and extracting oil.
- [143:42]
Matthew Shidagis
That's a fair point. That's a fair point.
- [143:44]
Danny
So I don't think that they would.
- [143:46]
Matthew Shidagis
Plan on, but that makes me angry. That makes me angry.
- [143:49]
Danny
Yeah.
- [143:49]
Matthew Shidagis
Because freak, if we have this technology, I want America to use it to win every war. We're like, what the hell?
- [143:56]
Danny
Yeah.
- [143:56]
Matthew Shidagis
So it makes me mad as a team taxpayer, if I paid for that. It needs to be used, not just hidden away.
- [144:03]
Danny
Yeah, no, I, I, I think, I think possibly one of the reasons for the information coming out about this stuff and, and this becoming more public in the, in the media could be some sort of a deterrence, some sort of a subliminal message to other countries who probably are working on very similar things.
- [144:23]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh yeah.
- [144:23]
Danny
To let them know that we have it in, in the case that there ever is some sort of an existential crisis to American soil.
- [144:31]
Matthew Shidagis
I have an answer to that. We don't need it. Why would we need Tic Tac? We have nukes already. We already have the best thing that could annihilate cities in seconds. I don't understand what the point is.
- [144:41]
Danny
Yeah, nukes. The problem with nukes is that everybody has nukes and as soon as a nuke gets gets launched, it's likely just going to be Armageddon. And I think everybody knows that.
- [144:51]
Matthew Shidagis
I know, but then it's same thing with the Tic Tac technology because you can use that to drop a nuke.
- [144:56]
Danny
Nuke. Yeah. But if you have the Tic Tac technology, you know, who knows what that could be used for? I don't know. I don't know how it can be used for weapons. But I, I think that again, you know, this is all conjecture. I don't know what possible weapon systems could be deployed using these things. But the fact is it's super advanced tech and it's scary carry and to let people, you know, people can use their imaginations. If you have these things that can travel from one point to another in an instant, what type of weapons do you actually have? And you know, we have deterrence with nukes. I mean we, not only do, we have, not, not only is every, there's nine nations that are armed with nukes and we have, you know, systems like the Star wars things and like these laser things and on satellites you had.
- [145:53]
Matthew Shidagis
Any potential, any Jacobson on the show.
- [145:54]
Danny
Yeah, yeah, yeah. That could potentially take out nuclear warheads when they entered the atmosphere. You know, I'm terrified of the idea of nuclear war, but I think that there's, there's other things that we're developing that we don't know about that we'll probably maybe learn about in the next 20 years. DARPA's been historically working on things that never come out into the public for at least 20 to 30 years. For example, like Neuralink, they've been working on. Yeah. On brain chips for soldiers since the early 90s.
- [146:21]
Matthew Shidagis
All that's going to collapse now. Cuz Doge has cut everything basically. So no, I'm dead serious. Funding is being cut.
- [146:28]
Danny
Doge is taking funding out of, out of things like irs, hhs.
- [146:34]
Matthew Shidagis
So you know, and my dark matter originally, they're not sort it.
- [146:37]
Danny
You know, Elon was behind Doge, but Elon gets all his money from the Pentagon where there is a $21 trillion black hole. Oh yeah, that's been going to things. So. So I don't think he's. I don't think he's attacking the Pentagon. The Pentagon just got his budget increased to a trillion dollars.
- [146:48]
Matthew Shidagis
I know, I know. I was kidding. Kidding. I was just kidding.
- [146:50]
Danny
Right.
- [146:51]
Matthew Shidagis
But my point earlier was that the thing is you can't keep secrets forever because scientists are clever, curious people. Things get accidentally rediscovered. Happens all the time.
- [146:59]
Danny
So do you think the Bob Lazar story is complete?
