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

Akamai Cloud, GPUs for Agentec AI. Bring AI inferencing closer to users everywhere. Get started at akamai.com. This short flashes and not streaks, they are 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 105,000 transients from just the northern hemisphere. Dr. Beatrice Villoreal 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 will be fair. I don't think we are alone. I think we have company. In other words, Dr. Villoreal is someone who really knows her s*** when it comes to the night skies and cosmos. My name is Beatrice Villoreal 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. Villoreal 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 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 Bruel, who's followed up on Beatrice'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 advisor 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. You know, you said the hand-lid. Oh, 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 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. Beatrice Villoreal. Different parts of the brain have different activities. But you know that, don't you? People like you do a lot. Maybe you can interview me. Beatrice Villoreal, 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 ontologically 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. Thank you for being here. Thank you 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 we're basically calling UFOs surrounding the Earth. What happened that day? Well, I've been working with transients for a while. I think a lot of people know about this transient work. We have been looking for like multiple transients and images. Sometimes you can see multiple of them appearing and vanishing within half an hour. What is a transient? So imagine a light flash or something that changes in the sky. You have all these stars in the sky. 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 an hour. And we had two such examples that were statistically significant. One is 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. It's 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, the 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 flap. And ghost-like objects start across the radar screen at the CAA Traffic Control Center at National Airport for several hours. This was a national event. It was all over the press. It was in newspapers saying, saucers on the White House lawn. It prompted a call between Truman and Edward J. Rupell, who was the head of Blue Book at the time. And you had this Washington invasion or DC flyover where there were saucers all over DC at the time. And it was specifically 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 as I've been having all this discussion for several years with people who think, 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, in order to make a picture of the sky with a telescope, you used big glass plates. They were big and heavy. They had an emulsion 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 took images of the skies with these plates, and these images, they have been digitized. So even if they are somewhere in an archive, then today can access the digital images. And it was 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 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 gonna be in your samples. And astronomy is all about sample selection. The way how you define your sample, you need to think through the criteria very carefully when you start doing this research. Yes, so when we have been talking about this multiple transients, the 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 does it mean? And this chemistry you put on these plates. 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 ink-ins. Exactly, a bubble. Of what was in the sky. Yeah, exactly. And you think, oh, yeah, sorry. Yeah, if you have bad luck, you get a plate defect, like a bubble or something like that. But if you have something real, then you will get a star. Yes. And so you have these plates, and they come from the Palomar Observatory? Those that I work with. And was this a well-respected observatory at the time? Yes, it's one of the greatest ones. And Fritz Wicke was there. And there were many very famous astronomers that were there. So yeah, so we are working with this stuff that people have been using to doing really great astronomy. Now we are 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. How do you test that? That's much stronger. Well, one of the tests we did were these alignments where we still found things. But there's an even cooler way how we can test that. You can actually see if you have the same number of transients, when you look outside the Earth's shadow, or when you look inside the Earth's shadow, because all the time the Earth casts a shadow. It's like a cone. And the further you are from the Earth, the narrower is this shadow. So my hypothesis was that there were, that these transients came from solar reflections at 42,164 kilometers from the Earth, or somewhere there around. And one of the ways how you can check it is to see, are there more transients inside where you know the Earth's shadow is at a certain time, or is it like fewer transients? And of course, for every transients, we have the coordinate, and we also have the time of the observation. So you can calculate, is it inside the Earth's shadow or not? And if it would be plate defects, you would have no deficits. If it's 100% solar reflections, you will have zero transients there. And if you have that a part of them are real, and a part of them are plate defects, you will have deficits. 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, because we have this code from a guy called Gainir. So 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. And that's when you start saying, like, did I do something wrong? And you start thinking, did I calculate the area of a circle on the sky correctly? And you start doing all kinds of things just to test, and you start thinking, 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. So a real object, you know, that was in 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, you're not going to get the reflection, while if you're outside the 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 they're plate defects, that's not going to play favorites, you know, as far as the Earth's shadow or not Earth's shadow, it's just going to be evenly distributed throughout. Exactly. 