UAP Crash Sites & Consciousness: Pasulka & Nolan Reveal All

Transcript

Consciousness seems to be an access point for what we would call non-human intelligence, whatever that is. Religions have their own protocols for dealing with this type of contact. >> It's more measurable than I thought it would be because we can put together sensor systems uh that can see things, but it's harder figuring out what the data actually means. Perhaps the nature of the phenomenon is faith that you know at a certain point how much do you need to be shown before you can believe what you see. I went white.

I cuz I had samples in there and I was sure that they were going to open the thing up, find this stuff and you know drag me off to the penitentiary somewhere. I was shocked that Gary and Tyler believed it because they're so credible and in, you know, amazingly intelligent. Uh, it was beginning to dawn on me that it was real. >> Sorry, I had a phone call from US Gov. Should I answer it? >> Sure.

Online. Yeah, let's hear it. Chris Leato. Welcome to Lato Files. Welcome to Lato Files.

I'm Chris Leato. Diana Poka's American Cosmic was one of the first UAP books that opened my eyes to the academic side of this field. And Dr. Gary Nolan has become the go-to scientist for UAP biological effects, among other things. So today I have both of them on the channel.

I'm very excited and I got a lot of audience questions. So we'll be bringing up those questions as well. [Music] >> Thank you guys so much for being here. What have you learned about the phenomenon in the last two years, Gary? >> Uh first that it's more measurable than I thought it would be. Um, and that would be say through the efforts that I've been involved with at SkyWatcher.

Uh, and that uh, and some of the materials, purely publicly available materials, not secret stuff that people think I have access to, which I don't. Uh, so it's it's more measurable uh, because we can put together sensor systems uh, that can see things. But it's harder in that figuring out what the data actually means uh and coming to the kinds of conclusions that people think scientists should be able to come to is more difficult. So I I I would say it it they're both good from the scientific standpoint. We have access to more materials.

We know that we have analyses approaches that can approximate them. We're beginning to get reproducibility. But as is the case always in science, the more data you get, often the harder it is to come to conclusions to create a standardized picture. >> Okay. More data.

So that's the problem. That's really interesting. And what about you, Diana? What what's what have you learned about the phenomenon in the last two years? >> Sure. That's a great question. So, I've continued my work in historical documents, looking at in the Catholic tradition, looking at um you know, what Catholic visionaries had to say about various kinds of aerial phenomena.

Um, and that's been really eye- openening because the work that I did obviously with American Cosmic was shocking to me because you know I saw evidence of aerial phenomena that was it couldn't really be cate categorized basically in the western tradition and so I keep looking into that and the more I look into it the more I find. So it just reinforces um what I found in American Cosmic. But again, I also have more data and you know it looks it looks a lot more different than than it's portrayed in, you know, media films about it. So it just it looks different. There's a a uh some type of consciousness component which a lot of people aren't aware of.

So, and you can see this back in the historical record as well. >> Okay, that's great you mentioned that there were quite a few questions from the audience on the consciousness connection. So, we'll we'll definitely get to that. Um, but I guess let's address uh the New Mexico site. I I understand there's been some recent controversy, but what happened? Um, and what did you guys find at the New Mexico site? Quick note for the audience.

You're going to hear in this interview from both Gary and Diana how they use AI and everyone they know actually uses AI professionally. And even with my own part-time assistant, I'm constantly swapped. So, one way to stay ahead is actually getting tailored professional advice on how to use AI. Even if you don't purchase, I think you'll be interested in this sponsor. My good friend Jenner Juice Torrance is a retired F-16 pilot like me, and now he helps people and small businesses get the most out of AI through Frontier Strategies.ai.

So, they gather your company data, they sit down with you for a focused 1-hour strategy session, and then they deliver you a tailored road map showing exactly how AI can solve your specific problems. They know what actually works because they also do serious custom AI development work. So, you can get their AI audit strategy session for just $200. That's 60% off the normal $500 price. That's at frontier strategies.ai.

Make sure to use the code Latoiles at checkout and you'll get 60% off. This is a great way to just make sure you're not missing out on the AI revolution and the fastest way to get up to speed and supporting sponsors is a great way to help me directly in the channel. So, please check it out even if you're just curious. Back to the video. But what happened um and what did you guys find at the New Mexico site? Yeah.

So, I I recorded this in American Cosmic and we, you know, went to this site. We were both blindfolded and uh Tyler D, who I keep as synonymous, went there with us. Well, he took us there. And so, we did find what looked like um to me it looked like uh kind of like a frog skin type material. And uh and we took that back and Gary analyzed it.

I don't I know that he he thought it was anomalous at first, but I actually don't know what his finding is today, but that's what that's what from my perspective we found. >> Well, perfect. Well, luckily we have him right here. What what did you find, Gary? >> Right. Well, so there were several different pieces.

Um, and you know, it's interesting. The audience needs to understand that scientists are accustomed when they talk about their data to people always knowing that this is preliminary until I send it out. Um, and just like for instance with the Otakama, when I first looked at the data with the Otakama mummy, um, I didn't quite understand what the sequences meant because there was a lot of junk. And so when I began reporting it to my colleague, he he who shall go unnamed. Um it it was like well a like 90% of it doesn't seem to fit anything.

Um, and so people, and you probably actually are hearing a lot about that kind of same kind of conclusion with the Nazca mummies where people say, "Oh, I it has some genes that we can understand, but a lot of it doesn't seem to fit anything." Well, it turns out that the a lot of it, it doesn't fit anything. is frankly because at least with the genetics it was old DNA and it gets it it's like a recording that you know on a tape recorder that gets all muffled and old and scratchy this DNA gets scratchy let's say in the reading of it and so it turns out that there are ways to fix it and once you fix it then suddenly everything comes into clarity and for us for me with the out ofama it then became clear by bringing in the necessary experts uh that oh well here's how you fix it. Oh voila the image gets clear it's a human child and here are some potential mutations that cause it. So with the the metals uh and the materials that I recall us bringing back one were the the so-called um um what was it the the alien honeycomb as it was called at the time. And uh I mean it definitely looked strange.

