Hi, Nick here from Pods with Nick and James. Just a quick one before we get into this podcast.
I want to say a massive thank you for the support that we've received since starting these podcasts.
We thoroughly enjoy it and we look forward to creating more.
If you want to have your say on any topics that we've discussed or suggest future topics,
you can do so at www.reddit.com.com.au.
And if you want to support us, you can do so from as little as £1 a month.
You can do that at www.patreon.com.au.
Anyway, back to the podcast.
Hi, welcome back to Pods with Nick and James. My name's Nick. This is James.
Hey there.
Today we're going to be discussing Bob Lazar and other UFO sightings throughout history.
But I wanted to go over a little bit about Bob Lazar.
Now I did put James through the traumatic experience of watching Bob Lazar UFOs in Area 51,
the documentary by Jeremy Corbyn. What were your thoughts on that, James?
Just to start off, just so everyone's aware, I know this is really simple stuff,
but it's not Jeremy Corbyn, the English politician. It turns out he's also, it turns out it's a different bloke who's a filmmaker.
It was an interesting piece. I will admit it didn't seem to quite have the coverage and traction on YouTube that I thought it would have had.
But maybe, I don't know, maybe people aren't as interested in UFOs nowadays.
I did really like how it was an amalgamation of different media from different times.
And it actually really made me kind of a bit more interested in the source material.
I'll also, I'm assuming we'll be going into Robert Lazar's character one way or another as well.
And it was very, it was very striking because if it was a hoax, I believe Robert Lazar would have handled things differently.
Yeah.
Like if he was, you know what, sorry, but I'll go back to you and we'll do some, yeah, I'll comment more on that as and when you've asked an appropriate question.
No, you're all good. You're all good.
I actually really liked the documentary because I think it, like you said, it was formed in a very, very intriguing way.
It built the drama, built the story really well.
And it gave you the information not from some guy saying, well, you do get a bit of the talking head kind of screen time.
But a lot of it is backed up with this is, this is like, I like the fact they had the original footage from the original TV broadcast.
The original thing where he blacks out his face on purpose using a contrast of lighting of being in the car with the camera facing towards him and out and going under the pseudo name of Dennis.
Yeah. So let me go into a little bit for those that don't know who is Robert Lazar.
So Rob or Bob, Bob, Bob Lazar first appeared in 1989 as an anonymous tipper on KLAS TV's 5pm broadcast where he stated that nine UFOs of varying degrees of functionality were being studied and flown at the Area 51 subsite labeled S4.
Where he worked. He also claimed that his life had been threatened, as had his wife's.
However, he felt that he had a duty to the American people to expose what was going on at S4 as it related to technologies that could change the world.
George Knapp, who was a news presenter and an investigative journalist who investigated these claims thoroughly with great skepticism.
His first job was to verify Bob's true identity.
Now, Bob Lazar said he studied at MIT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology in a very secret program.
He then worked at Los Alamos Air Force Base years before where he met Ed Teller.
Do you know who Ed Teller is?
No, the name sounds familiar. He's not related to the magician.
No, he is the father of the hydrogen bomb.
Oh, get out.
Yeah. So Bob Lazar worked at Los Alamos.
He actually spoke to Ed Teller outside a lecture theater at Los Alamos.
He had the opportunity to go and sit in on a lecture by Ed Teller when he was talking about the physics of the hydrogen bomb and stuff.
And interestingly enough, that day, a newspaper article was released in the Los Alamos kind of like the air force base Gazette.
And Bob Lazar was actually on the front of this newspaper clipping with a Honda that he had strapped a jet engine into the back of.
And he used to use it, drive it to work and stuff, this 200-mile-an-hour Honda.
He built a bloody jet engine into the back of.
And yeah, so he got talking to Ed Teller and obviously caught the guy's attention.
Ed Teller remembered him because when it comes to like 87, 88, he contacted Ed looking for work.
And Ed put him in touch with EG&G, which was the company who were hiring for positions in like super secret science projects where he eventually got a job in,
also Bob says, in S4 in a section of Area 51, which was based in Groomleek in Nevada.
Bob Lazar, interestingly enough, was asked to undergo a polygraph test by George Knapp to corroborate his story back in 1989.
Now, Bob undertook four polygraph tests from four different sources.
I'd only heard that he'd done three.
And I know the results, but it is still interesting.
He undertook four by like through George Knapp, all with different elements of his story, all asking questions relating to different elements of his story.