- [147:02]
Matthew Shidagis
Really complete? And I hate to say it because I want it to be true, but everything that comes out of his mouth is so wrong, it's against science. Like we discovered element 115 already. It has none of the properties he claims. And I feel like. So I've talked to people I know, like Eric Davis, Hal Puthoff, that I trust, and they've got a. And I've talked to people like that who said they've got a hypothesis. They think that Bob Lazar's purpose is disinformation, to say stuff that's so wrong that any scientist with half a brain cell knows immediately it's nonsense. Any physicist can listen to Bob Lazar and be like, yeah, he's not a real physicist. He's talking nonsense. And so every. Like everything he says is so wrong on so many levels. I could spend three hours on just Bob Lazar and debunking everything he said. Like, don't get me wrong, I wish he was real, I wish it was true. But he, he doesn't even get basic nuclear physics. Right. And. Come on, he never went to mit. They were. They erase the memories of all the professors. It makes no sense.
- [148:03]
Danny
There's a very reasonable explanation for that. For his records being erased. If he was.
- [148:06]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, his records could be erased, but you can't erase the memory. The professor, Bill. Oh, yeah, I had Bob in my class. Class.
- [148:11]
Danny
No, he wouldn't be in a public class. That's the point. If he was. If he. If he. There's lots of evidence of people going to MIT to work on military and weapon systems that were under the sanction of the Pentagon and that were kept secret. I know all this stuff expunged, but.
- [148:25]
Matthew Shidagis
If they open their mouth, they talk correct physics. So, for example, Eric Davis, he opens his mouth and correct physics comes out. Hal Puthoff opens his mouth. Correct things come out of his mouth. Bablazar opens his mouth.
- [148:37]
Danny
Specifically, did he say, even if it was nonsense, he didn't have to be like a. A PhD physicist.
- [148:42]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah.
- [148:43]
Danny
To be useful to some.
- [148:44]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. So I think. I think there's a grain of truth in what Bob Lazar says, but I think he misheard some things.
- [148:53]
Danny
Sure.
- [148:53]
Matthew Shidagis
And he's saying some things wrong. Maybe that's what I think is happening. But I. You can't take. Everything he says is scientifically accurate because it doesn't work.
- [149:00]
Danny
I don't think that. I don't think. I don't think the idea is saying that. He doesn't. He says a lot of bullshit or says a lot of wrong things about physics.
- [149:06]
Matthew Shidagis
Yes.
- [149:07]
Danny
I don't think that's a strong argument to him saying that. His story's full of. You know. I think it's totally saying there's a.
- [149:13]
Matthew Shidagis
Grain of truth in there. Right. Is what I'm saying. What I was saying was the physics is full of that. He says there could be a grain of truth. No, not maybe. For sure. His physics is wrong.
- [149:22]
Danny
Even if it is. If it is, if what you're saying is correct, I think it's still totally plausible that some secret black program would want to get a guy like him in there to throw at the wall to see if maybe he can tinker around and figure something out that they haven't been able to figure out in 50 years.
- [149:34]
Matthew Shidagis
That's true. That's possible. But here's that. But this is the problem.
- [149:37]
Danny
Problem.
- [149:38]
Matthew Shidagis
This is why we're not making progress.
- [149:40]
Danny
Sure. Because it's all secret. It's all compartmentalized. It's stovepipe.
- [149:42]
Matthew Shidagis
Exactly. Stovepipe. If we really wanted to make progress, we would Hire people like my friend Kevin. We'd hire smart, good scientists. We'd have Eric Davis, we'd have Hal Puthoff, who were not really part of the legacy program. They're on the outside. We would have smart people. We would have hundreds of people like the Manhattan Project. We're not making progress. If there is a crash retrieval reverse engineering program, we're not going to make progress because there's too much stove piping. There's too much compartmentalization. I honestly. Look, one part of me thinks that if, if, if, if, if Bob Lazar was totally on the up and up, he'd already be dead in the desert. Like by quote, unquote, Su himself.
- [150:22]
Danny
He came out and, and with the stuff with George Knapp in the early 90s, late 80s, that, I mean, that, that's, I think that's what he was doing, probably trying to protect himself and get his stuff out there. And that's also, you know, his background is a very discreditable background. Like the stuff that he was doing running the brothels and all the crazy stuff he was doing. And, and.
- [150:38]
Matthew Shidagis
Well, some of that could be made up conspiracy, people think.
- [150:42]
Danny
It doesn't have to. I think it's. I think a lot of it's very. Well, you can look up the court documents from his divorce to sell that he was actually running brothels, but.