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, but we only see one, like there's a deficit of some of one-third. 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 30-35% 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 are associated with things that are extremely flat and extremely reflective, like mirrors, and that makes it more fun. Like mirrors. Mirrors, you laugh, not something, not a stone, not a rock, not ice, not round, flat. 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, 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 where the sun is. That makes no sense. Exactly. So even if you would have 80% of 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 30-35%, 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 Beatrice 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 and 60s, was a guy named Donald Menzel. Dr. Donald Menzel came out swinging against UFOs. But thanks to Beatrice and others, we know the true story. He was even caught by his understudy, Dorit Hofleit, destroying astronomical plates at the Harvard Observatory. And he helped the U.S. Air Force to debunk the Washington 1952 flap. And two or three months after, he suddenly becomes the director of Harvard Observatory, and he destroys one-third of the photographic plates. And he doesn't ask, as I understand from the rec coach, he doesn't ask the astronomers to select the plates. No, he asked his secretary to go and throw away one-third of the plates. And there's a woman, Dorit Hofleit, that has been telling about the story in her memoirs. And he started revenging on her later, too, as I understood it, that she tried to protect some of the plates. He also threw away a number of the blog 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 cover-up 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 Q-cleared nuclear-based 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 U.S. in 1947 at the time of the Roswell crash. And lest you think this is an American deep state Psyop, you can go as far as Japan, where a town named Eno, which is right next to the Fukushima Prefecture, has a mountain, Mount Sengonmori, where UFOs constantly show up. Many of the townspeople are obsessed with UFOs. They have a museum on top of this mountain dedicated to UFOs. Eno is directly adjacent to the Fukushima Prefecture and their civilian nuclear grid. In the 90s, in Zimbabwe, over 60 schoolchildren 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 area of school that was near a uranium mining site? That is right. As far as I understand. It's hard to concentrate when you're worried about your health. It can feel like there's a wall between you and the rest of the world, like you can't be fully present. Hello, AXA Health. How can I help? At AXA Health Insurance, we build our teams with people who care. So when you need us, we're here to support you. For cover that cares, search AXA Health Insurance. Pre-existing conditions are not covered. When we first started selling merchandise at AmericanAlchemyMerch.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 Jim 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 tee and the atomic H.T. 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 slash Jesse. Again, that's Shopify.com slash Jesse, J-E-S-S-E 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 basically found pre-satellites in space, objects surrounding the Earth. How many of these transients did you find? Well, it depends on how one counts now. Our original assembly is around 105,000 transients from just the northern hemisphere, but we assume that it's only one-third of these that are relevant, so we can count on 70,000 all over. However, I don't know how many of these transients might be associated with only one object, or if it's like one object could be 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 780 hours of exposure time. So we need to do the calculations correctly. I think it's something like 1.1 transient per square degree per hour. Wow. So almost like 15,000 per year or something. It's a fun number. Yeah. What I didn't know is that apparently since the early 1960s, there were something called uncorrelated targets. 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 can't track it, so it becomes an uncorrelated target. And they are always reduced from the background when people calculate the number of objects in space, let's say space trash and 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 if I understand it correctly, NASA and ESA and those always remove it from the background. Okay. Sorry, they remove this background of uncorrelated targets from the total number of things that they see in order to calculate the number of objects in space. However, I think that they don't do it themselves. It's done by militaries and it's classified lists, so it's kind of becoming a little bit more fun. I'm trying to look into this right now. Yeah. So maybe like you mentioned recently, NASA is kind of the more civilian space exploration app. But 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 they 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, also those early from the 1960s. Because what I would like to have is one of these lists that coordinates and check if they vanish in the shadow. Totally. Because if they didn't vanish, they wouldn't just be noise. Because it sounds like systematically people looking at space are calling them uncorrelated targets. You're basically, it's like, 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. These are objects, maybe. It's very interesting. 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. 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 20,000, whatever number that we come to is a lot. I mean, the amount of satellites in space, 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 50 to 56, and uncorrelated objects, do we know that these are the same thing? I have no idea. Hard to say. I have no idea. I'm just speculating around this. I'm just curious and trying to look into this right now. This is just where my thoughts are wondering. 