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

The short flashes and not streaks,

they're associated with things that are

extremely flat and extremely reflective.

>> Wow.

>> Like mirrors.

>> Like mirrors.

>> This is from the Palomar Observatory

before we had satellites in space.

How many of these transients did you

find?

>> Our original sample is around uh 105,000

transients from just the northern

hemisphere.

Dr. Beatatrice Voriel holds a PhD in

astrophysics. She's won the L'Oreal

UNESCO prize for women in science. She's

currently an associate professor at

Stockholm University where her research

runs the gambit from active galactic

nuclei to transient phenomena in the

search for intelligent life.

>> If I look at everything that I learned

in the last years, I I will be fair. I

don't think we are alone. I think we

have company.

In other words, Dr. Vrial is someone who

really knows her when it comes to

the night skies and cosmos.

>> My name is Beatatrice Varel and I'm a

very curious person.

>> And it's precisely these illustrious

mainstream astronomical accomplishments

which make her latest paradigm

shattering results all the more shocking

and threatening to the establishment.

>> Dr. Let me first say that your

reputation

>> actually first. Could you ask the

gentleman with the firearms to wait

outside?

>> Dr. V Royale has found over 100,000

light reflecting unidentified objects on

the plates of the Palomar Observatory,

the most prominent observatory in use in

the 1950s. The only thing is she

detected these objects before the first

satellite Sputnik ever orbited Earth.

You heard me right. A conventionally

renowned astronomer has detected over a

100,000 UFOs before humans ever put

anything in space. And the debunkers are

flailing in their attempts to take her

down. Do you feel like the world is

ready to accept this?

In this exclusive long- form interview,

we address it all. We stress test her

results and even speak to a PhD from

Vanderbilt, Dr. Steven Bruell, who's

followed up on Beatatric's study and

correlates these UFO appearances with

nuclear tests.

The transients correlate not only with

nuclear testing, but also show a small

but statistically significant

correlation with UAP reports from the

general public. Whoa.

If you've seen our show or read the work

of the great Robert Hastings, you'll

know that the Nuclear UFO Connection is

widespread, ongoing, and global. We've

even interviewed a top presidential

adviser at the end of his life who

admitted to holding UFO material that

came from a nuclear detonation in the

Marshall Islands in late 1963.

>> Hler, that's amazing. But this is

unprecedented. We've never correlated

those anecdotal sightings with the

astronomical record. What's even more is

that all of this work has received peer

review in mainstream astronomical

journals. In other words, she has

finally caught the white whale in UFO

science, academic validation.

>> And then they can get their own

ontological shock. Why? Why should only

I have it?

So strap yourselves in, leave the

Earth's atmosphere behind, and prepare

to never see the night sky the same way

again as we welcome this week's

returning Swedish alchemist, the amazing

Dr. Beatatrice Voral.

>> Different parts of the range have

different activities.

>> But you know that, don't you?

>> Maybe you should interview me.

Beatrice Bale, thank you so much for

being here, a return guest on American

Alchemy. I couldn't be more excited to

have you because you had discovered some

amazing things the last time we spoke,

but this time you have discovered things

that I think are so onlogically shocking

and are hard to kind of compute for the

average person because they wholesale

change our worldview and our

understanding of the earth, its place in

the cosmos, objects surrounding the

earth. And so I'm just so grateful for

you. Uh thank you for for being here.

Thank you for for spending time with us

in Stockholm.

>> It's a pleasure and it's a pleasure to

have you here in Stockholm.

>> Walk me through the day that you saw

that there were maybe, you know, all

these transients, these objects that

were basically calling UFOs surrounding

the Earth. What what what happened that

day?

>> Um well, I've been working with

transients for a while. But I think a

lot of people know about this transient

work where we have been looking for like

multiple transients in images. Sometimes

you can see multiple of them appearing

and vanishing within half an hour.

>> What is what is a transient?

>> So imagine a light flash or something

that changes in the sky. You have all

these stars in the skies. You have

galaxies. But some things change their

luminosity and sometimes they change it

on a short time. And in our case, we saw

things that appeared and vanished within

half half an hour. And we had two such

examples that were statistically

significant.

>> One is uh five objects on a narrow band

and it's from the 27th of July 1952.

>> And then my colleague Enrique Solano in

Spain, he discovered another such really

beautiful example with three super

bright, beautiful stars is the most

beautiful example of all we have. This

one is from the 19th of July 1952. And

then my colleague Dave Altman who is the

manager, media manager for Vasco, he

said, "Do you know what happens or what

happened on 19th of July 1952?" No, I

wasn't around.

>> So he introduced me to the Washington uh

flap

>> in Washington. Ghostlike objects dart

across the radar screen at the CIA

traffic control center at National

Airport for several hours.

>> This was a national event. It was a It

was all over the press. It was in, you

know, newspapers saying white, you know,

saucers on the White House lawn. It

prompted a call between Truman and

Edward J. Rupelt, who was the head of

Blue Book at the time. And it was, you

had this Washington invasion or DC

flyover where there were saucers all

over DC at the time. And it was spec, it

was July of 1952, but it was

specifically two weekends. It was the

19th and 20th, and it was the 26th and

27th. So, I find that absolutely

remarkable. So there I started

understanding like there is something

more to these transients

>> and at the same time I I've been having

all this discussion for several years

with people who thinks no it's just

plate defects you're trying to see

systematics in plate defects.

>> Real quick just for the audience what is

a plate and why are other astronomers

saying that you're only seeing plate

defects when you're looking for these

flashes of light

>> in the old times in the 50s. H in order

to make a picture of the sky with a

telescope you used big glass plates big

that were big and heavy. They had an

emulsion on top on top of it and then

they tried to observe the sky and they

made a survey observing the sky like the

Palomar Observatory for example and

Harvard they they took images of the

skies with these plates and um these

images they have been digitized

>> so even if they're somewhere in an

archive then you today can access the

digital images

>> and um it was u assumed assumed or

known. I don't anymore know if I should

use known or assumed that many of these

dots that could be there could be some

kind of emulsion defects.

>> And people thought, okay, so in order to

select a star or something like that,

people normally took uh two images and

only selected those that appeared on two

images. But if you do that, you're

missing a lot of short-lived phenomena

that might only be seen for a few

minutes

>> because then you miss all that. it's not

going to be in your samples and

astronomy is all about sample selection.

The way how you define your sample, you

need to to think through the criteria

very carefully when you start doing this

research. Yes. So when we have been

talking about this multiple transients

that people say, oh, you're probably

just running into plate defects that

just happen to coincidentally look like

stars.

>> And when you say emulsion,

>> what what does that mean?

>> And this chemistry you put on these

plates. M. So the chemistry you put on

the plates when the light shows through

it, you get almost like a stain or like

a record an increase.

>> Exactly. A bubble

>> of what was in the sky.

>> Yeah. Exactly. And they think Yeah.

Sorry. Yeah. You get if if you have bad

luck, you get a plate effect like a

bubble or something like that. But if

you have something uh real then you will

get a star.

>> Yes. And so you have these plates and

they they come from the Palomar

Observatory

>> those that I work with.

>> And was this a wellrespected observatory

at the time?

>> Yes. one of the greatest ones and Fritz

Swiki was there

>> and there were many very famous

astronomers that were there. So yeah, so

we are working with this stuff where

people have that people have been using

for u doing really great astronomy. Now

we're going back and looking at these

digitized images and of course I'm

having my discussion with people

thinking ah it's just plate defects and

then there's a simple way of testing it

actually that's much stronger. Well, one

of the tests we did were these

alignments where we still found things.

But there's a even cooler way how you

can test that. You can actually see uh

if you have uh the same number of

transients

uh when you look outside the earth's

shadow or when you look inside the

earth's shadow because all the time the

earth cast a shadow. It's like a cone

and the further you are from the earth

the narrower is this um shadow.