- [150:49]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, but 115 exists already. We found it has none of the properties. He claims there's no stable isotopes of it. And he claims he has a little bit of it left that he's keeping at home. Good. Send some to me. I can prove it's 115 in 20 seconds. That's not exaggeration, by the way.
- [151:04]
Danny
So the problem with this stuff is you have people around him and around people like him. Him that are just incentivized to use him as a mascot, to make money and to make documentaries.
- [151:16]
Matthew Shidagis
That's right, exactly.
- [151:17]
Danny
And. And to just further their own careers. And that's my, that's my thing about this whole topic.
- [151:22]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah.
- [151:22]
Danny
Is that it's just from the beginning because you have the Internet and you have people trying to make careers off of it.
- [151:27]
Matthew Shidagis
Yes, yes, exactly that.
- [151:29]
Danny
Money's the waters.
- [151:30]
Matthew Shidagis
Even I don't want to make any money. You know, the only money I want to make off UFOs is. The only money I want to make is to turn into equipment for research and a little bit of salary to survive. I don't want to become rich and famous. I just want enough to do my work with my Friends like Kevin Edu Albany. But your point is very, very well taken. And remember what I said earlier, it's like the Fox Mulder poster, right? What does Fox Mulder's poster say? The X Files. I want to believe, right? I want to believe Bob Lazar's story. But the holes in it are so gigantic to me actually this is why I'm never gonna be invited back to Phenomicon. I gotta Phenom, you know Buffetnomicon, right? No, it's in Utah. It's the like UFO Bigfoot. It's right next to Skinwalker Rancho Bigfoot convention and it's like all about Skinwalker Ranchers.
- [152:16]
Danny
Wow, that's amazing.
- [152:17]
Matthew Shidagis
Kevin and I pissed off the entire crowd because someone during Q and A asked about Bob Lazar in 115. And then we went on and on how Bob Lazar was wrong, he's full of shit and it's impossible and blah blah, blah. Oh, we ticked off everybody. But here's the thing. I just, I wanna know the truth. Truth. I'm not going to believe some person who claims to be a whistleblower. That's why, for example, when Grush came out, I tested his claims. I wrote that paper earlier, remember I said if Grush's claim of the crash crash rate is correct, I was going to see, okay, why don't we have evidence yet? I crunched the statistics and I discovered, oh, Grush's claims are plausible. Doesn't prove they're right, but they're plausible. But right out of the gate, all of those Harris claims are not plausible within physics and, and engineering. And I know people, I've talked to people who are allegedly connected with the legacy. I have several people tell me, oh yeah, Bob Lazar is just disinformation agent to just say things that are so wrong. So that physicists like me and Kevin, but other than us, you know, other physicists, they watch Bob Lazar and they not interested in jumping into UFO studies because they're like, that's so dumb and wrong that I'm not interested in participating. It's kind of like if you take something, if you take anything that's fringe considered pseudoscience and you crank something up to 11, you're going to scare off. Well meaning people who want to come in A CIA is master at this by the way. And like you want to scare off. So I'm, I'm, I often worry that Lazar might be some sort. People worry about the same thing about Lou Elizondo. It might be some sort Of. Of misinformation, disinformation campaign. The thing is, you can't believe anyone or anything. And that's what's so scary. And it makes it so hard. But look, I hope I'm wrong. I really hope Bob Lazar is telling the truth. Because to me, that means humanity has a future. Because if somebody else can figure out interstellar travel, we can figure it out. That means there's a hopeful future. And so I want to be wrong about Bob. And I want. I'd be happy to sit down with him privately and be like, hey, I'm sorry I said you were foolish. Please prove to me I'm wrong. Show me the facts. Prove to me. Talk to me as a scientist. Right. He says he has a degree in science. Prove to me that I was wrong about you. And I'm open about it. I'm open minded. But the thing is, I'm going to call a spade a spade. And when I see massive amounts of evidence, problematic evidence stacking up, that somebody is not telling the truth, I'm deeply concerned, especially when it comes to this ufo, uf, UAP sphere.
- [155:05]
Danny
Yeah.
- [155:06]
Matthew Shidagis
Of things.