Uh uh there was another which was kind of this silvery black covered metal that was slightly fryable. Then there were a few pieces clear pieces of of metal that were that looked like aluminum with kind of scratchings and etchings on them. not etchings as if somebody was writing hieroglyphics, just kind of a pattern uh with a brown substance on them. And there might have been one or two more uh that we found. And in fact, Diana was like a divining rod out there.

Every time she turned around, she was finding something. Um I was uh mostly spent my time up on a ridge uh from h from where the object was supposed to have come over and supposedly hit. uh before it landed on the other side of the little ravine. It wasn't so much a ravine uh as a long flat area. Now, mind you, we're all wandering around.

It's cold, but yet we've got uh rubber boots up to the top of our legs uh because the area is a little bit mushy and supposedly there are rattlesnakes all over the place. the place that we had just stayed at, the proprietor told us, "Well, you better be careful because we just had somebody here a few weeks ago who got bit by a rattlesnake and had to be sent off to a hospital." I remember some something about that. Okay, so that backdrop um the the event of me putting my samples through the metal detector at the airport and the metal detector shutting down absolutely happened. You know, and as Diana knows, I went white. I because I had samples in there and I was sure that they were going to open the thing up, find this stuff and, you know, drag me off to the penitentiary somewhere, whatever whatever that decade's uh version of alligator Alcatraus would have been.

>> Yeah. >> Um and so uh that all happened. So when I got back and did some of the measurements, there looked to be a lot of anomalous isotopes or metals that uh that I reported to Diana uh for sure. Uh and when I looked more closely though and again so this is the thing the scientists scientists like to be right but good scientists know that very often they're wrong and when they don't understand something the best thing to do is actually go find the real expert uh on metals uh for instance or how to use a certain instrument etc. And as many have remarked on the internet, on Twitter, well, Gary's an immunologist.

He's not a matologist. So, what right does he have to do anything in in this area? Well, I have the right to ask the question first and then to go find the expert to make sure that what I'm doing is right. And that's what I do. And so, they said there's a thing called datomics. uh and diatomics in mass spectrometry are the atoms might have been individually separated in the sample but in the process of uh of activating the sample turning it into ions and then it goes into a cloud.

those individual atoms might come together uh during the measurement stick and then when the their mass is measured rather than being individual atom masses they are the combined atom mass. So they look bigger than what they are. So if silicon were together with silicon it could be something like 54 which would make it look like chromium I think uh etc. And the only way to discern that is to there's a few settings on the machine that you could set that lowers the chance for a diatomic because it would have a double charge to get there. Um or you better separate the objects or lower the concentration.

So, at first it looked like the samples were not of this earth because they had so many mixtures in there that just didn't seem to be right. Okay. But then when you let when you start asking the expert, they say, "Here's the explanation for why that looks this way." So, I didn't figure that out probably until about three years after uh the um the article was published, but I wasn't going to ever take the bait that was being put out there uh in the press as to, you know, try to start some kind of consternation between Diana and I. Diana reported what I told her. Uh, and what she reported was what I thought at the time and so any mistake was mine.

>> Yeah. What's your uh take on this, Diana? How was the experience out uh in the in the high boots walking out in the cold desert? >> Yes. So, you have to understand that this is the time period was um a while ago. You know, I was writing this book and I still didn't believe uh in the phenomena at all. Uh I was shocked that Gary and Tyler believed it because they're so credible and in, you know, amazingly intelligent.

Uh it was beginning to dawn on me that it was real. So as I was out there uh doing this field work um I recognized that this was you know the it's not just that you had people like Gary Halputo off and you know uh physicists and and then other people that were wellplaced in programs like Tyler. It's not just that they were doing this work. It's also the fact that I'd spent my entire life looking historically at things that were considered aerial phenomena back in the day and that it fit the pattern and so there was a pattern match. So all of this and and that Tyler predicted that Gary would got would get stopped in the airport and that this would happen and that everything happened exactly as he said.

Uh, I was very concerned about Gary, you know, I mean, Tyler was was completely fine. He knew exactly what was going to happen. He knew Gary was going to be let off and there's, you know, and he described the process. So, he was sitting there having a cup of water and I was, you know, had white knuckles. I also thought something really terrible would happen to Gary and I thought, "Wow, I'm glad I gave this stuff to Gary." >> Thanks a lot.

Thanks a lot. >> I'm just joking. I'm just joking. But I do remember at the time I thought, I do not want this stuff. Uh I don't know what it is, but I don't want it because first Gary can figure it out.

But secondly, I just had this feeling that, you know, if it was really what Tyler thought it was, then this would not I I just didn't want to have it. Um so so there was a bunch of things uh going on in my head, uh to tell you the truth, Chris. Um so yeah it was a uh it was way out of my comfort zone. Um but now looking back I'm really happy that we did that because you know there were some colleagues of ours who I asked um and you know first you know thinking that this person would want to do this because I didn't want to go by myself. I wanted to take an academic with me and you know the colleague was like Diana I don't want to do that.

That's so far out of my comfort zone. So I asked Gary and Gary was like I'll do it tomorrow. But but I want to add, you know, something about the material's analysis. So just because it didn't have a mixture of practically every element on the table and and things in between. Um doesn't mean that I figured out what it is.