So my hypothesis was that there were um

that uh these transients came from solar

reflections at 42,164

kilometers from the earth or somewhere

there around. Um and one of the ways how

you can check it is to see are there

more transients inside where you know

the earth shadow is at a certain time or

is it like fewer transients. M

>> and of course for every transient uh we

have the coordinate and we also have the

time of the observation so you can

calculate is it inside earth shadow or

not.

>> And uh if it would be plate defects you

would have no deficit.

>> Yeah.

>> If it's 100% uh solar reflections you

will have zero transients there.

>> Yes.

>> And if you have that a part of them are

real and a part of them are plate

defects you will have a deficit.

>> Mhm. uh and you can basically estimate

how big fraction of your objects that

seem to be authentic.

>> Of course, what do we do? We test this.

>> Yes,

>> because we have this code from a guy

called GYR. So, he it's a public code

and then we have the transient sample

from my colleague at the Spanish virtual

observatory.

>> So, it's quite easy to test. You just

insert the coordinates from the sample

into the code and you count things. And

guess what? you get a huge deficit.

>> Wow.

>> And that's when you start saying like

did I do something wrong?

>> Yeah.

>> And you start thinking did I calculate

the the area of a circle on the sky

correctly? And you start doing all kind

of things just to test did I screw up?

>> So and for the audience so you're

basically showing that the earth's

shadow would not obviously a solar

reflection wouldn't show up there.

Exactly. a real object, you know, if it

was in the the way of the sun, you would

get a solar reflection. A non-real

object, you wouldn't get anything.

Right. And so what you're showing is

that these are real solar reflections

because there is a deficit in the

Earth's shadow of these objects.

>> Exactly. Because inside the Earth's

shadow, if the sun doesn't reach Yeah.

you're not going to get the reflection.

>> While if you're outside Earth's shadow,

it's going to reflect sunlight. So

that's a remarkable finding because it

shows that these are real objects

because the idea that there are plate

defects that's not going to play

favorites ver you know as far as the

earth shadow or not earth shadow. It's

just going to be evenly distributed

throughout a plate defect is a plate

defect.

>> Exactly. And it's possible that many of

the transients we've been working with

are plate defects because we only see

one that there's a deficit of some of

one/irdow. Uh so yes maybe there are a

lot of plate defects in the samples but

you still have a 30% deficit or 30 35%

it still means that 30 to 35% of the

objects we are working with come from

solar reflections and not any solar

reflections because these flashes that

we see and these short flashes and not

streaks they're associated with things

that are extremely flat and extremely

reflective.

>> Wow.

>> Like mirrors and that makes it more fun.

>> Like mirrors. mirrors.

>> Interesting. Yeah.

>> Not something not not a stone, not a

rock,

>> right?

>> Not ice, not round flats.

>> This is from the Palomar Observatory

before we had satellites in space.

>> Yes.

>> So that's fascinating. And if you think

about it, plate defects again would be

even you're going to have some margin of

error due to plate defects. Maybe like

you said 30 35%. But it's not going to

be only, you know, where the sun is.

That that that makes sense.

>> So even if you would have 80% of like uh

plate defects, you still would have a

substantial fraction of the objects that

seem to be real. And that's what counts.

I would be happy if it would be 1%. But

when you get like 30 to 35% and you say,

am I calculating it correctly?

>> You almost hope for it.

At this point in the interview, you

might be wondering about the fact that

Beatatrice is looking at the most

prominent astronomical observatory in

use at the time. So why wasn't this

discovered earlier? And why haven't

these findings been replicated? Well, a

man who held just about every clearance

in the book and ran the Harvard

Observatory in the 1950s, who was also

part of the Bureau of Public Standards,

basically compiling a lot of the

astronomical data known to the public in

the ' 50s and60s was a guy named Donald

Menzel. Dr. Donald Menzel came out

swinging against UFOs. But thanks to

Beatatrice and others, we know the true

story. He was even caught by his

understudy Dorit Hofflight destroying

astronomical plates at the Harvard

Observatory.

>> And he helped the uh US Air Force to

debunk the Washington 1952 flap.

>> Y

>> and two or three months after he

suddenly becomes the director of Harvard

Observatory and he destroys onethird of

the photographic place and and he

doesn't ask, as I understand from the

record, he doesn't ask the astronomers

to select the place. No, he asked his

secretary to go and throw away uh

onethird of the plates. And there's a

woman Dory Tofflight that has been uh

like telling about the story in her

memoirs and kind of he started revenging

on her later too for as I understood it

for that she tried to protect some of

the plates. He also threw away a a

number of the log books that are keeping

the observations and what plates exist.

So you only have a handful of

observatories in use at the time and you

have a national security state headed up

by people like Don Menzel tightly

controlling the information disseminated

to the public. It's not beyond belief to

me then that a widespread coverup could

have occurred. So we've shown that these

aren't plate defects because plate

defects don't move intelligently around

based on the Earth's shadow. They also

don't move intelligently around based on

nuclear detonations occurring in the 40s

and 50s. And if you're wondering just

how ubiquitous the UFO nuclear

connection actually is, check out my

interview with the great journalist

Robert Hastings, author of the book UFOs

and Nukes, who's chronicled 167 Qcle

cleared nuclear base employees who have

blown the whistle on UFOs showing up all

over our nuclear installations. Roswell

was the site of the most nukes in the US

in 1947 at the time of the Roswell

crash. Unless you think this is an

American deep state SCOP, you can go as

far as Japan, where a town named Eno,

which is right next to the Fukushima

prefrure, has a mountain, Mount Senori,

where UFOs constantly show up. Many of

the town's people are obsessed with

UFOs. They have a museum on top of this

mountain dedicated to UFOs. Eno is

directly adjacent to the Fukushima

prefrure and their civilian nuclear

grid. In the 90s in Zimbabwe, over 60

school children all saw a UFO land and

an alien descend out of the craft and

telepathically speak to them. And where

is this school's location?

>> And you know, an aerial school that was

near a uranium uh mining site.

>> That is right. As far as I understand,

>> when we first started selling

merchandise at americanm.com,

we had no idea how complicated and

annoying selling merch could be. We

talked to a dozen different platforms

and companies comparing shipping tools,

payment options, website builders, and

it all felt like way more of a headache

and complicated than it should be. We

decided on Shopify, and within days, our

store was up. Everything was running

cleanly in an automated way so we could

just focus on the brand and the vision

we had for it. That's when it hit us.

Ideas don't scale on inspiration alone.

They need a structure, a container.

Shopify provides that structure. It

quietly powers millions of creators and

brands, about 10% of all United States

e-commerce. From big names like Gym

Shark and Mattel to solo creators

building from their bedrooms, Shopify

made it simple to build a store that

actually feels authentic to us, which

matters when your brand lives in a niche

like alternative tech, UFOs, or fringe

science. And when you have a very clear

brand vision, plus their AI tools help

write descriptions, organize products,

even clean up photos, so we can focus on

what matters and what we care about.

building the best custom merch line

possible with the coolest designs like

our UFO cowboy tea and the atomic age

tee. Plus, Shopify handles all of the

unglamorous, more painful stuff.

Shipping, returns, email marketing, all

in one clean dashboard. It's like having

a silent partner who never sleeps. Our

favorite part of the product is the

dashboard, which gives us complete

demographic information. We can see

where our orders come from, making it

easy to know who our most loyal,

consistent customers are around the

world. That's just one example, but

Shopify really makes your life easier.

Bring your next idea to life with

Shopify quietly handling everything

behind it. Sign up for your $1 per month

trial and start today at

shopify.com/jesse.

Again, that's shopify.com/jesse.j

ssse for a $1 a month trial. Again,

that's just $1 a month to try Shopify,

the state-of-the-art solution in

e-commerce.