- [155:06]
Danny
Right.
- [155:07]
Matthew Shidagis
But there was some podcast I was watching and where I think Commander Fravor said, if I'm not mistaken, was like, friends with Bob Lazar, they have like, barbecues again. I'm like, I was starting to. Then, like, I'm like, Craver was saying.
- [155:20]
Danny
That he was doing this.
- [155:21]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think he was on Lex Friedman's podcast or another one. And I was like, he said, it.
- [155:26]
Danny
Seems like an interesting guy to be around.
- [155:28]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah. So I'm like, so starting to feel bad. And I'm like, oh, maybe he's not foolish. So like I said, I hope I'm wrong. But the problem is I know too much physics and what he says is just so wrong.
- [155:38]
Danny
I've gone back and forth on him. I believed him in the beginning, and then I stopped believing him for a while. And then I'm back on the Bal Bazaar train.
- [155:44]
Matthew Shidagis
Now I think I'm on the. I'm on the Eric Davis train. Actually, Actually, recently Eric Davis joined the physics faculty as an adjunct faculty at UAlbany. That was a big deal. That's a big deal. So nobody knows that because I'm not on Twitter. So as soon as somebody hears that, if they hear this on this podcast, UFO Twitter's gonna lose its shit over this news. No one's heard this. There was no press release. We didn't trumpet it. But yeah, Eric Davis is working with me and Kevin now at UAlbany remotely, he's just a volunteer. He's not paid. He's a volunteer adjunct professional. And we're honored to have him. Him, I believe, because I sit down with him, I talk physics, unlike, you know, I listen to Bob Lazarus, physics. I ask Eric questions, and guess what? His answers are reasonable. I have a PhD in physics, so I know he's not talking BS to me.
- [156:30]
Danny
Yeah, he's one of the guys that seems to be one of the few guys that's like, not detested by anybody in this space.
- [156:35]
Matthew Shidagis
Everyone seems to be serious, but he's the real deal. Wilson memo. That's the real deal. He's never going to admit that public publicly. But that's the wheel. That's real. That's.
- [156:44]
Danny
What was the Wilson memo?
- [156:45]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, that's the alleged recording of the like, of, of. Of Eric talking with Admiral Wilson about the Legacy program.
- [156:52]
Danny
Right, okay. Yeah, I've heard this before. It's just like.
- [156:54]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, yeah, people consider earth shattering revelation and. But then some people say it was debunked. It's real. But Eric's not gonna admit that. He just wants to have a, you know, he just wants to be left alone. Right, right. He just, he's got. He's got a wife and families, as do I. Like, he just wants to be left alone. Hell alone. So you don't see him on every podcast or like, promoting himself. He hasn't gotten a single dollar off of anything. And so that's again, why I think, you know, he's more likely be legitimate than people like Bob Lazar, who are just, you know, going documentaries and this, that he's just a real physicist. I asked him. So, okay, you, you talk to people in Legacy program, you've talked to people who claim reverse engineering. He gave me me the most honest answer. Better than Bob Lazar's answer. Any answer ever seen. Most plausible to be correct answer. I go, okay, Eric, how do the ships work? Bob thinks he knows. Tell me how they work, Eric. Sitting on my couchroom office, Eric says to me, matthew, we don't have a fucking clue.
- [157:51]
Danny
Hmm.
- [157:52]
Matthew Shidagis
That's the most honest answer. Think about it this way. Think about it this way. Let's do a thought experiment. Take my phone or take your phone. Let's give it to the greatest scientist of the 1890s. What do you think they would do with it? How much, what percent of it? Do you think they'd figure it out?
- [158:10]
Danny
No. Yeah.
- [158:10]
Matthew Shidagis
None. Zero. After the battery died, they would make even less progress. Where's the where's the lightning port or the USB C to plug it in in 1890? That's the problem here.
- [158:21]
Danny
If you dropped a Tesla off at somewhere exactly. In like Rome in the Romans.
- [158:25]
Matthew Shidagis
How long ago was 1818 90?
- [158:27]
Danny
A long time ago.
- [158:28]
Matthew Shidagis
Let's do the math. How long ago was 1890?