Um I mean the the alien honeycomb, uh Larry Lumpkkey and I and I would say more Larry than me. Uh Larry looked into the literature and found examples from that era of aeraf foil that exactly matched the honeycomb with the even the knot we found is a knot from the early 1900s that actually is a fisherman's web. But they had adapted that exact structure to lay over the honeycomb structure that they then poured the resin on and that uh helped keep everything in place. Um but there were still there's I mean I still have the samples. Just because I can say that they're made of the elements that are supposed to be found in this universe doesn't mean that they weren't didn't come from somewhere else.

What was 100% clear was that the debris field was in the middle of nowhere filled with old pots and cans, bottles, even like I think we found like an old tomato can. Remember that big old tomato can? You can still see the the the writing on the thing crushed. And the tomato can was from like the 1930s. So they used it as a dumping field but h also mixed in aerospace material in the middle of nowhere literally in the middle of nowhere. Uh and so you know you're open it's just like why would you do this? So why was I up on that ridge? Something that I haven't talked about publicly yet ever but I I I will here for the first time because I think it's interesting because it's unlikely that I'll have a chance to go back to the site.

So, you know, supposedly this thing came down uh and hit the ridge, broke, spilled stuff across the debris field, and then stopped on the other side. We've already spoken about the the debris field being uh purposefully, apparently contaminated. Um or the object came down in just the wrong place in a previous in a debris field that somebody else had precreated. Um, so across the ridge there are all there were all of these cypress trees, very old cypress trees, probably several hundred years old. Cuz if you know the reason why we make wooden fences out of cyprress is because they're filled with resin >> and fungi and bacteria don't decay them.

I mean, that's the reason why they're great, you know, and why there's fewer cypress trees on the planet than there should be because we humans are busy chopping them all down for the utility. Um, so there's all these old trees along the ridge. And then exactly where there should have been based on where the object supposedly crashed and the trajectory there's a giant cypress tree that was still partly alive but which had been broken over crushed. I mean like obviously some heavy object had hit this thing and knocked it over and guess which direction it was knocked over in the direction of the trajectory. So, somebody else can go out there or the CIA can go out there tomorrow and dig the whole thing up and make it look like it wasn't there in the first place.

Um, because it was there when I saw it. Uh, there was evidence of a crash right in the in the piece of the of the, you know, the cypress tree which clearly had some stuff starting to grow over it, but it it didn't look like it happened last year. It could have easily happened long ago. And there was still these these pokes of the cypress tree trying to revive itself from that time long ago. So, um you know to to me it all that more than anything else said there was a crash.

Um and then the debris field suggests that somebody was trying to hide something. Uh and and that's about it. >> Oh, interesting. Yeah, I was a crash safety investigator and I remember at a base in Spain, we would walk walk to lunch every day and there was actually a crash on the base and they had trees like that and a telephone pole was was cut uh right in half. Sorry, it was a light pole, you know, like a steel light pole, but the trees also were uh were cut and you can see very clearly.

You can draw it out. You you can just draw the trajectory out >> of where this would have happened. And so you don't think it could have been like a transport aircraft or something carrying tomato cans across the country? >> Well, yeah. I mean, all we have are the, you know, the supposed verbal testimonies of the anthropologist, the Harvard anthropologist who was somewhere off in the distance looking at um I guess an alien alien, sorry, Indian uh burial grounds or something or a cave. And then the uh the farmer and his son who uh showed up the day after.

And then the son supposedly came back later uh to see the soldiers cleaning up the area and then burying some of the pieces that they didn't want to carry back. >> Yeah. >> That part of history. >> That's right. that those sources are actual sources and most people aren't accustomed to looking at them and you know but um those are corroborating sources from people who don't know each other of this and what's also interesting is that Tyler had been researching and excavating that site for 40 years.

>> Wow. He knew he knew the owners. And so, you know, I have a suspicion that if the place had been cleaned up, there's still a place where perhaps people didn't think to clean up. And I'm not going to mention that publicly because maybe someday I will go back. Um, that uh Tyler and I talked about trying to buy the site uh from the original owners.

And to that end, that day we had late afternoon lunch with the owner, who was a old woman. Um gosh, how old was that? How old? She was like >> Yeah, she Yeah, she came in with her dog. It was a really, you know, just a really local place, you know, with with a gas station restaurant that had been there for probably since the 40s, maybe even longer. I don't know. But yeah, so Gary, I was under the impression that it was not they were homesteading it.

Am I wrong or >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They um Yeah, it's it's Bureau of Land Management. They had a lease on it.

Um there was an opportunity perhaps to uh acquire it because it was more land than they needed and maybe they would sell it cheap, but I don't think uh we ever followed through on the acquisition. But what was fascinating was she came in to have lunch with us. And so here's Diana, I and uh uh I were sitting there um and um you know the three city slickers and the and the the local owner, old woman. And who walks in but the local sheriff. And I can still see him coming in because we were right by the door.

It was, you know, beautiful old place. could have been a movie set and probably should be someday. Um, and he looks at her and looks at us and I I forget her name, but he says, "Are you are you okay, Maggie? Is everything okay?" You know, like these guys are trying to >> I don't know. Hustle you >> hustle something. >> Yeah.

>> And she was like, "I'm fine. I can take care of these three. Don't worry. I might be 90 years old, but I rustle castle every day, cattle every day. I can take care of those three.

>> And you both mentioned sources, having to protect sources. Diana, you had sources for the book. Tyler, you kept anonymous. And Gary, you mentioned data. You must have data requirements for academics.