>> So, this is amazing because you've

basically found pre-satellites in space

uh objects surrounding the Earth. How

many of these transients did you find?

>> Well, it depends on how one counts. Now,

our original sample is around uh 105,000

transients from just the northern

hemisphere, but we assume that it's only

one/ird of these that are uh relevant.

So we can count on 70,000 all over.

>> Mhm.

>> Um

however, I don't know how many of these

uh transients might be associated with

only one object or if it's like one

object could give several of them.

>> I just don't know at the moment. We have

to investigate this.

>> Yes. Because a transient is a flash of

light. Exactly.

>> And so it could be the same object

flashing traveling or whatever. And you

found this over what period of time?

>> It's over six years. It's seven. It's

like some 780 hours of u exposure time.

>> Okay.

>> So we Yeah, we need to do the

calculations correctly. I think it's

something like uh 1.1 transient per

square degree per hour.

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> Wow. So like almost like 15,000 per year

or something.

>> It's a fun number.

>> Yeah. What I didn't know is that there's

apparently since the early 1960s there

were something called uncorrelated

targets.

>> Uhhuh.

>> And people have been finding them in

hundreds per week or something like that

where again they see something only once

or a few times on a radar or with

optical sensors and then they they can't

track it. So it becomes an uncorrelated

target and they always reduced

>> from the background when people

calculate a number of objects in space

let's say space trash and um satellites

in space

>> how do you separate an uncorrelated

target from a satellite how do you know

because it's not orbiting like a

satellite

>> because they can't track it so they they

if I understand it correctly NASA and

those always remove it from the

background

>> okay

>> sorry they remove this background of

uncorrelated targets from the total uh

number of things that they see in order

to calculate the number of objects in

space. However, I think that they're uh

they don't do it themselves. It's done

by militaries and it's classified list.

So, it's kind of becoming a little bit

more fun. I'm trying to look into this

right now.

>> Yeah. So m maybe like uh you mentioned

recently like you know NASA's kind of

the more civilian space exploration

output obviously they do intelligence

work as well but maybe space force has

these targets these uncorrelated targets

and they remove them for NASA

>> I think that's what I heard from someone

on the inside yes that they don't do it

themselves is the space force that has

these lists these lists are classified

as also those earliest from the 1960s

because what I would like to uh is one

of these lists

>> coordinates and check if they vanish in

the shadow.

>> Totally. I mean because if they if they

didn't vanish they wouldn't just be

noise because it sound it sounds like

systematically people looking at space

are calling them uncorrelated targets.

You're basically it's like a oh they're

just it's noise in the data or

something. It's something to be filtered

out. But in fact you have other agencies

that are systematically tracking the

noise because it's not just noise. It's

these are objects maybe.

>> It's very interesting and I I learned

also that it's like they make up the

majority of the things that we see on

the sky today. But again, I didn't know

about it. So I'm wondering a little bit.

Are my transients similar to these

uncorrelated targets? Of course.

>> Yeah,

>> it's one of the things I'm wondering

about because that would be interesting.

>> That would be amazing because 15,000 a

year or 20 thou, you know, whatever

number that we come to is a lot. I mean,

the amount of satellites in space, like

I don't even know what we're at right

now, but I mean, obviously Starlink is

dramatically increasing the amount in

the sky, but it's not a ton. And the

uncorrelated objects, just for the

audience, because we've jumped back and

forth between transients, which are

these light flashes that you were

detecting in these plates from the, you

know, 50 to 56, and uncorrelated

objects. Do we know that these are the

same thing or

I have no idea. I'm just spec like

speculating around this. I'm just

curious and trying to look into this

right now. These are just where my

thoughts are wandering.

>> But if you saw that there was a drop off

in these uncorrelated objects around the

Earth's shadow, you could show that

again they're physical objects and maybe

if we could show that they were the same

amount as what you found in the the

plates from, you know, the ' 50s, maybe

you'd get, you know, some sort of match.

But

>> would love to see that like especially

these uncorrelated targets if they come

from optical sensors it would be super

interesting to see if they vanish in the

earth shadow. It would also support not

only that they're physical but that they

are artificial.

As it turns out these uncorrelated

targets are a gateway to a much deeper

rabbit hole stretching all the way back

to the dawn of the space race. Our story

begins in 1953,

4 years before Sputnik. Enter Major

Donald Kho, a retired Marine Corps naval

aviator and one of the earliest public

advocates for UFO disclosure. Kho states

something astonishing that the Air Force

was tracking two unknown artificial

satellites 400 and 600 m up in low Earth

orbit. The timing here was likely not a

coincidence. That same year, a very

unusual project started at White Sands

Missile Range, a military-funded

initiative to track small natural

satellites. Think asteroids captured in

orbit. Two remarkable scientists were in

charge. First up is meteorite expert Dr.

Lincoln Leaz. Before joining this

special search for many moons around

Earth, Dr. Leaz headed up Project

Twinkle, an Air Force investigation into

unexplained green fireballs showing up

across American nuclear sites documented

at places like Los Alamos and Hollowman

Air Force Base. Leaz arrived at the

conclusion that these green fireballs

were not a known natural phenomenon and

they seemed to propel themselves

intelligently. Second on the project, we

have Clyde Tomba. Yes, that Clyde

Tombop, the man who discovered Pluto,

the man whose ashes are now speeding

towards interstellar space inside the

most expensive urn ever built, NASA's

New Horizon spacecraft. Until the day he

died, Tomba remained steadfast in his

conviction that some UFOs could

represent visiting alien spacecraft. So,

one has to wonder, given wild rumors

from credible sources and the cast of

characters involved, what exactly did

they actually find? On August 23rd,

1954, Aviation Week and Space Technology

published a statement from Leaz, one

which begged way more questions than it

answered. Leaz confirmed that there were

indeed two unknown objects, but

simultaneously he claimed that the two

unknown objects were fully identified

natural asteroids caught in Earth's

gravitational grasp. He might have been

doing this to dispel American domestic

panic that this could have been Soviet

tech. But if you read between the lines,

there's a lot that just doesn't add up.

Firstly, these observations directly

corroborate Kho's story. White Sands

Missile Range actually was tracking two

unidentified objects in low Earth orbit,

but it also contradicts just about

everything else we know about the

historic and scientific record. These

two quote unquote natural satellites

never show up again in any of the

literature on asteroids and near-Earth

objects. Given that the moon is regarded

as the Earth's only permanent natural

satellite, these two mini moons should

have been a major astrophysical

discovery. I'm talking national news

major. Yet, we never heard about these

two objects again. Perhaps strangest of

all, in the official Near-Earth

Satellite Project's final report, these

two objects aren't even mentioned. Not

only that, but the report concludes that

there are no natural satellites orbiting

the Earth. But if that was true, if

there were really no natural satellites,

then what the hell were these two

unknowns?

Perhaps most remarkably, the most

important US government documents

surrounding UFOs from exactly when the

Palmar Observatory was making these

observations in the early 50s quite

literally refers to objects with

metallic and light reflecting surfaces

that were flat on the bottom. So, the

Air Force and CIA documents at the time

describe objects that exactly sound like

the mirrorlike features Beatatric's data

implies. These documents include the

1947 Twining memo, the 1948 Project Sign

analysis, and the CIA's analysis of the

1952 DC UFO flyover, along with Blue

Book lead Captain Edward J. Rupelt's

analysis and more. UFOs are consistently

described as light reflecting, luminous,

shiny, metallic objects. Characteristics

that would likely show up as light

transients on astronomical plates like

the Palomar Observatories.

Have you tried to corroborate your

findings from the Palomar Observatory?

Because people maybe forever will try to

say it's plate defects even though plate

defects aren't going to be biased

towards you know what's not in the

earth's shadow and where the sun is

hitting that doesn't make any sense

>> unless they are intelligent plates

>> unless they're int then you're

>> they move around on the plate just to

avoid a shadow.