So he wasn't covering the same things so he could practice the same answers or whatever.
And none of them found any intent to deceive.
Yeah, no, it is incredible because I know that one of them was within the news then but then there were several private companies and all of them.
Yeah, just didn't didn't pick up.
Didn't pick it up. And also he took the results from the tests and got other people to study them just to double just to double watch the check.
Yeah, yeah, George Knapp, yeah, he kind of went, OK, I want to make sure that this is sound and that let's get a second opinion on these results.
And they went to other polygraph technicians in order to corroborate them.
I mean, I think George Knapp is interesting because he is also a showman, like his style.
So Robert Lazar comes across as actually a very quiet person, although I wonder how much of that is to do with the trauma of dealing with what he has experienced in the form of government agencies would touch upon that in a moment.
Whereas, sorry, is it George Knapp's that his name is the lead investigative journalist who did an entire series on Robert Lazar's claims back in the late 80s and early 90s.
Yeah, absolutely.
OK, yeah, so he he has some charisma and clearly enjoys the limelight and is by no means unintelligent.
So it's kind of interesting that with George Knapp, you've got those multiple elements, like so he's looking for a story, but he is making absolutely certain that the story is as credible as he can make it to be.
Yeah, I mean, he didn't approach the story going, oh, I absolutely believe this guy.
Bob is a believable guy. You can see that in the documentary. He comes across really level headed. He's not like a sensationalist. I put down in my notes. He's not like that at all.
I love it as well because he never even plays into sarcasm. No, like when they talk about the situation at work, like when he talks about how you he had people rhythmically shouting at him as a form of his gnosis and like George Knapp goes, huh?
Sounds like a fun place to work. And he goes, well, no, it wasn't.
But it was worth it in order to get to touch this. Yeah, sorry. Back to you.
Absolutely. You're absolutely right. So he yeah, there were the when he started to come out about the stuff in S4, he was he was being ridiculed by people at work.
And it was he felt like they were using their voices in a form of like hypnosis and torture to kind of get him to really be uncomfortable at work. And but he still would put he would he wanted to be there.
He genuinely wanted to be part of of something incredible and the technology that he had the opportunity to interact with. He was worth more than than the kind of treatment he was getting from his peers at work.
And he outwardly said that to George Knapp, which I think is incredible. George Knapp went through absolutely everything, though, to try and should we say debunk Bob Lazar?
He went through the whole rig and roll. He went through he looked at his MIT training and could find nothing about the guy and immediately started to doubt that he was who he said he was.
And then he went through Los Alamos and everybody spoke to over Los Alamos. Nobody had ever heard of him, apparently.
And then he went to EG&G and nobody there had ever heard of him. And like, there was so much that was kind of debunking Bob Lazar for him.
However, when he dug deeper, he began to realize the only thing that they've never been able to find record of is his time at MIT.
But it's said that that was because of a because of the program that he was working on. It was extremely confidential, tongue in cheek, kind of really dangerous stuff that he was working on.
And like nobody wanted anybody else to know about it, let alone who was working on it. That's why he's not recording anywhere.
However, Los Alamos, like George Knapp went with Bob to Los Alamos and George Knapp described it as a rabbit entering the like the run.
He knew exactly where he was going all the way through Los Alamos, even waving at people as he went by because he knew them.
Like you don't get that kind of reception in a place where you've never been, you know.
The guy that interviewed him at EG&G, he was able to name.
And like you shouldn't if you didn't have anything to do with the company, like you shouldn't know the people that work there.
And Jeremy Corbyn in the pod in the podcast, in the documentary, even says that he managed to find the guy that interviewed him and spoke with him and he could remember Bob Lazar.
So there was an interview there for EG&G.
And that seconded, like he knew about S4. S4 was a sub site in Area 51, which was incredibly secret at the time.
This is 1989, barely anybody even knew about Area 51.
And just for those younger listeners there, this is before the time of Google.
I'll let you know that public Internet was released in 1991.
So he couldn't even look up this kind of stuff on the Internet in 1989 when he came clean.
So the stuff that he knew, he knew because he had a reason to know it.
He didn't know it because he did his research and the people that he says he knew, knew him.
The only people who didn't were the organizations where he seems to have just been scrubbed from them.
It's really interesting that people can try to debunk a story like Bob Lazar when.
There's certain things outside of the sensational and the incredible things that he states.
The less sensational, the less subjective points of his story are factual.
And when you find somebody who is making a sensational story, they don't do the background work.