So, I had a lot of questions about data, releasing the evidence. How do you protect sources while still maintaining transparency? >> That first from a purely scientific standpoint because I think it relates to how Diana will think about it as well. I mean first of all a source is a confidence. Um and you know if you want to remain credible in a field you keep confidences whether it's related to a a secret clearance or not. If somebody asks you and you agree to receive information and you say that you're not going to give the information out except under some sort of legal constraint, then you just don't do it.

And anybody suggesting otherwise should just go take a hike because I don't break conferences and I know confidences and I know that Diana doesn't either. Um but second you know um the mistake of releasing unfiltered or um un uh let's say unstudied data where you don't predefine and prefind the mistakes that can be made gives open opportunity and open field for amateurs to make egregious mistakes and find things that aren't in the data, but once they start an internet storm on Twitter, you you can't get the truth out no matter what you do because they're too busy laughing uh about the obvious mistake that this from Stanford made. Well, no, the from Stanford didn't make a mistake. the from Stanford, me, just isn't going to release data until he knows that he's cleaned it up and found the obvious inconsistencies and explain them away before I dare make any speculations about what the data means. So that's just how science works.

So part of this and I think you know hopefully people will watch this or it will filter to a few individuals is that there's a method to science and the way that you do it. I mean, just like Diana does with her translations of old works that she has to filter it, double check it, make sure that the providence is right and her assumptions are right. And you know, Diana, I'll let you talk to her, but that's at least how a scientist work. And I don't think that's frankly any different than how a historian operates. >> Yeah, that's right.

So, uh, we have a code of eth ethics in my field. um when we do what's called ethnography where we uh learn from people and learn about their stories and so forth. So when I you know when I started American Cosmic uh I went through this internal review board which is the review board at my university that makes protects human subjects basically from bad researchers. And so I'm obligated but also it goes beyond an a professional obligation. I wouldn't if somebody you know asks me to keep their whatever it is you know um in confidence I wouldn't break that.

Uh and even prior to the release even prior to the publication of American Cosmic when it was in press I had people from all over the world but especially journalists here in the United States from very well-known um I guess you'd call it news sources. um basically asking me to to reveal Gary's name. I let Gary revealed his own name um and you know other people and and you know where the site was and things like that. And first I didn't know where the site was but secondly I wasn't going to do that and I still have that pressure. I had it publicly just a month ago or so when I was speaking to a journalist who said, you know, tell us who this is and not not of American Cosmic, but you know, now I've continued my research with those people who are the physicists and scientists who Gary knows, you know, the invisible college people and um yeah, so that's you know on a on a ethics level, on a moral level, I wouldn't do that.

But also we are bound by professional ethics and it is true when we do translations we have to first do literal translations but then we do a lot of excavation like what you know was this term used in in this time period in other places what did it mean then and then we do we you know scholars don't work alone they actually have friends who are experts at the same thing that they are and so they call them in and they say what do you think this is and so it's done like that it's called peerreview research And it's basically a slow way to do the creation of knowledge, but at least when you get that knowledge, you know that it's the best conclusion at the time. That doesn't mean it's it's not going to change. It's just the best conclusion according to what we know now. >> And that's exactly I mean that's beautifully said. You know, the you know, I've been sort of summarizing it with scientists are right today, but they're righter tomorrow.

Um, and you know, we we we expect to be wrong tomorrow looking back at what we thought we thought yesterday. Uh, if that wasn't the case, then progress would stop in anything. >> I think that this will all this will be helpful with Diana's work in the future. I mean for me artificial intelligence is enabling my day job as well as my um work in uh in this area uiology or whatever we want to call it today. Um because now suddenly I have access to uh larger data sets than I ever could through the internet and through analysis of the internet and all of the data that's there that AI enables.

I mean, of course, yeah, there's the hallucination problem, etc. Um, but I think that's being fixed. But I think the counter to that is, uh, some of my best students hallucinate, and I want them to hallucinate. Um, because hallucination in a way is a form of creativity. >> Well, Diana, you mentioned you'll bounce ideas off other experts, and that's actually how I use AI.

To be honest, I use three different AIs and I'll get a result from one and I'll feed all the data into another one and I will pair the two results against each other. So, I think you can do the same with AI. >> Absolutely. I don't know any of the best scholars in my field who are not doing using AI right now. We're all using it and various types and in in super interesting ways.

>> And you mentioned that you're working on a book. I don't know if you're ready to publicly declare it based on AI. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, it's a book that um discusses AI but also discusses its connections to UAP and of course my own work which is Catholic visionary literature and it's called super terrestrial.

>> Interesting. So, do you both think AI could push us to understand what the phenomena is? Well, I know a couple of researchers uh who So, let's take a step back. Um people like our good friend uh Neil Degrasse Tyson who have had interesting things to say about over the years um says there's no evidence. Well, I mean that's just a misunderstanding frankly of the science process. There's as we all know enormous amounts of data, rooms full of it.

zetabytes of it, plenty of it. Data is meaningless in the absence of context. Scientists bring a hypothesis to the to the data and try to contextualize it. Does the data match some hypothesis? you know, at a certain point, um, there's a statistical regime that you can bring in that says even a thousand anecdotes might not be enough, but 10,000 anecdotes reaches a credibility factor that you can't ignore. And so I think what, as I was explaining to you at the beginning of the thing before Diana came on, I've reduced the size of my lab from 30 to 10 because we were in the process of over a decade producing enormous amounts of data.

But data is not meaning. And so suddenly having backed myself into this corner, AI pops up which now enables me to look at all of this data with truly superhuman uh capability uh and contextualize the data for me. So I don't I actually now have on my shoulder both the devil and the angel of AI that can whisper in my ear uh and help me understand what the data means. But it they are the same as colleague X or colleagues Y at institute Z or alpha who I have to listen to what they are telling me and then try to put it all together into a picture that makes sense. Uh, but now I don't have to make those phone calls or be friends with that person on the other side of the planet who's the expert in this because the expert now is the AI and it's just getting better.