>> Yeah. So they're the real conspiracy

theorists the plate defects people are

you know they're into Yeah. Yeah.

Intelligent plate defects.

>> Exactly. Um, have you tried to look at

other observatory data, other plates

from the 50s to cross reference that

data against the Palomar?

>> I really want to do it. It's a big

project because every time you um try to

let's say uh look at a new place

collection, it's a big extraction like

the whole process to look through the

place even the digital ones. It's a it's

it's a project for maybe two years or

so. So I hope I will get maybe a

post-doctoral uh researcher to help to

do this.

>> A lot of people watching this might be

asking, "Oh, it's convenient that

Beatatric who was interested in UFOs is

finding, you know, UFOs." Um, how would

you respond to to those people? Because

the way you're describing it to me, it's

kind of undeniable from a first

principles viewpoint that this is worthy

of investigation and it's very clear.

But

>> it's called a scientific method. You

have a hypothesis. When you build the

LHC to looks for the when they built the

LHC to look for the H boson, they also

have a hypothesis in the beginning. When

they look for a particular particle,

they know what they are looking for. Is

it there or not? Yes,

>> it's a scientific method. Why should

UFOs or alien life be an exclusion? I

mean,

>> that's a that's a beautiful way to put

it. The scientific method involves the

interplay between hypotheses and

testing. And if you can't even have the

hypothesis that there could be, you

know, other life or other objects that

we don't detect out there, you're not

going to obviously find it because it's

Yeah. So if you go very generally and

you look for UFOs and you start looking

uh let's I mean I've seen some

astronomers suggesting that you should

um just look without any hypothesis and

do like a classify things like you're

classifying butterflies. I think you're

not going to find anything.

>> Well obviously

>> because because you have no hypothesis

you don't target your experiment.

>> Yes. and you are going to invest years

into that and you might have a great

classific like great catalog of things

but I'm not interested in the catalog.

>> Yes,

>> I want to ask the question. I want to

design the experiment. Of course, you're

going to have a lot of pitfalls, things

that can go wrong. It's all trial and

error. We're learning continuously.

>> But this is what I want to do. I want to

test the question. I want to do the

experiment and I want to analyze the

data and see what is the outcome.

>> And it's a great example you used. You

said LHC which is the Large Hydron

Collider which is CERN this big particle

accelerator. The Higsfield I believe was

predicted in the 70s and they actually

discovered it much later obviously with

the Large Hydron Collider. So it's a

perfect example of you need to be open

or knowledgeable about the thing you're

looking for before you find it. It's not

just science is not like uh remove your

brain and you're just like an instrument

or a sensor. you have to target your

sensor, you know, against something. And

so that's what you're doing. And here's

where I think things get even more

exciting for people like me who have

been into UFOs for a very long time and

have long known about this connection

between UFOs and nuclear detonations. I

mean, it's a ubiquitous phenomena.

There's a great book by a journalist

named Robert Hastings called UFOs and

nukes and it documents

the global widespread phenomena of UFOs

showing up around nuclear installations,

nuclear civilian energy grids and

nuclear weapons facilities. You have 167

Qcle cleared missilebased security

personnel, radar operators, guys that

work at these these bases who are

basically hired to protect the crown

jewels of defense. and they have to

report if they're taking, you know,

Tylenol or ibuprofen, like they

literally have to be the picture of

mental health and they all say they see

UFOs, saucers, tic tacs. And so you

found that there might actually be a

connection between nuclear and UFOs in

space.

>> Uh so my colleague Steven Brule, he has

been leading a study. I'm co-author on

this paper. Uh so he has used the sample

from the Spanish virtual observatory,

the same sample that we use for the

Umbra test, exactly the same thing. and

he has tested a hypothesis of that

there's a correlation in time between

our transients and nuclear bomb tests

and he finds a correlation. It's weak

but it's there and is statistically

significant. He also finds a correlation

between UFOs and nukes and between UFOs

and transients and all of them are

statistically significant. So you have

this triad UFOs, nukes and transients.

>> Wow. And is it specifically nuclear

detonations?

>> Yes.

>> So it's the timing of nuclear

detonations.

>> Yes. Within a day you see this uh

increase in transients.

>> As you know on American Alchemy we cover

a lot of technology that goes beyond

human limits. This is about technology

that helps the body catch up and feel

good. I'm talking about the I restore

LED face mask, a red light therapy

system that uses clinical grade

wavelengths to boost skin cell energy

production. The same exact principle

used in the top recovery clinics and bio

optimization labs in the world. I've

been using it most nights, 10 minutes

while I'm reading, prepping for a show,

or decompressing. It's completely

hands-free, comfortable, and engineered

to deliver consistent light intensity

across the face, not that uneven scatter

most cheaper masks use. It feels like

your face is taking a warm bath. What

it's doing is called photobiomodulation,

stimulating mitochondria to repair

tissue, reduce inflammation, and improve

circulation. You actually feel the calm

and rejuvenation after a session. I've

tested a few of these. This one really

stands out for the build quality. It

feels like it was built in a high

precision lab, and it's not just a cheap

beauty gadget. So, if you're into real

evidence-based recovery tech, this

belongs in your setup. Head to ires

restore.com and use code jesse25 for an

exclusive discount. Again, irrestore.com

code jesse25.

Red light therapy has really been a

gamecher for me. So, I hope you love it.

Originally, I trained as a clinical

psychologist, but I quickly moved into

doing biomed research. So as part of

getting a PhD I got training in research

design uh statistics and have practiced

that you know the research skills in

statistics for many years. I approached

Beatatrice via email and I said, you

know, what do you think of trying to

explore this further and she was nice

enough to uh agree to do a Zoom meeting

and we started talking about it. And she

became very excited about the

possibility of systematically looking at

this, which she had not really thought

about doing before. And we kind of came

up with a plan for how to do it. and

over the course of the past year

compiled this enormous database with uh

2,700

days in it and for each day we recorded

was there a nuclear test that day there

were like 134 over that period of time.

Was there a transient that uh day? And

there were transients were only seen on

about uh 300 days out of those 2,700.

And then we looked is there a

relationship between those and a

relationship with UAP sightings in the

old center for UFO studies UFO database

which covers that period of time. And uh

you know I was shocked. We got a really

interesting finding that was highly

significant statistically

and uh I doublech checked it, triple

checked it and then reached out to

Beatatric. She was very excited and we

immediately started writing it up for a

paper uh which was actually just

accepted this week at a journal called

scientific reports.

>> That's amazing. Congratulations. So um

how strong is the correlation that you

found between the transients and nuclear

tests? Let me put that two ways. So

statistically uh it there is an 8 in and

1,000 chance that this is an error which

is means it's pretty unlikely that's an

error. Uh and then the other way to look

at it is in terms of percentages. So out

of those 2,700 days, if there's no

nuclear test, there's a transient on 11%

of those days. But if there's been a a

nuclear test the day before, then it's

uh almost 19% of those days have a

transient. So that 11 versus 19 is about

a 68% increase in risk for a transient

if you've had a nuclear test. And so

when you're documenting all these

nuclear tests, these are tests

presumably at the Nevada test site which

turned into Area 51, maybe the Marshall

Islands are like those sorts of nuclear

tests and then you know maybe whatever

Russia was doing with the Zarbomb in

Kazakhstan, that sort of thing.

>> Yes, that is all true. It's Kazakhstan,

there's some British tests in Australia

and then the US tests in New Mexico and

in the Pacific.

>> That's right. There's Wumera test range

which um the head of the nuclear

division actually in Australia the joint

intelligence organization was a guy

named Harry Turner and he was obsessed

with UFOs and so I think it's probably

not a coincidence that he was overseeing

a lot of those nuclear nuclear tests. Um

but uh yeah that's fascinating. Is there

any way to geoence uh the transients uh

to maybe correlate it even more tightly?