- [158:31]
Danny
1890? 200 years ago.
- [158:34]
Matthew Shidagis
So a little less than that.
- [158:35]
Danny
Less than 150 years ago.
- [158:37]
Matthew Shidagis
Okay, so to 1900, that's 125 years ago. Right. Okay, so we're talking 135 years ago. Okay, that's only 135 years. Okay. This iPhone, you agree, would never be reverse engineered. Even if you took the 100 smartest human beings on Earth. They would all die of old age having. Having figured out nothing.
- [159:02]
Danny
Right.
- [159:02]
Matthew Shidagis
And you're gonna tell me now, this is what Bob Lazar claims. You're gonna tell me that human beings can figure something out. That's millions, potentially millions. Billions of years more advanced than us. No. Yeah, and that's why Eric's answer always stuck with me. And by the way, Hal Puthoff gives the same answer. I asked him separately. He gives the same answer. We don't have a fucking clue. So you know what Hal said to Kevin once? He said, kevin, we wouldn't know the difference between their navigational computer and a sandwich.
- [159:30]
Danny
Well, Bob says that inside that craft there was no instruments, there was nothing.
- [159:35]
Matthew Shidagis
So how do we make progress? Exactly. The problem is, is that there are not enough people working on it. Number one, it's too classified and stovepiped. And number two, the other problem is, is it's too far ahead. And so we don't know. We can't. We don't know where to start. Right, Exactly. I've actually, I'm going to claim something very bold. I'm one of the only people who's actually figured out what at least one alleged UFO crash part is for. So recently I've actually, with my help of my friends Mark, who came up earlier. Remember we played the YouTube video from him with the spinning? Yeah. Thanks to my friends Mark and Jarrett. They're, you know, aerospace guys who are doing anti gravity research. They're the real guys who are actually trying to make anti gravity reality. Nobody's, you know, no men in black have killed them yet. You ask them, they're like, oh, you know, it's a good day today, right? Because men in black haven't killed me yet today. But basically, thanks to them, I got a piece. It's known as the art part. You know, Art Bell coast to coast am Linda Moulton Howell also had this. So I got a friend fragment that's allegedly from New Mexico from 1947, and I've been doing material analysis on it, and I'm going to publish a paper on it, hopefully by the end of this year or next year. Then I'm going to print out that paper and I want to shove it up the ass or down the throat of every single skeptic and debunker because we found that that material is anomalous and discovered that the Arrow report on this material was a lie. It was a whitewash. They didn't list half of the elements in it. They didn't list any of the interesting isotopic configurations, nothing. Gary Nolan knows this. A few people know this who have pieces of the mother sample. There was a big sample. I only got a fragment of it. And I developed a whole new technique. I developed a new way of testing what something is made of faster and cheaper.
- [161:32]
Danny
You did?
- [161:33]
Matthew Shidagis
Yes, I did. Than existing technologies. Techniques. Yes. And so I'm hoping that people start sending me, like, actual parts. I can determine whether something is terrestrial or extraterrestrial.
- [161:43]
Danny
How?
- [161:44]
Matthew Shidagis
By the isotopic ratio. So everything is made of elements, and each of those elements has isotopes, but the isotopic ratios are unique to different planets, different parts of the galaxy. Still doesn't conclusively prove something's extraterrestrial, because a skeptic could always say, oh, it was part of a nuclear test and it changed the. The isotopic composition. Sure. But what I can't. What I can. What I can demonstrate is whether something is weird. I know that's very vague, but I can demonstrate whether something's weird, whether it's anomalous, or whether it's boring like, oh, this is just a hunk of aluminum.
- [162:15]
Danny
That reminds me, are you familiar with the. There was some sort of material with a certain configuration of isotopes that was found in, like, new. In the middle of, like, nuclear blasts that they found that matched the exact type of material they found on Mars. Have you ever heard of this?
- [162:33]
Matthew Shidagis
I have not heard of this. Oh, so maybe we created by accident.
- [162:36]
Danny
Georgiani was. Was. Remember this, Steve? When Joe Johnny was talking about this, he was. He.
- [162:40]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, are you talking about the possibility there was like, a nuclear war back in the day Mars?