We fast that last year I wouldn't even imagine what it is I'm able to do today. >> And we've had a few questions Gary Whim asked what is the best data that you've come across? What is the best evidence for NHI that you've come across? >> Um, so well the certainty claim has been misunderstood but it didn't stop it from going worldwide. You know Stanford scientists is 100% sure of this X Y or Z which I hadn't actually said that I if you come if you look back at what I said it was basically what do you think the chance that it is here? My I said if I were to make a bet it would be 100%. >> Yeah. You know, it's kind of at the end of the day when you're placing a bed on a table on roulette, you're gonna place it somewhere and you're 100% certain it's going to be that >> when you do it.

Yeah. >> Um or you go home, uh having lost all your money. >> Um so, oh, there's a beautiful hummingbird right out the window looking at me. Um, so the best evidence, um, I would say some of, well, I there's a lot of the best evidence, but stuff that I've been involved with with Skywatcher where we make this supposed call and then things show up within a time frame posted and then I've got pictures of things like right next to the helicopter uh, that showed up uh, or just coincidence of this on one of our separate events when objects were seen and we have pictures of the stuff flying by rapidly. I mean, because it's moving so gosh darn fast that all you see is it across perhaps two or three frames of a of a rapid camera um moving and it's not a bug, so I don't care what anybody says.

Um so it's those kinds of things that convince me further uh that at least not being the government we can collect that data but otherwise the best fallback I have is that the 10,000 or so orund,000 anecdotes put together I'm actually trying to work with some statisticians to say how do I use this to make a scientific claim of some veracity and what's the percentage chance I can assign to that short of 100%. You know, I mean, beyond a certain point, you make a decision about your life. I'm pretty sure that this is how I should go. Uh, and evolution does that every day. And the winners are who we see around us today in the natural world.

Uh and so the same thing has to be with with this perhaps perhaps the nature and this is more to Diana's point or Diana's realm. Um perhaps the nature of the phenomenon is faith that you know at a certain point how much do you need to be shown before you can believe what you see. It was actually eight months ago I finished Diana's most recent book encounters and that focused on exactly that if I'm not mistaken on the interactions with the people and the phenomenon. I was amazed by the similarities. What's your take on that Diana? Do you think it can be used for science these witness accounts? >> Yes.

So, witness accounts, uh, a colleague of ours did a presentation at the conference that we were at in April, uh, the, uh, archives of the impossible conference, and he was identifying the history of the credibility of meteors. And you'd think, you know, now it's it's a no-brainer. There are meteors. They fall to Earth. We know what they are.

We study them. Um, but when like in the 1700s, in the 1800s, if you saw a meteor and reported it, you were considered alone. You were considered crazy and you were stigmatized. So, what happened was that there became a and scientists wouldn't study them at all. But what happened was there were enough observer reports to get this critical mass which is what Gary's talking about where it's improbable that all of these people very credible people are reporting these hot rocks coming down and landing on earth and fiery right and so meteors became a thing that people started to study and now of course we have a whole discipline focused on studying meteors right okay so this I think the same thing can be applied here to UAP We absolutely have all the reports that we need in order you know what we have and this is what convinced me partially well I'm very convinced but let's just say this uh this convinced me on a personal level that when there were so many people who had these experiences said I had an experience of a UFO um it contacted me um I was afraid uh but then the you know the air base would have something on radar which wasn't n't theirs, right? And they didn't know what it was.

So, there would be corroborations, you know, that of of this thing on radar radar of these people having these experiences. And there were so many of them. Uh my own father who had a story that he told us, he's passed away, but a story that he used to tell us, uh he was in the Coast Guard and he was a radar man and um he was on this ship and they were out looking for submarines. This was in the 60s or No, no, I'm sorry. This was in the 50s.

They were out looking for submarines. And what happened was they came across this giant thing underwater that stopped their boat and and took all the electricity, stopped it in the ship. And this is something that he would talk about when I was a child. And I always thought that it happened, of course, because my father was an attorney, he was a scientist, you know, he was like um a very rational man of few words. So for him to talk about this and and then for then meeting Tim Galidet and you know hearing his stories and all the people that have come out and talked about being in at sea and seeing these things and so forth.

Um you know this just reinforces that that that these are real and people see them. People like Gary are now studying them openly and that's great. And that's what's nice and I'm sure Diana sees it the same way in her field is that the last five years especially and perhaps because of the proliferation of places like Seoul or uh you know the several groups SCU etc. um I'm suddenly finding scientists who wouldn't otherwise even be interested in it uh stepping forward and saying can I help um you know and that as of three years ago I knew nothing about it but then I found this paper and then can you send me any more information I send them more information I go oh wow I didn't real I didn't know this and and so there's an ease of being able to talk about this even this year that I didn't see last year or two years ago. Um, and just look what's happening on Capitol Hill.

I mean, you you you you literally had Tulsi Gabbard come out and say, "I think there's there might be aliens." I mean, just in the last week on the news, >> you you have Marco Rubio uh for a good 1015 minutes in Dan Farah's uh show. I'm sure you ever get it out there. Uh I was at the premiere. I I mean waxing eloquently about the matter uh and not negatively. So, you know, I think there's a there's a sea change.

Um you know, these things come and go, eb and flow. Uh will we get distracted and bored because we're a a clickbait based culture? Um and uh you know, I I'm sure Diana gets this too. Part of your first question was, you know, where's the transparency? Give us the data now. >> Yeah. >> Well, no.