I think in principle there is the

possibility of doing uh kind of looking

at general directions because all of

these that we've looked at so far were

taken from California at the Palomar

Mount Palomar Observatory. Um, there are

plates from that same era that are taken

at other observatories like the Vatican

Observatory. And if we could get access

to digitized plates from some of these

other locations,

um, I would think we'd be some ability

to kind of triangulate uh on the on

those days when you get a transient that

coincides with the nuclear test and may

be able to identify uh roughly what

direction that was in. So, right now, we

haven't been able to do that, though.

This this would be a really big deal, I

think, if uh you know the entire

consensus sort of accepted it because

already you have people like Robert

Hastings documenting

160 plus qcle cleared ICBM security

personnel, radar operators, guys at

nuclear bases with no incentive to lie,

no histrionic streak in their

personalities. Often they're tested

actually uh for being sound of mind.

They're on what's called the PRP,

personal reliability program. U they

have to be inherently, you know, kind of

credible witnesses, and they're all

seeing UFOs. And what your study does is

it almost implies possibly that these

are coming from from space. They're not

just showing up, you know, locally at

the Air Force base.

>> Yeah. So, here's the pieces of

information that I like to point out

when I'm talking to people about this.

And I have to say a few years ago I

would think I was crazy for saying this

but these are just statistical facts. So

Beatatric has shown that these

transients the number of transients

drops dramatically when they are in an

area where the earth's shadow would be.

So that indicates that they are

reflective objects in orbit. They're not

plate defects. Um, our findings indicate

that these things were in the sky the

day after a nuclear test and they

weren't there the day before. So somehow

based on a nuclear test going off within

24 hours you have these objects whatever

they are appearing in geocynchronous

orbit. Now who is behind that? you know,

where where did these come from? And how

can they be so close that in 24 hours

they're they're able to be here and I

don't know the answer to that, but it

really is thoughtprovoking to me in an

existential way.

>> Absolutely. Are there any kind of first

order debunks that you've thought of

when it applies to your findings? So

like the first order debunk with

Beatatrice would be that uh these are

plate defects. And I think she answered

that pretty substantially with, you

know, unless the plate defects are

intelligently shifting themselves based

on, you know, light patterns, that

doesn't really make sense, right? So, do

you have like a a first order debunk

that you've thought of or addressed or

plan to address in the future?

>> Yeah. So, the things that are, and this

is all pretty obvious, but uh the

transients were identified using an

automated system. It's not true AI, but

it was an automated uh process conducted

by a computer.

And I know for a fact that some of those

are errors because I've I've gone

through at this point probably a hundred

of these transients manually, which is a

lot of work, but you can compare and see

why the computer thought it was a

transient. And there are some things

that are errors in there. Um, so that is

always a concern, but the thing is I

Like for example with the nuclear tests,

I looked at the transients that were

seen this the day after a nuclear test.

And for each of those dates that

happened, I have manually confirmed that

there was an actual real obvious

transient, at least one of them on that

day. And that gave me more confidence

that this isn't some weird error, some

random pattern that we've capitalized

on. So I I know there's real transients

from these days when the nuclear tests

happened, but the debunk of it is is it

something local to the observatory,

right? Uh and what's interesting is the

transients correlate not only with

nuclear testing but also show a small

but statistically significant

correlation with UAP reports from the

general public.

>> Whoa. So on on a day when there is a a

nuclear test or see day after a nuclear

test and there are UAP sightings, you

get a much higher risk of a transient.

So they all kind of are like a triangle.

They're all together as one thing. And

that's fascinating to me. And you can't

explain that by anything that was local

to the observatory or the film. Those

associations wouldn't be there if it was

plate defects or radiation effects. If

it was a the bomb casing, just let's say

some bit of it survived, it's not going

to sit in one place in the sky for 24

hours to be seen as a transient

afterwards. So just none of the things I

would think of make any sense. And uh

you know as a psychologist most of the

research I do has a lot of error in it

because you're basing it on what people

tell you. And there's error in this data

set but it doesn't undo the fact that

there is a real signal there that is

clearly detectable and is actually quite

large when it comes to the nuclear

testing association. Well, also if

you're doing kind of pointed error

correction on the days that these, you

know, transients seem to show up, then

you're actually saying that 68% more

likely, you know, transients nuclear is

a baseline statistic and it's probably

higher if there are errors in the entire

data set and they're probably more

transients than, you know, we think.

>> Yeah. Same thing with the UAP sightings.

a lot of error those a lot of those are

prosaic things that just there was no

ability to you know research them. So

our plan hopefully is to use AI to try

to clean the transient data. Uh you know

train train the II AI to tell the

difference between a bad plate or dust

or a streak on the plate uh and a real

transient. And that what you just said

is true that if we do that successfully

we're going to get rid of the error and

end up with more signal and that should

increase the associations we see. Now,

and can I I want to mention one thing

too, and this is just kind of an odd

fact that I find interesting is when we

look at the data set, uh the last time

we saw a correspondence between a

nuclear test and a uh transient was

March 17th, 1956.

Okay. Now our study goes on for an

entire year after that and there are an

additional 38 nuclear tests over the

course of that year. Not a single time

is a transient associated with a nuclear

test at that point. So it was like,

well, what happened suddenly in 1956

and uh I was reading an article that a

guy named Larry Hancock with the SCU did

uh where they were looking at sightings

of UAP at nuclear facilities like

nuclear production facilities, nuclear

plants, things like that. And what they

found was high levels of activity from

1949 until 1953. And then it just

stopped. Even though more facilities

came online, suddenly they weren't

seeing UAP anymore. And it just got me

thinking. It almost looks like whatever

it is was showing an intelligent

interest in all things nuclear up until

between 53 and 56 and then suddenly

wasn't anymore, at least for a while.

That was kind of odd to think about. I

don't know what that means, but that was

that was intriguing.

Yeah, I'm trying to think of what

happened in 56 or 57. I mean that's when

NIKAP formed which was the first

civilian UFO research program. That's

when the international geoysical year

happened where Antarctica became a

no-fly zone and a bunch of scientists,

you know, internationally met together

to discuss

things of this nature. So maybe maybe

there's something around that. I believe

that was 56 57 um

>> maybe

>> but I don't know.

>> Yeah. And if these if these are we

always have to consider the possibility

that there's some very odd form of

plasma life you know I don't even know

what that would be but some organism

that may give the appearance of this

that can hover in the sky and appear

like a transient and might be interested

in nuclear testing. But it is hard to

conceive of any kind of organism that

would be able to do what these things

seem to do.

>> Yeah, absolutely. So, how many

transients are we talking about total in

this data set?

>> It is surprisingly large keeping in mind

the error, but there are over 107,000

over that uh what is it 8-year period.

>> Okay. Wow. It's remarkable. So, like a

little over 12,000 a year.

>> Yeah. So, if we think though that 90% of

these are error, let's just be

conservative, we've still got over

10,000 things that were in orbit

reflective prior to the first satellite

that seem to be interested in nuclear

tests in some way.

>> Do you have a sense of the error rate?

Because if the error rate is 10 to 20%,

I'd be I'd say far more confident in

your study. If it's like 90%, I might be

a little more okay, let's let's do the

error correction. You know,

>> I think the best way to think about that

is something that Beatatric has talked

about, which is when she looks at the

transients and where they are and

calculates which transients are in

sunlight and which are in shadow.

When you look at the data that way, in

the shadow, the number of transients

drops by about 30%. Right? So that kind

of presents the lower limit for error

would be maybe about you know 30 30% of

these being real transients 70% error. I

don't think it's actually that high just

having manually inspected these

>> but it would make sense that you'd get

more transients in the light than in the

shadow side. Right.