They're not going to make sure that they know the Georges and the Franks that run the front desk in order to really show a good foundation to a story,
which is another point that I think is really interesting about Bob Lazar's. It's all there.
So if this stuff around the edges, the bits that are inconsequential are completely factual,
just because the bit in the middle is sensational and incredible, does it make it any less believable?
In my opinion, it surely makes it more believable.
What I really... I think we should get to what Bob Lazar's claims are, but it does seem that he...
I think there may have even been a Piss Take Simpsons episode on this.
Yeah, I can remember Bob Lazar.
Yeah, with Mr. Burns and stuff.
There were elements of the documentary which seemed somewhat sensational, like when they did the voiceovers with the professional, incredibly deep voice actor talking about philosophical questions,
whilst loads of images of either space or different things were shown. That was the one sensationalist bit about this. The rest of it all seemed to be fairly legitimate.
Yeah, and it's important to remember that that was Jeremy Corbyn's addition to the Bob Lazar story. That wasn't Bob.
Yeah, no, this is the thing. The only element which I think that it even might be a hoax is partly because of the sheer terror,
and then also a lot of other questions of, well, if what he says is true, then what does that mean for now? What does that mean for other countries? Do other countries have the same resources as the United States have?
How come this stuff hasn't been backwardly engineered? What is going on here? The only thing that makes me even partially think that it's fake is the lack of success when it comes to,
or the fact that it hasn't been replicated by the United States or by another government. You could quite easily explain that away by saying, oh, well, they're all in cahoots, or the technology is just that advanced that we're not at a point when we can backwardsly engineer it.
Yeah, you're so- Oh, sorry. Go on. No, go on. I don't think he did it to become famous, because I'm going to be honest with you until you mentioned him.
I'd literally, I'd forgotten. I think he was famous at the time, and he was taking a lot of abuse at the time, and then he retreated into his shell and has gone and done science in a laboratory, producing different aerospace materials.
If he wasn't intelligent, he wouldn't have been able to do that. If he wasn't educated, he wouldn't have been able to work at the places that he worked at.
Unless something else is going on and he's just twisted the truth a little bit to get his 15 minutes of fame or whatever, then he's paid for it massively and horribly. He doesn't shout about it, so it doesn't seem like he wants the attention, but at the same time, he's never changed his story.
He's never said, oh, actually, I'm sorry. I wanted, you know, I was going through a rough patch with my wife. I really wanted this attention from this waitress, so I made up this big lie. That's never happened.
I think he said what he said and then disappeared. I think he might have, I know you said it was 1989. Was that the original, original? Because I think he may have done the thing when he was blacked out in the car.
That was May 1989.
That was May 1989. Okay.
It just seems like he's paid for it and unless it's just the fact that he's... I hate to say it, I think he is on the spectrum.
I mean, the guy's a genius. He's absolutely incredibly smart.
Yeah, like I just, I hate to say it, but because it sounds like I'm, you know, I'm tarring him with an insult or a brush. No, he is incredibly, he is incredibly intelligent.
The one part of me that makes me think he's now is whether he did it as maybe a little joke and then paid a horrible price for it with the abuse and now is just like, if anything, he kind of reminds me a little bit of Walter White from the series Breaking Bad, at least in the first season.
The naivety about him.
There is a very slight naivety.
I think maybe in the earlier videos, definitely. Yeah.
When you look at the older material, you maybe see a little bit of naivety about what he expected to come from it.
Like from his expose.
I think maybe he expected the government or the public to get more strong minded about it. Whereas really what happened was he got shunned and ridiculed instead.
It's interesting you say about the joke thing because I thought if it was going to be a joke, the point where it was a joke was when he took his mates out to Area 51 to video.
Like the test flights of these UFOs, which is something that he did at the time, and he took a load of his friends out into the desert and he took them straight to the test flight area, which was a different part of the Nevada desert entirely.
He was on Groom Lake and it was on a completely different lake bed where they were doing these test flights.
And if he was going to have a big joke about it, it would have been at that point, I think, in the mentality of sensationalism.
He would have planned this big prank then.
But they were confronted by military operatives whilst they were there.
Yeah, like this is the weird thing. The government almost collaborates his story through their reactions.
So if this hasn't already been stated clearly enough to our listeners, just to repeat this, Robert Lazar came to the media and said that I'm one of the scientists who works at Area 51 or in the branch of S4, that the US government has nine semi-operational,
some fully operational, but nine flying sources of an extraterrestrial origin that it is currently doing test flights with, successful test flights,
and that the US government is currently disassembling the less active ones in order to try and backwardsly engineer them. And this was at this point 35 years ago.