You know, maybe you should do your own work. Um, I'm not I'm not your servant. I would perhaps use a different word in a bar. Um, but you know, I I don't answer to you. I I answer to me and I answer to truth.

uh and how truth is I is revealed is a matter of data scrubbing and not data hiding but you know checking and double-checking yourself before you allow other people to make the claim or put the words in your mouth that they want to hear. >> And Diana, you've also been to the Vatican. Speaking of datab banks, you are one of the few people that's gone down into one of the oldest data banks in the world. What surprised you most about NHI in that datab bank? Yeah. So, actually I took Tyler with me to go um because I've at that point um I had figured that if we were going to look through a lot of these old documents and manuscripts, I would describe what I saw to him and see what he thought, right? Because at that point, I knew that he was probably one of the most informed persons that I would ever meet about this topic.

And so, it was an incredible experience. Um so we looked at a lot of um manuscripts that had to do with levitating saints. Uh Joseph of Copertino, Maria of Agrada, and we also went to the Vatican Observatory, which has their own archive on space. So that's a that's an archive that the Vatican owns that's just dedicated to space and space research. Um when we went there, the European Space Agency group was there.

There were about 40 young uh scientists and uh brother Guy Consulmano is the director um an uh and you'd call him a a colleague of mine. um he likes to stay away from this topic and I understand why. Uh but but he introduced us to the group and they knew who Tyler was and uh and that really further you know that that made me understand that the United States doesn't know a lot about our space program or our space research or what we do and um and but they do you know European Space Agency was was knowledgeable about it. Um so yeah so what did I find? I found a lot of very interesting um you know I I would say that we found geographical areas around the earth that could be hot spots. And so after that, um, I spoke with a few people from Galileo, uh, project and obviously worked with, uh, you know, Gary, um, you know, uh, but but those kinds of things, um, you know, are are things that people are are doing research on now, you know, that that type of thing.

Maybe there are places that where a lot of this activity happens. It's great you brought up consciousness at the beginning and for both of you, do you think that consciousness could be the key to the phenomenon? >> Yeah. So, this is really interesting. So both with my work, ethnographic work for American cosmic um and my historical work, it appears that there is a consciousness like consciousness seems to be an access point for what we would call an you know non-human intelligence whatever that is. uh it seems that consciousness is is a a place where it interfaces with humans and this has been something that you can see in the the writings of the various different religions.

Uh the religions have their own protocols for dealing with this type of contact and generally they're um you know they vary obviously per religious tradition but um a lot of times the the protocols suggest it has to be a very controlled interface um and so I know Tyler also understood that this was a consciousness-based um interface as well uh which would then that has I haven't followed followed up with him about that, but that has a lot of repercussions and I think that Gary's work here with the psionics is, you know, looking into that as well. Um, I don't know quite I know about it with respect to the historical protocols in place to deal with this. Um, but I'm not doing any kind of work in contemporary uh interfaces or protocols, but Gary is I believe. Yeah, I think um you know and these follow on what Diana said about religious traditions. The majority of the receiver aspects of human uh interaction with these whatever they are uh alleged or imagined uh entities um involve meditative states or frankly psychedelic drugs um that change how your brain functions.

And you know, the the skeptic, the the real skeptic, not the ones that tweet non-stop, um would say, "Oh, well, that's because they're hallucinating and they're on drugs." Or the scientist would say it allows you to access alternative states of consciousness. Now, alternative states of conscious doesn't mean magic. um you know but it's now well understood that one half of your brain talks to the other half of your brain via uh the alpha beta g alpha beta gamma delta waves. You know the the frequency that goes on over here is actually heard by what's going on over here and it has nothing to do with the neurons in between. So there's transmitters and receivers on both side of your brain.

Uh and they are coordinating across the brain via what would otherwise be thought of as psychic power. >> And that's from a recent study if I'm not mistaken, right? Where the brain was actually not connected physically, but it could communicate, >> right? Scoper was was cut and yet there's still connection. So um but now you can start to get into other let's say more fringe but I don't mean that in a negative way because fringe fringe is where progress happens uh to be honest and so now you have the likes of um the arc o uh you know studies of hamar and penrose where u you know they believe that consciousness might actually be uh let's say partially localized in the tubulant interfaces uh and the tyrrosene boundaries uh in the subunits and then that's where consciousness is computed. Um so you know we also know about non-locality which is a is pure physics and it drives the physicists absolutely baddy because they're used to a world where a leak leads to b and yet you have this magic world where a behind the scenes somehow is connected to b through things like you know uh quantum interactions. So it it doesn't surprise me that a technology might exist or a capability of using your own brain might exist that creates a connection elsewhere.

Right? Because we simply don't understand enough. And if we think we do, then then to say that we think we fully understand what is is the most purely ignorant statement one scientist could make to another and shows that person's lack of understanding of of what science is really for. >> Do you think that the materialist paradigm that has driven our science for the last several decades could be failing us? But but I think it fails us only in so far as believing that what you know now is not what you will know tomorrow. >> You know materialist works want to reduce it to a material understanding. Right? Even if it's just an equation.

I mean all the equations that we have that explain how the universe operates are just equations. They're somebody's abstract understanding. They are not necessarily reality. They're just a nice math that seems to explain how object A can move to object B, to place B. >> And it seems like it always changes.

If we look back into history, our paradigms always changed. Like Diana said, we didn't know understand what meteors were and we didn't understand how the brain works and we still don't. You can see we have different brain states that directly correspond to our brain waves, right? If you're asleep or awake. Well, and the the the drugs that the shamans or religious practices use uh to enter these altered states actually all seem to be interestingly uh centered on something called the default mode network, which is just a madeup term, but it really means there sort of a central controller, which is the who you think you are. that once you turn off the who you think you are's ability to control the rest of the brain, suddenly all these other capabilities or functions arise.

uh and so you know the evolution of the the default mode network was important to drive let's say progress and focus but that doesn't mean that the other functions that existed before that uh um collineator evolved uh weren't doing something important in the first place. what we call our subconscious. I mean 99% of who we are is our subconscious. The 1% of who we think we are is only because it's a it's a it it's it's it's obser it's a really it's the most extreme form of observer bias. The observer sees who they think they are, but they don't realize uh who's behind them, which is all your subconscious processes.