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 plates from the 50s, maybe you'd get some sort of match. I would love to see that, especially these uncorrelated targets. If they come from optical sensors, it would be super interesting to see if they vanish in the Earth's 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, four years before Sputnik. Enter Major Donald Kehoe, a retired Marine Corps naval aviator and one of the earliest public advocates for UFO disclosure. Kehoe states something astonishing, that the Air Force was tracking two unknown artificial satellites, 400 and 600 miles 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 LaPause. Before joining this special search for many moons around Earth, Dr. LaPause 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 Holloman Air Force Base, LaPause 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 Tombaugh. Yes, that Clyde Tombaugh, 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 Horizons spacecraft. Until the day he died, Tombaugh 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 23, 1954, Aviation Week and Space Technology published a statement from LaPause. One which begged way more questions than it answered. LaPause 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 Kehoe'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 in 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 U.S. government documents surrounding UFOs from exactly when the Palomar 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 mirror-like features Beatrice's data implies. These documents include the 1947 twining memo, the 1948 project sign analysis, and the CIA's analysis of the 1952 D.C. UFO flyover, along with Blue Book lead Captain Edward J. Ruppelt'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 what's not in the Earth's shadow and where the sun is hitting. Unless they are intelligent plate defects. Unless they're in time, then you're going to get them. They move around on the plates just to avoid a shadow. Yeah, so they're the real conspiracy theorists. The plate defects people are, you know, they're intelligent plate defects. Exactly. Have you tried to look at other observatory data, other plates from the 50s, to cross-reference that data against the Palomar Observatory? I really want to do it. It's a big project because every time you try to, let's say, look at a new plate collection, it's a big extraction, like the whole process to look through the place, even the digital ones. It's a project for maybe two years or so. So I hope I will get maybe a postdoctoral researcher to help to do this. A lot of people watching this might be asking, oh, it's convenient that Beatrice, who is interested in UFOs, is finding, you know, UFOs. How would you respond 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. It's called a scientific method. You have a hypothesis. When you build the LHC to look for the, when they built the LHC to look for the exposition, 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, that's right. It's a scientific method. Why should UFOs or alien life be an exclusion? I mean... 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... Of course. Yeah. So if you go very generally and you look for UFOs and you start looking... I mean, I've seen some astronomers suggesting that you should just look without any hypothesis and do like a classify things like your classifying butterflies. I think you're not going to find anything. Well, obviously. 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, 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 Hadron Collider, which is CERN, this big particle accelerator. The Higgs field, I believe, was predicted in the 70s and they actually discovered it much later, obviously, with the Large Hadron 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 remove your brain and you're just like an instrument or a sensor. You have to target your sensor 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 phenomenon. There's a great book by a journalist named Robert Hastings called UFOs and Nukes. And it documents the global widespread phenomenon of UFOs showing up around nuclear installations, nuclear civilian energy grids, and nuclear weapons facilities. You have 167 Q-cleared missile-based security personnel, radar operators, guys that work at these bases who are basically hired to protect the crown jewels of defense. And they have to report if they're taking Tylenol or ibuprofen. 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. So my colleague Stephen Brewell, he has been leading a study. I'm co-author on this paper. So he has used the sample from the Spanish Virtual Observatory, the same sample that we used for the AMBRA 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 it's 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 detonation. Yes, within a day you see this 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 Irisdor 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 iristor.com and use code Jesse25 for an exclusive discount. Again, iristor.com code Jesse25. Red light therapy has really been a game changer for me, so I hope you love it. Originally, I trained as a clinical psychologist, but I quickly moved into doing biomedical research. So as part of getting a PhD, I got training in research design, statistics, and have practiced that, you know, the research skills and statistics for many years. I approached Beatrice via email and I said, you know, what do you think of trying to explore this further? And she was nice enough to 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 the plan for how to do it. And over the course of the past year, compiled this enormous database with 2,700 days in it. And for each day we recorded, was there a nuclear test that they, there were like 134 over that period of time? Was there a transient that day? And there were transients were only seen on about 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 CAT database, which covers that period of time. And, you know, I was shocked. We got a really interesting finding that was highly significant statistically. And I double checked it, triple checked it and then reached out to Beatrice. She was very excited and we immediately started writing it up for a paper, which was actually just accepted this week at a journal called Scientific Reports. That's amazing. Congratulations. So how strong is the correlation that you found between the transients and nuclear tests? Let me put that two ways. So statistically, there is an eight and 1000 chance that this is an error, which means it's pretty unlikely that's an error. 