- [162:45]
Danny
This was his theory. But the hard evidence that he explained to back this up was that there was some sort of material with isotopes that were found on nuke. In nuclear.
- [162:55]
Matthew Shidagis
Oh, yeah, yeah, yes, yes, yes. That matched.
- [162:57]
Danny
Heard of this that match specifically specific isotopes they configure like you're talking about the place.
- [163:03]
Matthew Shidagis
I know who you're talking about because he's one of the co stars on a show I'm on. Actually the proof is out there on the History Channel.
- [163:09]
Danny
Okay.
- [163:09]
Matthew Shidagis
And he's the Mars guy. I know you're talking about the guy who thinks that there was a civilization on Mars.
- [163:15]
Danny
John Brandenburg theory suggests that the red color of Mars could be evidence of catastrophic. But what's the.
- [163:20]
Matthew Shidagis
What's Xenon 129?
- [163:22]
Danny
Xenon 129, that's what it is.
- [163:24]
Matthew Shidagis
Funny coincidence. Remember I use xenon to look for dark matter.
- [163:27]
Danny
Right, right.
- [163:27]
Matthew Shidagis
So that's just a coincidence.
- [163:28]
Danny
Right. So what does it say? So Jon claims Cydonia.
- [163:32]
Matthew Shidagis
Ah, yes, yes, yes. So it's. I don't think it's Brandenburg, but one of his associates something. There's a guy who's head of the Cydonia Society who's a co star and the proof is out there with me.
- [163:42]
Danny
Oh, so this is what the theory. So, so Xenon129 is consistent across the entire solar system except for on Mars.
- [163:50]
Matthew Shidagis
Yes, yes, yes, yes. So that we're talking about isotopic races. Yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
- [163:55]
Danny
Yeah.
- [163:56]
Matthew Shidagis
Is that there are. Yes. Unique signatures in different locations. Yeah, Mars is a problem, but. Exactly. But my point is that I want to look at the isotopic ratios. I'm using a non destructive technique to determine the composition of a material. I'll tell you though, so far I've only gotten one potentially anomalous thing. Most of the things is ufo. You know, crazy people send me it's a meteorite or it's a piece of an airplane. So most of the time unfortunately it's boring. But finally, thanks to knowing the right people and being patient, I finally got a piece of something that's really interesting. And I have. And let's see how silent the mainstream media is gonna be on this. I'm going to publish later this year definitive evidence that the government lied about this material and published a whitewashed report claiming it was not anomalous when they knew better. And I have definitive proof that's anomalous. That's strange. I don't have proof it's extraterrestrial. To be clear. Not yet, but it's weird. And they claim it's not weird. Oh, it's a boring piece of whatever slag.
- [165:12]
Danny
It's like.
- [165:12]
Matthew Shidagis
No it's not.
- [165:13]
Danny
When is this Coming out.
- [165:14]
Matthew Shidagis
I'm hoping by the end of the year.
- [165:15]
Danny
End of the year.
- [165:16]
Matthew Shidagis
Because here's the thing, thing. I don't want to get gate kept past test. I don't want, I want to get all my ducks in a row. I want to double check it. I want to triple check it. I want to quadruple check it before I submit it for scientific peer review. Because what I don't want to happen is I want it to be perfect. I want it to be an airtight case so like I said, I can publish the paper in a major scientific journal and then shove it in the face of people. People who have been poo pooing UFOs for years. I'm sick and tired of them. I'm sick and tired of Neil DeGrasse Tyson going out there saying oh, it's all nonsense. Oh, aliens, oh blah blah, blah. What if the invite, you know, it's. You know what I'm tempted to do? I could totally pull this off to get his attention. It's very hard to get his attention because I'm not important. I'm at an unimportant university, not trying to be rich and famous. I'm at a low. I'm not at Harvard, I'm not at Stanford. Just to get under his skin. What I'm hoping to be able to do. So I've actually been working with Neil DeGrasse Tyson's high school where he graduated because I've been reviewing their physics courses because I'm part of Ualbany and the high school program, the university high school program where they're doing college course at university level. One of them is Neil DeGrasse Tyson's alma mater, the high school he graduated from. So here's, I'm thinking I was going to go to the principal. I'm still thinking of doing this. I might start to do this, be like, hey, can I give a talk on UFOs and do this at Neil DeGrasse Tyson's high school that he went to school at. Get it in the newspaper, get it all over mainstream media to the point where he's like, who's this Matthew guy? Where he's finally forced to pay attention.