>> I thought Bernardo Castrip, I don't know if you've if you've heard of him or follow him, is a researcher. Uh I thought it was very interesting when he talked about uh consciousness. He looks into this as well that these psychoactive compounds, drugs actually limit your your brain activity, you know, to where it rather than increase brain activity like we thought in the past, you know, this is your brain on drugs, you know, and the egg is frying. It was actually the reverse where the the drugs were limiting activity. So did you have you seen Diana in all your religious studies? Is that a common use? Do do most religions use some sort of psychoactive drug? >> I wouldn't say so.

I would say that uh you know some do but you could achieve these brain states naturally but you have to have a certain lifestyle in order to do that which a lot of people don't want. So you know drugs are like the fast way to do to do that. But um but you know people that are geniuses in the past like Raman the mathematician a self-taught mathematical genius who you know grew up in a early 20th century or even before that grows up in um you know this little town in India and then become goes to uh Cambridge you know becomes like this this person who has math understands math at a level that we still can't understand. There's a journal dedicated to his mathematical equations. He believed that Lakshmi, a goddess, the local goddess, um would whisper these equations in his ear and he he didn't take credit for any of it, which I think is interesting because I started to do this type of study into creativity because of Tyler.

I thought, how does he get these ideas? you know he says they just pop into his head and actually the the philosopher Plato talks about that also that you know once you believe that you don't know anything or you know once you get to that understanding that you know nothing that's when knowledge starts and so um that's why Plato was thought to be the smartest man in the world uh at the time was because he didn't I mean I'm sorry Socrates he thought he didn't know anything looking at geniuses in history shows us that when they get into these states which often are states associated with religious protocols. Um what happens is that they they identify an external agent as being responsible for their genius idea. They don't take credit for it but it came through them. Okay. So that part of the brain so people today who study um creativity identify that that part of the brain the frontal cortex is is shut down.

It's quiet and that's the brain that Gary said, you know, we think we are. But when that's quiet, that's when the the genius happens. That's when these creative ideas happen. And because we we feel like it didn't originate with us, we generally identify, okay, it had to be an alien or it had to be a goddess or it had to be God or it had to be an angel or you know, something like that. So we have all these names for this process which actually could just be the creative process of h human beings >> right it could come when I used to go around to you know schools and giving talks and I'd be you know asked to go sit and have lunch with graduate students and posttos often the question comes up is you know how are you so creative and I you know I said well I sort of imagine I have a bunch of little elves running around in my subconscious that are doing all the work for you know, to basically Diana's point, but it is always in that moment of quiet when and I think she just hit on something that I hadn't thought of of when I'm in that quiet moment when where I turn off my ego.

That's and that ego is the who you are, who you think you are, suddenly answers come, you know, if you if you say as Diana just did that I don't know nothing. Uh, so tell me suddenly answers come and I' I've had those kinds of downloads that just come out of nowhere. Yeah, I'd love to say it was the angels and you know, Father Delaney from my Catholic school way back would love me to say that, you know, or Sister Mary Carmelene, she was my math teacher. Um, I remember them all. Uh, they I' they'd love it if I said it was God.

I don't. But the these weird ideas come from somewhere. often I can't trace I I can't trace the one plus one plus one path to how even my subconscious could have gotten to the idea >> and like the common saying sleep on it a lot of times I'll wake up and I'll have so much clarity on a subject it's like you're working while you're asleep or something >> well actually it's often like what I think Hal put off and others during the Stargate project called the overlay of remote viewing that it's the instantaneous understanding and view that you get in the remote viewing event and you need to write that down as soon as possible and not overlay your personal bias and contexts which is interpretation. >> That's right. >> There's a lot of angst in the community over disclosure.

You know, I was overly optimistic in the past. I have videos saying disclosure is right around the corner. It'll be here any day and then it continues to drag on. What do you both think about the disclosure timeline and a lot of people asked how should they prepare? Okay. So, um as a so I have a position that has always been parallel to the government's understanding um promotion suppression of the topic and it appears that this is an ongoing venture to me.

I think that dis we it's been disclosed right so we've got a lot of people in the government incredibly good people uh basically saying there's zero doubt like to quote one of them that there you know there's a presence we don't know quite a lot about it but we do know that it's real okay so there's that that's the government disclosing and then you have another section of the government that's basically um saying that that's not True. Okay. And so my position is as a professor of religious studies doing this type of work. My job is not to propose or advocate for disclosure. My my position is to write about what I know with the data that I know and present that to the audience as best I can, as honestly as I can, and as transparently as I can.

With respect to the government, that's the government's business in my opinion. My opinion is is that it looks in since 2021 it looks like it's disclosed. Well, I think the other way to look at it, Chris, is to say it previously was the government's um proprietary capability to do the measurements. uh but as science advances and capabilities sensor and other things better cameras etc proliferate uh that proprietary advantage starts to erode and um that's what I know is personally happening from the various groups that I work with and they're a publicly open group sky watchers avi Galileo project the Tedesco brothers uh Beatatric's recent beautiful paper uh where you know using um data and data analysis techniques shows that hey uh we are approaching a kind of an apogee of capabilities where uh we can do our own analysis and disclosure. I mean look if if Biden had come out in the last administration and said it's real half the country would have called it fake news.