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 nuclear test the day before, then it's 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. Like those sorts of nuclear tests. And then maybe whatever Russia was doing with the Tsar Bomb and Kazakhstan, that sort of thing. 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 Wumerra test range, which 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 tests. But yeah, that's fascinating. Is there any way to geofence the transients to maybe correlate it even more tightly? I think in principle, there is the possibility of doing kind of looking at general directions because all of these that we've looked at so far were taken from Canada. At the Palomar Observatory. 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, I would think we'd be some ability to kind of triangulate on those days when you get to transient the coincides with the nuclear test and maybe able to identify roughly the same. And that's really what direction that was in. So right now we haven't been able to do that. This would be a really big deal, I think, if the entire consensus sort of accepted it. Because already you have people like Robert Hastings documenting 160 plus Q-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 for being sound of mind. They're on what's called the PRP personal reliability program. They have to be inherently 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 space. They're not just showing up locally at the Air Force Base. 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 Beatrice has shown that 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. 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 geosynchronous orbit. Now who is behind that? Where did these come from and how can they be so close that in 24 hours they're able to be here? And I don't know the answer to that but it really is thought provoking 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 the first order debunk with Beatrice would be that these are plate defects and I think she answered that pretty substantially with, unless the plate defects are intelligently shifting themselves based on light patterns, that doesn't really make sense, right? So do you have 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 the transients were identified using an automated system. It's not true AI but it was an automated process conducted by a computer. And I know for a fact that some of those are errors because I've gone through at this point probably 100 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. So that is always a concern. But the thing is, like for example with the nuclear tests, I looked at the transients that were seen 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 know there's real transients on these days from the nuclear tests happened. But the debunk of it is, is it something local to the observatory, right? 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 a day when there is a nuclear test, or I'd say 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. The observations wouldn't be there if it was plate defects or radiation effects. If it was a 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 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 transients seem to show up, then you're actually saying that 68% more likely transients nuclear is a baseline statistic. And it's probably higher if there are errors in the entire data set and there are probably more transients than we think. Yeah, same thing with the UAP sightings. A lot of error, a lot of those are prosaic things that just there was no ability to research them. So our plan hopefully is to use AI to try to clean the transient data. You know, train the AI to tell the difference between a bad plate or dust or a streak on the plate and a real transient. And 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, 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, the last time we saw correspondence between a nuclear test and a transient was March 17, 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 the nuclear test at that point. So it was like, well, what happened suddenly in 1956. And I was reading an article that a guy named Larry Hancock with the SCU did 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 intriguing. Yeah, I'm trying to think of what happened in 56 or 57. I mean, that's when NICAP formed, which was the first civilian UFO research program. That's when the International Geophysical Year happened where Antarctica became a no fly zone and a bunch of scientists internationally met together to discuss things of this nature. So maybe there's something around that. I believe that was 56, 57. Maybe. But I don't know. Yeah, and if these are, we always have to consider the possibility that there is some very odd form of plasma life. You know, I don't know what that would be, but some organism that may give the appearance of this that can hover in the sky and appear like a transient and might be interested in nuclear testing. But it is hard to conceive of any kind of organism that would be able to do what these things seem to do. Yeah, absolutely. So how many transients are we talking about total in this data set? It is surprisingly large, keeping in mind the error, but there are over 107,000 over that, what is it, eight 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 seemed 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 do the error correction. I think the best way to think about that is something that Beatrice 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%. So that kind of presents the lower limit for error would be maybe about 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. Yeah. 