- [167:01]
Danny
That's amazing.
- [167:01]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah, that's my goal, just to get under, get under his skin. Because I'm sick and tired of him claiming there's no physical evidence. Well then what the fuck am I testing in my lab? That's not an eyewitness account, it's not a video. I have a piece of material that is not Easy to explain. That's physical evidence. Okay, so? So I'm sick and tired of people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson saying there's no physical evidence. Yes, there is. There's Delphos, Kansas. There's all these alleged UFO crashes and landings where there is physical evidence. Evidence that's been subjected to chemical testing and there are evidence of anomalies. Just talk to Gary Nolan. Talk to any. Talk to Jacques Vallee. There is physical evidence from some cases. But if you close your eyes and you stuff your fingers in your ears like all the dogmatic people do and play la la la la. I'm not listening. Then you're not gonna see any of the evidence. You're not gonna see Kevin's paper that we talked about earlier that shows that Tic Tac could have crossed the galaxy Sexy in six months. And nobody cares. Nobody reads the paper. Nobody understands. It's insane.
- [168:13]
Danny
Well, listen, man, I hope you continue to do this and bring this energy to this topic and do all these things to get this stuff out, because I think we could use more people like you out there trying to put this out in the public and point out all the craziness.
- [168:26]
Matthew Shidagis
I'm open source, no NDAs, no classification. I'm going to be discovering stuff. And what am I to do? Going to do. I'm going to publish it so you can read it. Yeah.
- [168:37]
Danny
I love it, dude. Matthew, thank you so much for your time. I wasted three hours. Tell people where they can find you online, find your website, your papers, all this stuff.
- [168:44]
Matthew Shidagis
Well, it's funny because I'm not on social media, like I said earlier on your Facebook, but there's a very easy way to find everything I've ever published. And the reason is almost nobody on this planet has the same last name name as me. Less than 100 people, I would estimate. And so the easiest way to find everything I've written without a paywall is to go to archive.org a, r x I v.org and you just type in my last name. Shidagis S, z y, D A, G I, S. You'll find everything I've ever written. Like my mainstream stuff, of course, too. Dark matter. Yeah, there we go. Yeah, there it is. Now, archive is a beautiful thing. It was created by Carnell University. It's a way of trying to get around the gatekeeping at a lot of journals. You basically, you throw up your paper here before it's gone through peer review.
- [169:36]
Danny
Right.
- [169:36]
Matthew Shidagis
Unfortunately, Arxiv does have a dark side as well. They in recent years have started to do some of their own gatekeeping. And so I know people who have gotten their papers rejected from Arxiv when it's like, how can it be rejected? It's not supposed to be peer reviewed. Yeah. So. Yeah. So Archive has positive and negative side.
- [169:55]
Danny
Doing, like, a Wikipedia type deal, huh?
- [169:57]
Matthew Shidagis
Yes, yes, yes, yes. Exactly. Yes. You know what recently happened to the debrief? Like, they kicked them off of Wikipedia to their tabloid. I'm friends with the debrief. Micah Hanks. You know Micah.
- [170:07]
Danny
No, I don't. So, yes, I know Bill Clinton got all his stuff about Epstein removed from his Wikipedia recently.
- [170:13]
Matthew Shidagis
Convenient, right? Yeah. So. But. But. So Archive is doing some gatekeeping, but I have been blessed that they haven't rejected any of my stuff, including my crazy UFO stuff. Everything I've ever written, you can find right there.
- [170:25]
Danny
Fantastic. Well, hopefully we keep it that way.
- [170:27]
Matthew Shidagis
Yeah.
- [170:27]
Danny
And thanks again for your time, man. I really appreciate coming down here and talking to us.
- [170:31]
Matthew Shidagis
Thank you. Thank you for having me.
- [170:32]
Danny
All right, good night, everyone.