If Trump is the disclosure president, and I think frankly we're closer with Trump than we are with, uh, any of the prior administrations, uh, you know, a whole bunch of them would say, "Oh, it's just because he's trying to distract us from some other scandal." Um, so you're always going to have the human need to dismiss or agree with a position they want to have. Um, and I think just like religion, it's it's as much a personal thing of can you look at the data yourself and use your supposed intelligence and not rely uh on the opinions of others. Um, you have to have that kind of confidence or uh, you know, I mean, look, there's still people who think the earth is flat. So, what what am I supposed to do about that, you know? Um, so I really don't care about some impatient individual sitting in a room waiting for somebody else to do their dirty work for them. I'm sorry.

Get out there and do it yourself, you know, or go outside and garden. Turn off your your default mode network and maybe allow a download or two. And then final question I asked most guests. This is from UAP societies Justin and Ally. I'm really curious on your answer to this question because Gary, you have so much knowledge and experience on the human system and then Diana, you have such a deep understanding of the religious nature of humanity.

So the question is, what do you see as the future hope of humanity? What does it mean to be human in your eyes? >> Wow, that's a huge question. It could come outside of my purview, but I'll answer it. So my hope is that people will use their basically uh think critically about things and have hope and treat others nicely. I think that would go a long way if we just did that. That would go a long way in making, you know, this experience here um better for everyone.

And looking back on the religious practices, you know, I grew up atheist as a hardcore atheist until I got into this topic and now I'm not 100% sure, but I seem fairly convinced that there is an afterlife and there's more to life than just bills, hitting other protons, etc. Do you see a common thread through the religious practices? Yeah. So, um, we're at a point now in globalization where we can look at the religious traditions of the past and we can, you know, look at them all together and say, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's like what what was good here in these religious traditions and what will keep us safe and and um and so part of what I've learned is that you know part of the psionics of of what we're looking at now the you know the psionics suggests that we have a uh some senses that we don't know about. So we have these spiritual senses or whatever you want to call them and most religious traditions are aware of that.

They've done a pretty bad job of passing that information down to their parishioners, but they're aware of it. At least if you go back like 500 years ago, they're talking about the interior life and how to cultivate it and what is good about it. And there are a lot of what we enjoy about life comes from the cultivation of people in the past cultivating their spiritual interior lives. And so each of the religious traditions, the major ones I'm talking about, have ways of doing that. And I think, you know, and science is now here to tell us why that's important.

So Harvard does studies of nuns who pray and monks who meditate, you know, Buddhist monks who meditate, and they're basically saying it's increasing their brain matter in ways that make them smarter and nicer. And, you know, it just upgrades their life in so many ways. So we're utilizing science to basically look back at these religious traditions and say, "Wow, they had some wisdom. Maybe we should keep that and progress forward." So we're at a really interesting point in time in the field of religious studies in in that sense. >> Sorry, I just had a phone call from US Gov.

Should I answer it? >> Sure. Online. Yeah, let's hear it. Oh, that's nobody. Nobody there.

Maybe they're letting me know something. That was weird. Um, so I sort of see three paths. Uh, you know, one, we continue along the path we are, which is essentially stone age. We're we're we're barely out of the stone age.

Um, and we don't do any attempt to upgrade our thinking processes. Um, and we just, you know, meander along and probably go off a cliff, apocalyptic or otherwise. Um, and so, um, you know, I think that would be the bad path. I think that that's that's the that's the path of of um just continuing bad things be, you know, but humans have an amazing ability to not imagine too far into the future, but to not fully appreciate how far we've come even though it's been 3,000 years or let's say 5,000 years. I was just in Pompei a few couple of weeks ago and it was remarkable how 2,000 years ago they were still it it could have looked like a small city somewhere that we would think of today.

Um and we weren't that different. Uh but things are going so fast that human capability is not is not and human emotional maturity is not keeping up with what it is that the technology is enabling us for. So then there's the likes of Elon Musk and others who come in with perhaps interfaces to allow us to let's say more seamlessly interact with AI because they plug it directly into our brains and that you know there's all kinds of uh problems there. But then there's the third path I think that Diana just outlined which is which is um taking stock of where we are taking stock of what human capabilities are and seeing if we can like uh you know going to the gym train our brains or train people to use their brains in the most effective way so that from the earliest you learn what the full potential might be. But then on top of that, you know, 14 billion years has already happened uh to get us to the point of where we are.

There's still another 10,000 100,000 years in front of us of evolution that might take us along the path of a form of enlightenment or capability that we can't even imagine today. So, you know, it's I think we have to get over ourselves and that that we're some sort of, you know, again, use the word apogee of creation. There's a lot more to go. Um, and you know, maybe Elon Musk's idea of getting off the planet and getting out of this environment and this ecology and this niche will allow us to expand into capabilities that we couldn't before because we are we're hemmed in where we are today. and fantastic.

I knew you guys would deliver. That was so interesting. Thank you so much for all the work you do and that you've done. All that the link to both of your work is in the description. So, audience members, please check it out.

So, thanks again for your time and have a great rest of your day. >> Yeah, thanks to you. Thanks, Diana. It's always good seeing you. >> Yeah, it's good to see you.

Yeah, >> I hope you enjoyed that amazing discussion with Diana Pasoka and Gary Nolan. They are true professionals and absolute experts in their field. They bring such varied knowledge and experience to this topic. I'm so happy and blessed that I got a chance to interview them. I hope you enjoyed it as well.

Please hit the like button if you if you did like this video and share it and subscribe. It really helps the channel. If you want to support further, then go to patreon.comrislato or become a YouTube member here. It really helps and can't do it without your support. So, thanks again.

Have a great rest of your day. Peace.