So I'm kind of wondering what's happened to that technology or why we haven't seen even the slightest change in our technology.
Another thing that he said is he talked about how these worked and it all sounded really far out and really theoretical, but I'm going to be honest with you, when describing this sort of stuff, it's impossible not to.
Yeah, for it to sound that way. Like, it's just like, you know, what was he supposed to say? Oh, well, we were expecting, you know, I opened up the flying saucer and it turns out there were a bunch of little pixies in there.
Or, you know, like, it turns out they just peddled.
There's no way where you can take something like that and then make it rational. The things that terrify me about this is that first off he talks about an antimatter reactor.
I don't know enough about physics, but I know that that's incredibly dangerous. I know my dad who did know something about physics was actually slightly worried and troubled by the particle accelerators, or sorry, the hadron collider as recreating some of the conditions of the Big Bang.
You've got a large margin of what can happen there, where the smallest margin is nothing happens and the biggest margin is, oh, well, you've broken physics in this way and he kind of felt that my dad kind of felt like...
You get two particles to collide and then all of a sudden the screen goes black and this little white game over comes up.
Yeah, exactly, exactly. Or it sets off some kind of chain reaction or it creates a miniature black hole even for a split second and then what the effect would be of that.
So an antimatter reactor, immediately terrifying.
Gravity amplifiers is also what he talked about when it came to the dissembling of the craft and where they were arranged.
And then gravity emitters which would then channel the gravity.
I did like the fact that he was clearly intelligent in that he was talking about how all current aircraft, all craft are reaction engines, like they produce a force which then...
They push out the back.
Yeah, they push out back, exactly, whereas this is completely the opposite of it creates a gravity field.
It bends space in front of it and the object falls into it. That's the way that he described it.
It bends gravity in front of the object and causes like a greater magnetic attraction ahead of the object and then the object falls into that space.
Well, that's exactly it. And I guess what I would have expected is for the smartest minds on Earth to have figured some of this stuff out and maybe to have done it in the guise of, I don't know, like a train which is pulled along the track
by the stationary stations or these like maybe things in the track which like slowly but surely pull the train along it.
You mean kind of like the bullet train in China?
Is that literally how that works?
It's a tube with like a floating magnetic tube drain inside and electromagnets along the inside of the tube tunnel kind of pull the train along and then reverse polarity.
So then they're pushing the train away as well at the same time. And because it's floating, there's no drag and it can travel up to ridiculous speeds.
Okay, well maybe this is just a case of my own ignorance because I hadn't heard of that one. I knew the Japanese had bullet trains and I traveled on one as a child.
But yeah, I wasn't aware of.
I mean the technology, the theoretical technology is there. Let me talk about some of the stuff that isn't UFO related that he did mention because I think there's some really interesting stuff there.
Now, he mentioned biometric readers in 1989. He mentioned a finger, not even a fingerprint scanner, it was a hand bone scanner.
And you put your hand down on this plate. This was like the security protocol when you walked into the building of S4.
You'd put your hand down on this plate and it'd scan the bones in your hand and measure the bones in your hand.
And that was your key card to get into the building.
And of course, in 1989, there was nothing like this around. And everybody said complete cocky pot, absolute bull crap.
And there's nothing like it. But in the documentary, Jeremy Corbyn shows him a picture of the biometric scanner that he himself described.
And when I found it, after all this time, I found this in the US military records.
This is a biometric scanner from around the time that you were and it was operative in some of the highest classified Air Force bases in the country.
And literally the stealth bomber, they used the same scanner.
Yeah, that is something that I thought was kind of really interesting because it was just like, OK, that's around the same time.
That was also top secret. And despite it being, you know, despite governments and militaries being compartmentalized, it's it.
Sadly, that does. Well, I don't say sadly.
I guess part of me doesn't want Bob Lazar's story to be true because then it really means that.
It really brings up the question to me, what else have people figured out that we're just not allowed to use?
Like and. Yeah, I don't know.
It really kind of. Concerns me, but you're right, you're right.
It's an incredible. It really does add to the credibility of the story because.
I did like the Jeremy Corbyn showed the first time.
Yeah, yeah, he showed the image, the image, the reaction, but also he's got the old stuff that Bob Lazar said.