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 this, you'd 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 best way to corroborate this, just get as many observatories, like their data and kind of cross 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're intelligent. Yes, exactly. If there's any sort of correlation between nuclear and UFOs, it's like, so the plate... Even if weak. Yeah, yeah, so the emulsion issues are somehow biased towards, you know, nuclear detonations. Like 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 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 Earth's shadow. No, they wouldn't also... At 42,000. 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. They're sort of, you know, 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 Palomar data, and you're saying that it's used by a lot of serious astronomers. No, but what this usually done and always has been historically done is that people only use the images that... Let's say the objects that can be found in multiple images and then you get rid of all the transients and the plate defects. Okay. Are there other examples of plate defects causing this number of transients? Not what I know. Okay. So you've never heard of an example like that? No. But these intelligent plate defects are correlating with UFO events, with nuclear 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 scrounged 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 Amon 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 SETI 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-Botis some 203 light-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 real-time conversation with the local lifeforms. But what would the first message be? How would one even go about starting such an interspecies 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 Sagan's classic novel Contact, which follows seddy astronomer, Ellie Arroway, 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 vegan 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. 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 Lagrange points would be the ideal choice. Think of Lagrange 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 Lagrange points like a grand celestial treasure chest for space-bound archaeologists. If you wanted to send a probe to monitor our planet for millions or even billions of years, the Lagrange 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, well-documented, unexplained radio phenomenon that eerily pattern matches to many of these ideas and predictions. I'm talking about long delay ECHOs, 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 one-seventh of a second after the initial signal. This is completely normal and expected. One-seventh 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 Sturmer 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 Lagrange points. Some of the longer delay times match the travel time to these Lagrange points. In one study, even found a statistically significant increase in LDEs when the Earth-Moon L5 Lagrange 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 Lagrange 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 Beatrice 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, does anybody still hold out as skeptical after spending weeks plus with you and diving into the data? The only one I can comment about now is my referee. I think he or she is sending bad comments that are constructive, asking for more tests. I think people are always going to be skeptical. When you say your referee, what does that mean? We're working through the revision of the paper, and it's undergoing a review process, which means you're getting back a lot of questions, whether you're questioning your methods, etc. I think this process is very important because it helps you to test your method, and it also gives you confidence about the method when results stay robust. In general, when I interact with astronomers, I think the first reaction is like, it can't be. It's just my first reaction as well, like it can't be. But if you see it, then it's there. I suspect that scientists are going to be slower with accepting certain results. I think the ontological shock among scientists is going to be more brutal than among the general population, because we are very self-confident about that we are the smartest. For sure. In the universe. Yeah. Are you trying to get this published in a prestigious academic journal? We're trying the traditional way to peer review. It's difficult because it's a touchy topic. It's touchy results. There is going to be a lot of skepticism. The way I'm seeing it is that we might not be able to convert anyone at the moment, and make our data publicly available so that anyone can go there, and they will have the access to the code as well, and then they can get their own ontological shock. Why should only I have it? That's the question. Why did you decide to go public before getting this published via peer review? 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 they're trying to save me by asking me not to talk about it, or they know... That's so weird. It has been a really unpleasant process in some ways. Why would they be saving you? Because they think they save me by... They think, okay, 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. 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 pre-print 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? 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're still not official, there's a bigger risk that someone will come and try to really stop me. Already now, 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. That have been a little bit scary to talk to. After the result was out, I have also been approached by very nice people with that kind of background who have been instead of supportive. And I appreciate that. For me, it's important to meet people who are supportive. They're good and bad people everywhere. 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 God willing, you get this published in this academic prestigious paper. It's been really scary, especially with some of the people who I thought were my friends. 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 happening? It's a scary result, I understand. It's a super scary result. 