>> If they're in orbit.

>> Yep. So okay. So I see what you're

saying. So like up to 30% but even that

like you'd expect some you'd expect the

you expect some delta between those two.

So it's really maybe up to 25% or

something. I don't know what the right

mental model is.

>> There's no way for us to tell at this

point exactly.

>> Yeah. It sounds like as a the best way

to corroborate this just get as many

observatories like their data and kind

of cross crossch check all of them.

Right.

>> Yes. So, if anybody out there has access

to digitized plates from places beyond

Palomar, please talk to us because I

think there's some very interesting

things we could do with that.

>> And one more thing that I like about

this result is that again it disagrees

with the plate defects unless they are

intelligent.

>> Yes. Exactly. If there's any sort of

correlation between nuclear and UFOs,

it's like so

>> even if we

>> Yeah. Yeah. So the emulsion issues are

somehow biased towards you know nuclear

detonations like that that all of a

sudden becomes much crazier as a null

hypothesis than just admitting that

there are these unidentified objects.

>> Yeah. People could of course say oh it's

just cosmic rays then or it's something

you know it's some high energy particle

but you're not you're also having a

correlation with UFOs and plus if it

would be cosmic ray particles they

wouldn't vanish in the in the earth's

shadow. No, they wouldn't also

>> at 42,000. So

>> they wouldn't vanish in the earth's

shadow. They also wouldn't be

systematically tracked by, you know,

maybe other military organizations,

you know, while civilian facing

organizations are sort of, you know, uh,

systematically removing them. So is this

data that you received from these plates

from the Palomar Observatory, is that

used in other serious scientific

investigations? Do other astronomers

look at that data? They are used by lots

of astronomers.

>> So if there are systematic plate defects

in what you're seeing, then this would

discount any study online that involves

these Palomar this Palomar observatory,

this this Palomar data and you're saying

that it's used by a lot of serious

astronomers. But what is usually done

and always has been historically done is

that people only use the images that um

let's say the object that can be found

on multiple images and then you get rid

of all the transients and the plate

defects.

>> Okay. Are are there other examples of

plate defects causing this number of

transients?

>> Not that I know.

>> Okay. So you've never heard of an

example like that?

>> No.

But these are these intelligent plate

defects are correlating with UFO events

with nuclear

um bomb tests. They are also hiding in

the Earth's shadow and they're sometimes

being aligned. They are remarkable.

>> Yeah, that's a pretty remarkable set of

plate defects.

In 1961, legendary astronomer Frank

Drake started Project Osma, the first

ever organized search for interstellar

radio signals.

Drake scred together an antenna and dish

using scrapped radar parts from World

War II and pointed the whole apparatus

skywards in hopes of intercepting an

alien transmission.

In doing so, he initiated the largest

scale search for intelligent life our

astronomical community has ever engaged

in

SETI or the search for extraterrestrial

intelligence had begun its 70 plus year

life. Outside of a few unresolvable

blips like the famous WOW signal

discovered by Jerry Aean at Ohio State,

no alien radio signals have ever been

detected in a repeatable consistent way.

Nonetheless, the search is still in its

infancy. One study literally calculated

that the volume of the galaxy that SEI

has scanned so far is like comparing the

volume of a hot tub of water to all of

the Earth's oceans and asking where are

all of the fish.

Even back in the early 60s at the start

of SETI, some of its scientists were

already exploring radical alternative

possibilities, even ones that went far

beyond basic radio signals.

One such outside the box thinker was

electrical engineer Ronald Bracewell and

his concept of a communicating probe.

Let's say you're trying to have a phone

call with alien broadcasters in epsilon

botes some 203 lighty years away. You

send a message, hey, what's up? 406

years after you sent the original

message comes the response. Nothing

much. How about you? The point is it

would take 406 years just to exchange

those two sentences. Interstellar radio

beacons don't exactly make for engaging

real-time conversation. The speed of

light is the fastest thing we know, but

it's also painfully slow. Here's where

Bracewell saw an intriguing concept.

Instead of waiting around for radio

signals to cross interstellar distances,

why not send a physical robotic probe to

the star system of interest? Even if you

couldn't have a real-time conversation

with someone from another star, you

could upload an automated messaging

system or even eventually your mind into

an interstellar spacecraft which could

then upon arriving in orbit of the

destination planet after eons in the

void initiate a realtime conversation

with the local life forms.

But what would the first message be? How

would one even go about starting such an

interecies dialogue? Bracewell's idea

was simple. You'd intercept whatever

radio transmissions the locals were

already sending out and then send those

radio transmissions back to them.

Bracewell took his speculation one step

further by considering that such a probe

may already be lurking somewhere in the

dark recesses of our solar system,

waiting to reach out at any moment.

One may recall a relevant scene in Carl

Sean's classic novel Contact, which

follows SETI astronomer Ellie Arowway as

she intercepts a genuine

extraterrestrial signal sent from aliens

in the Vegas star system.

In a wild plot twist, the initial

contents of the message come as some

shock. Hitler's speech at the 1936

Olympics was Earth's first ever

television broadcast to break through

the ionosphere and reach space.

So in the novel, Hitler is also the

first representative of humanity the

Vegas civilization sees. Not exactly a

good first look.

In a manner just like Bracewell's

concept, the Veagan aliens decide to

respond by bouncing Hitler's speech back

to its initial source, encoding

instructions inside of it to build an

interstellar wormhole device.

They're under control. Do you read me?

>> It's worth remembering that the solar

system is a very big place. It's also a

very ancient place. Given the vastness

of space and time in our solar system

alone, where would any such a probe park

itself? The Earth Moon Lrangee points

would be the ideal choice.

Think of Lrangee points as pockets of

stability where gravity, rotation, and

orbital motion all balance out, and

objects within these pockets stay still.

If our solar system truly is a wash in

alien time capsules and artifacts,

they'd accumulate in Lrangee points like

a grand celestial treasure chest for

spacebound archaeologists. If you wanted

to send a probe to monitor our planet

for millions or even billions of years,

the Lrangee points are a great strategy

for playing such an observational long

game.

Okay, but Jesse, isn't this episode

supposed to be all about hard data? Why

all the sci-fi speculation? Well, it so

happens there's a long welldocumented

unexplained radio phenomenon that eerily

pattern matches to many of these ideas

and predictions. I'm talking about long

delay echoes or LDEs. The story begins

back in 1927.

Norwegian shortwave radio operators

began to notice something odd.

Shortwave radio naturally travels around

the world and makes its way back to its

source, usually creating an echo 17th of

a second after the initial signal. This

is completely normal and expected. 17th

of a second is how long it takes to

travel around the entire Earth's

circumference at the speed of light.

Radio waves, of course, travel at the

speed of light, but for some

transmissions, a ghostly echo would

follow.

sometimes up to 30 seconds later. Much

too late to be a normal shortwave radio

echo. The radio operators who first

noticed this phenomenon were completely

baffled. Norwegian physicist Carl

Stormer quickly got to work trying to

explain these mysterious echoes. To this

day, a definitive answer remains

elusive.

A vast majority of LDEs are likely

caused by radio waves bouncing through

plasma in Earth's ionosphere.

A few are more mysterious, perhaps even

echoing from the Earth Moon Lrangee

points. Some of the longer delay times

match the travel time to these Lrangee

points. And one study even found a

statistically significant increase in

LDES when the Earth Moon L5 Lrangee

point was above the horizon. Just

consider for a moment how closely long

delay echoes resemble Bracewell's

concept for interstellar communication.

Taking local transmissions and bouncing

them back. This coupled with a possible

origin in Earth moon lrangee points

paints a picture eerily similar to the

long hypothesized notions of what

contact could look like.