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. Shit 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's shadow, for the Earth's alignment, pre-Sputnik plates, combine them, and maybe we'll find really great support for what they say. The value of any scientific endeavor is how against the updating of the consensus it is, so if you have something that's totally not correlated from what 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 people who want to defend basically the establishment and the status quo, and it's crazy how we replay the same cycles over again, but Galileo, you're like a modern Galileo or something. Literally in some ways, because you're looking at, it's historical data, but it's through a telescope. My hope is that the second, if we get it published, then we will make these datasets publicly available, and people can simply go in and check it for themselves. Yeah, a lot of people. And they can reply through by writing a paper. Right. Not by doing some, I don't know, 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. Ready to launch your business? Get started with the commerce platform made for entrepreneurs. Shopify is specially designed to help you start, run, and grow your business with easy customizable themes that let you build your brand, marketing tools that get your products out there, integrated shipping solutions that actually save you time, from startups to scale ups, online, in person, and on the go. Shopify is made for entrepreneurs like you. Sign up for your $1 a month trial at Shopify.com. 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 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 when realizes 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 any red some names. And I'm just like, yeah, he was upset or that they 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 is something because if this result is correct, then I'm far from the first. There are thousands or 10,000 of people who know about it. There are millions of UFO reports. There's nothing about discovery here. The only thing that would happen is that there's 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 discover being first. Well, this is how science moves forward. If you read like Thomas Kuhn'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 that was universe at the time was actually a guy named Eris Darkus who is a third century Greek. Nobody believed him and he was forgotten. And then in the 16th century, you have Copernicus saying, we live in a heliocentric universe. And then obviously Galileo helps kind of see that through a telescope. But the point is that people can be not listened to for the longest amount of time and then posthumously 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 Hofleit, who is this astronomer who ended up being a very well respected astronomer herself. But at the time she was kind of an assistant professor, I think, for 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. 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 happened two months after the Washington 1952 flap. And by the way, that's when we have our interesting transient cases too. There you go. And then like connect that now, the story with Don Menzel to the fact that the Vera Rubin telescope is going to remove a lot of classified satellites and other objects. And now also that we know that there's a background of uncorrelated targets. Uncorrelated targets. That are classified also, as far 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 at NASA. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, no, we can investigate and look into it. 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 a list from the early 1960s somewhere? And not only like 10 of them, you want something like thousands of them. In light of Dr. Vio-Riao'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 Vallet. Young Jacques was working as an astronomer at the Paris Observatory as part of its nascent 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 Vellay 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 Muller, got a hold of the data. The next morning, Muller, 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 Jacques on his lifelong Kira's journey to the furthest edges of the unexplained. It also parallels the heated response Beatrice 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's no such moment. It just happens when it happens. On the other hand, like you say, 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 gave really great testimonies. All these people who have talked about their experiences, many of them are really, really intelligent, brilliant, healthy in all ways. It's like people who want role model people. No, we're getting to a tipping point. Even on my little YouTube show, 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, advisor to the president, in the case of Harold Malmgren. You have all these people saying the same thing. I just interviewed a chief of aerospace medicine, one of the top doctors. He was attached to NASA. He was at the Air Force. He was a senior doctor there, and he saw something. So it's like we're getting to a tipping point, I think, where it's like, okay, one thing is a campfire story, but like, you know, 100? How do you explain that away? I mean, it starts to get really interested. I mean, if I look at everything that I learned in the last years, I will be fair. I don't think we are alone. I think we have company. And that's my impression. I'm hopelessly curious, and 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, 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. You ask a new 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, 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 I'm going to start seeing a lot more peer reviewed studies 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 in 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 Sagan'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 Sagan's words carry if we're actually not a lonely and obscure spec, 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 the 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. Beatrice Villarreal for her time and for sharing her remarkable findings. I also want to thank Dr. Steven Broul. Until next time, I'm Jesse Michaels and this is American Alchemy. 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.