Could some of these echoing Bracewell

probes be what Beatatrice has detected

on the Palomar plates.

When you spend time with other

credentialed astronomers,

after rounds of them questioning you on

possible plate defects, them doing

mathematical calculations,

is anybody still hold out as skeptical

after spending weeks plus with you and

diving into the data?

>> I mean, the only one uh I can comment

about now is my referee.

>> Okay. And I think he send he or she is

sending back comments that are kind of

constructive asking for more tests and I

think people are always going to be

skeptical. There is like

>> when you say your your rep your referee

who is what does that mean?

>> So uh we're working through the revision

of the paper and it's undergoing like

review process which means you're

getting back a lot of questions where

they are questioning like your methods

etc.

And I think this process is very

important because it helps you to test

uh your method and it also gives you

confidence about the method when results

stay robust

and in general when I interact with

astronomers I think the first reaction

is like it's you know it can't be well

it's just my first reaction as well like

it can't be but you if you see it then

it's there

and I suspect that scientists are going

to be slower with accepting

certain results. I think the onlogical

shock among scientists is going to be

more brutal than among

um the general population.

>> Yeah.

>> Because we are very self-confident about

that we are the smartest uh

>> for sure

>> in the universe.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

>> So,

>> are you trying to get this published in

a like a prestigious academic journal?

>> We're trying the traditional way through

peer review. is difficult because

there's it's of course it's a touchy

topic. It's touchy results.

>> Yeah.

>> And u there is going to be a lot of

skepticism but the way how I'm seeing it

is that we might not be able to convert

anyone at the moment but we can make our

data publicly available

>> so that anyone can go there and they

will have the access to the code as

well.

>> Yeah.

>> And then they can get their own

ontological shock. Why why should only I

have it?

>> That's the question. Why did you decide

to go public before getting this

published uh via peer review?

>> Um let's say like this. I know there's

going to be a lot of pressure on me. I

already have experienced it from people

that are trying to like save me by

asking me not to talk about it or you

know um

>> Oh, that's so weird.

>> It it has been a really unpleasant

process in some ways.

>> Why would they be saving you? Yeah,

because they think they save me by they

think okay if if you go out with this

there's going to be this and that and

all these horrible things are going to

happen to you etc etc and I know that

it's going to be tough with the pressure

and I thought it's more fair to put out

the results even the preprint early on

so that people can see this is where my

thoughts are at right now because then

they might also see how things develop

>> what happens what happens to the

results? Have they changed? Um,

it might also be a safer way when it

comes to pressure because if you don't

put it out and it leaks out instead that

a lot of people know about it, but they

are still not official, there's a bigger

risk that someone will come and try to

really stop me already. Now, people have

been kind of some of them have been a

little bit unpleasant to deal with. Have

you been approached by aerospace or

military or people with intelligence

backgrounds?

>> I have been approached by some people I

suspect have it.

>> Okay.

>> And that have been a little bit scary to

talk to.

>> Okay.

>> Um I mean if after that the result was

out. Uh I have also been approached by

very very nice people with uh that kind

of background who have been instead of

supportive.

>> Yes. And I appreciate that.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

>> For me, it's important to like meet

people who are supportive.

>> There are good and bad people

everywhere. But you've It is It is to me

it's interesting that academia is trying

to throw the kitchen sink of skepticism

and they don't know what to think about

it and you know, God, God willing, you

get this published, you know, in this

academic.

>> It's been really scary. It's been really

scary especially like with people who

are some of the people who I thought

were my friends and and then they come

back and they comment something and they

try to push you down maximum and you say

hey we shared so much and we talk so

much and I've been so vulnerable with

this person and then they

>> try to stop you from making an interview

or talk about your work or something

like that and that's where I just why is

this why is this happening? It's a scary

result. I understand.

>> Yeah.

>> It's a super scary result, but

>> I think it's an exciting result. It's

that scary.

>> Well, it's exciting and scary, but it

still has to be

>> I mean, it has to be out there. And if

it turns out that it was some mistake in

the calculation later, fine.

>> Okay, then it happens. happens. We

are all humans. I'm also human and I'm

also learning and all the stuff. But

>> the ideas will be out. The methods we

develop will be out. Someone else who

might have better methods than me might

use the same ideas for the earth shadow

alignments presutnik plates combine them

and maybe we'll find really great

support for what we see.

>> The value of any scientific endeavor is

how uh against the updating of the

consensus it is. So if you have

something that's totally not correlated

from what you know most astronomers

think that's the most valuable thing

that you could ever look into. And so

the idea that you shouldn't look into

that is to me insane. And it's uh people

who want to defend basically the

establishment and the status quo. And

you know it's crazy how we replay the

same cycles over again but you know

Galileo

you're like a modern Galileo or

something. So l literally in some ways

because you're looking at you know it's

historical data but it's through a

telescope.

My hope is that the second if we get it

published and we will make these data

sets publicly available and people can

simply go in and check it for

themselves.

>> Yeah, I love that.

>> And they can reply through by writing a

paper, right? Not by doing some I don't

know ju just complaining to me they can

write a paper.

>> So you're open sourcing this for

everybody to be able to come to the same

conclusion.

>> I want people to go in and do this

themselves because I also want the

confirmation from the outside.

>> That's beautiful.

>> So that's how I'm thinking. I do think

it is telling perhaps that academia is

more like disinterested or skeptical and

they're saying don't ruin your

reputation and then you have aerospace,

military, those sorts of people are

coming to you and they're saying you

know they're expressing more interest

almost as if maybe they know a thing or

two about what you've already found

which has been my experience in in many

things that I've found when it comes to

exotic propulsion or UFOs.

is the military and aerospace are often

like there's something there, you know,

and then academia has no idea how to

even conceptualize what you're talking

about because they're in this kind of

ivory tower citadel which is kind of

separated from reality.

>> I think there's like I think there's a

certain amount of like mismatches one

realizes when when one is interacting

with academics. I had recently someone

telling me like, "Oh, every astronomer

wants to be the first one finding alien

life and you're doing a mistake. you're

doing the same mistake as and he read

some names and I'm just uh like yeah he

was upset over that I wrote the paper

and that I'm going like that I might

publish it and I'm just thinking like

I'm not out here to be the first or

something because if if this result is

correct then I'm far from the first.

There are thousands or 10 thousands of

people who know about it. There are

millions of UFO reports. There's nothing

about discovery here. Yes,

>> the only thing that would happen is that

there is scientific data confirming

something that is already known and

probably there's loads of results that

are classified related to this. There's

nothing related to discovery of being

first.

>> Well, this is how science moves forward.

If you read like Thomas Coon's like the

structure of scientific revolutions, he

says science moves forward more due to

politics than due to truth. And so if

you think about who was the first person

that hypothesized that we live in a

heliocentric universe that revolves

around the sun or solar system it was

universe at the time uh was uh uh

actually a guy named Aristarkus who is a

3 century Greek. Nobody believed him and

he was forgotten. And then in the 16th

century you have capernicus saying you

know we live in a heliocentric universe

and then you know obviously Galileo

helps kind of see that through through a

telescope. But the point is is that

people can be not listened to for the

longest amount of time and then

posteously be right and get no credit

and then it's the right time, it's the

right place and the discovery gets born.

But it's way more about the social

zeitgeist people being receptive and

ready than it is purely truth. I agree.

And also what about the you know

somebody at the Palomar Observatory or a

great example is I interviewed you last

time and you talked about Dorit

Hofflight who is um this astronomer who

ended up being a very wellrespected

astronomer herself but at the time she

was kind of an assistant professor I

think for uh Don Menzel at Harvard at

their observatory. and she talked about

Don Menzel, who is basically as

prominent in UFO lore as any astronomer,

astrophysicist there is, who was privy

to classified Navy and, you know, all

sorts of data, military data. Um, and he

was a big UFO debunker and he was caught

destroying astronomical plates from the

early 1950s.

>> It's amazing the whole thing. And it's

it it happened two months after the

Washington 1952 flap when by the way

that's when we have our interesting

transient cases too.

>> There you go.

>> And and then like connect that now the

story with Don Mansel.

>> Yeah.

>> To the fact that the Vera Rubin

telescope is going to remove a lot of

classified satellites and other objects.

>> Yeah.

>> And now also that we know that there's a

background of uncorrelated targets that

are classified also as far as as I

understand. I mean that seems like a

pattern to me and very worthy of

>> as far as I understand that's what I

understood from my source uh at NASA

that

>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, no, we can uh we

can investigate and and

>> I would love to learn more about this

and check like exactly where it happens,

where do they remove them from which

calculation and I would like to learn

more about it. And can you find the list

from the early 1960s somewhere?

>> Yeah.

>> And not only like 10 of them, you want

something like thousands of them.

In light of Dr. V Royale's latest

paradigm shifting results, perhaps we

should at least consider the possibility

of non-human technology. We can also

examine the testimony of the legendary

French godfather of ufology himself, Dr.

Jacques Valet. Young Jacques was working

as an astronomer at the Paris

Observatory as part of its nent

satellite tracking program. One night on

July 11th, 1961,

he and his colleagues noticed something

truly bizarre. An unidentified object

orbiting the Earth. The object was in

retrograde orbit going the opposite

direction to the Earth's rotation. To

unpack why this was so weird, we need a

bit of rocket science 101. Many of the

world's top launch facilities are

located along the equator. And no, dear

alchemists, it's not for some freaky

symbolic occult ritual. It's actually to

get an extra boost from the Earth's

natural rotation. If the Earth spins on

its axis and your rocket shoots off in

the same direction as that spin, it

takes some of that momentum with it on

its way up. To go against the Earth's

rotation and enter a backwards orbit is

much harder. As baffling as this mystery

object's backwards trajectory was, it

also may be a clue to possible intent.

Retrograde trajectories often show up in

polar orbits. In a polar orbit, the

satellite passes directly over the north

and south pole, making it the only orbit

capable of imaging the entire Earth's

surface as the planet turns below. In

other words, if these objects were

indeed from an alien civilization, they

would have been peering down from a

perfect vantage point to survey the

Earth. Some try to explain away

Jacques's orbital mystery sighting by

invoking the Corona program, a series of

highly secretive CIA sponsored

satellites first launched in 1960,

kicking off the modern era of orbital

espionage. The Corona satellites did

have a nearly polar orbit. However, it's

a very insufficient explanation as Valle

pointed out in a later interview. Later

I found out that other observatories had

made exactly the same observation and

that in fact American tracking stations

had photographed the same thing and

couldn't identify it either. It was as

bright as the star Sirius. You couldn't

miss it. It didn't reappear in

successive weeks. Sirius is the

brightest star in the night sky. So if

this was an espionage satellite, they

weren't doing a great job of hiding it.

Corona satellites were deliberately

built with less reflective materials

than others at the time, making it

extremely incompatible with the

exceptional brightness that Jacques

reports. Jacques also mentioned that the

object did not reappear in successive

weeks. Also strange and inconsistent

with the corona satellite explanation.

What happened next would shock young

Jacques to his very core. His superior

at the observatory, Paul Mueller, got a

hold of the data. The next morning,

Mueller, who behaved like a petty army

officer, simply confiscated the tape and

destroyed it. Jacques would later

recount realizing that scientists were

human beings like the rest of us. When

their reputations were threatened, when

their ideas were challenged, they

reacted by eliminating the data. If the

data didn't fit their preconceived

notions, they just got rid of it. In

many ways, this was the inciting

incident which sent Jock on his lifelong

hero's journey to the furthest edges of

the unexplained. It also parallels the

heated response Beatatrice now faces

from many of her peers, and it shows

that her anomalous observations are in

good company. They don't exist in a

vacuum.

>> Do you feel like the world is ready to

accept this?

I think there is no such moment. It just

happens when it happens.

>> Yeah.

>> On the other hand, like you say, uh

sometimes some knowledge doesn't land

well because it came in the wrong

moments.

>> I don't know. But now we have all the

whistleblowers coming out or that they

came out and they gave really great

testimonies. All these people who

>> have talked about their experiences.

Many of them are really really like

really really intelligent, brilliant,

healthy in all ways.

>> Yes.

>> And it's like people who want like role

model people.

>> No, we're getting to I think a tipping

point even on my little YouTube show,

you know, it's like we've probably

broken maybe 15 16 of these people with

again the intersection of very credible

backgrounds. Green berets, air force

combat control recruits, national

geospatial agency, elder statesman

adviser to the president in the case of

Harold Malgrren. You have all these

people saying the same thing. I just

interviewed a a a chief uh of aerospace

medicine, you know, one of the top

doctors. He was attached to NASA. He was

at the the Air Force. He was a senior

doctor there. Uh and he saw something.

Uh so it's like uh it's we're getting to

a tipping point I think where it's like

okay one thing is a campfire story but

like you know hundred like what how do

you explain that away? I mean it starts

to get really interesting.

>> I mean if I look at everything that I

learned in the last years I I will be

fair. I don't think we are alone. I

think we have company.

>> Yeah.

>> And that's my impression. I'm hopelessly

curious and I cannot

I cannot stop once I I mean once you see

these kind of results it's not like you

>> can just give up and say no no no I you

know

>> no

>> uh I should go and do some classical

astronomy to support my living you just

can't it's also like something you

become dependent on

>> trying to satisfy that curiosity ask any

question you have to know

>> I think it's just going to take time for

this to get out there I think when

people actually see this published

and read it. Uh if they think about it,

I think they're going to be very

intrigued by this. So, it's going to be

interesting to see what, if anything,

this changes in terms of the way people

think about science of UAP. But I know

there are many other interesting

scientific projects going on in the UAP

area. And I think in the next, you know,

five or 10 years, it's going to be night

and day from what it has been in the

past. And we're going to start seeing a

lot more peer-reviewed studies uh

assuming journals are willing to take

them. That's always the concern is

because of the topic a lot of journals

don't even want to touch it.

We've spent most of this episode

examining the data, but with results

that so thoroughly challenge our

existing modalities and worldviews, it's

worth stepping back and trying to grasp

at a bigger picture. So, what does all

of this mean and what are the deeper

implications? As with any cosmic shift

in perspective, Carl Sean's pale blue

dot comes to mind.

>> Our imagined self-importance, the

delusion that we have some privileged

position in the universe are challenged.

>> But what does this all mean? If our pale

blue dot is being intently studied by

other little pale dots, pale dots that

fully surround it, what new meanings do

Sean's words carry if we're actually not

a lonely and obscure speck, but instead

so enveloped in cosmic company that tens

of thousands of alien satellites were

studying our planet before we could even

launch one of our own. I can't answer

that in this video, but maybe trying to

contemplate those questions is a next

step in our collective evolution. And if

you ever do find yourself staring up and

watching a starry night sky, just ask

yourself who or what might be staring

back. I want to thank Dr. Beatatric

Vioale for her time and for sharing her

remarkable findings. I also want to

thank Dr. Steven Brule. Until next time,

I'm Jesse Michaels and this is American

Alchemy.

Alchemist. Did you enjoy that? Well,

here's the thing. That episode was just

the tip of the iceberg. If you want the

full picture, head over to the American

Alchemy Magazine we just launched on

Substack. That's where we deep dive into

all sorts of crazy topics that we don't

have time to fit into every video with

weekly articles exploring all of the

strange, forgotten, and conspiratorial

corners of space, history, and high

weirdness. So join up today at our free

or paid tiers on Substack. I am

including the full link in the

description of this video.