Yeah. And as Bob Lazar explains it.
Yeah, it sounds fucking it sounds unrealistic.
It sounds freaky. And then you see the device and it's just like, oh.
Oh, yeah, that OK.
And the look on his face is genuine as well. It's recognition.
You see instant recognition on his face and he's like, wow, how have you found this?
I just think it is there's moments where you can see and this is why I like the way that Jeremy kind of like put the put the documentary together,
because there are numerous moments throughout that where he kind of catches Bob off guard trying to trip him up, trying to catch him out.
And Bob's reaction is 100 percent every time.
Like there's times where he goes, oh, there's people that say about misinformation and he goes, yeah, but what have I got to gain from this?
What have I gained out of this? If this was misinformation, what have I done that?
That that I've benefited from here.
You know, and there's there's moments where he's like, there's there's time.
Do you think if you could go back, you'd change what it was like?
Yeah, absolutely. I would absolutely not say what what I said, because I could I could have still been working on those UFOs.
I wanted to be working on those UFOs and I didn't know that talking about it would end up with me not being able to work on those UFOs.
I just thought people needed to know.
There was also element 115, which at the time there was no element 115.
And once again, he was slated to the ground about element 115 and he described it as this stable,
stable element which was used to bend gravity and there was mention of a cloud chamber test where element 115 was cloud poured across element 115
and light shone across the surface of element 115.
And you can see the light bend.
I haven't seen the video myself, but that's the that's the explanation of the video as George Knapp saw it
and as Bob Lazar had it.
However, Jeremy Corbyn managed to find the tape, but half of it was taped over.
All you see is the beginning of the cloud chamber experiment.
You just see the cloud chamber and then a bit of cloud come into it.
You don't see the element. You don't see the light.
You don't see any of that, which is unfortunate.
However, element 115 was discovered by scientists in 2003, question mark.
Hold on. 2003. Yeah, 2003.
However, when they synthesized element 115, it lasted a matter of 200 nanoseconds before it destabilized and fell apart into different elements.
And people say, oh, like, can't be it's unstable. It can't be element.
It can't be element 115.
Like Bob's got to be lying.
But every element has got different structures, different isotopes, different means to form.
And some are some are stable and some are unstable.
The way that they've synthesized 115 in this particular instance was unstable.
That does not mean element 115 cannot be found in a stable setting.
What I really like like Bob Lazar did a podcast on did the Joe Rogan podcast after this documentary came out.
And he kind of explains it a bit more detail what he meant.
And it's almost like he's implying that the technology that these these UFOs are showing come from a world where element 115 is an abundant resource.
And that's the normal technology that they've used.
We have a world where we've built all of our technology around fossil fuels because that's the resource that we have.
And all of our technology and all of our all of our investigations and kind of development has come through.
How do we get the most out of this resource that we have?
He kind of hypothesized that element 115 is the resource they have.
And although it looks incredible to us, they probably feel the same about the way that we push our cars around,
the way we fly our planes around the sky.
That may well be why there's a lot of investigation into us as far as like these UFO sightings that have come up quite a bit.
I don't necessarily feel that that's the case.
I think there are a lot of links between the UFO sightings that have happened since 1945 onwards and the nuclear bomb.
I think until we launched a nuclear bomb, we were of little to no interest to anybody from the outside world.
And as soon as we showed that we have planetary destructive level power,
it kind of drew the attention of beings from outside of our solar system.
Because the evidence, there is a New York Times article which I have got open.
And I just want to read you a little clip.
It's about an investigation that the National Defense Authorization Act, it's called,
which funds the Defense Department's annual operating budget in the US.
And it's $858 billion in 2023.
And in that is an amendment which requires the department to review historical documents related to unidentified aerial phenomena,
which is just US government's lingo for UFOs, dating to 1945.
This is the year that according to one account, a large avocado shaped object struck a communication tower in a patch of New Mexico desert,
now known as the Trinity site, where the world's first atomic bomb was detonated that July.
Interesting.
I think it's really interesting that they actually genuinely want to investigate this sighting before the Roswell accident in 1947,
which I don't think she really knew anything about, but apparently it happened in 1945,
at the same place where they launched the first nuclear bomb, where they tested the first nuclear bomb.
So I think there's a lot.
And if you listen to a lot of the UFO sightings from people that worked with the military,
they were really always on nuclear sites.
It was actually a report of nuclear missiles going into shutdown and all of them becoming,
what's the word when nuclear materials become...
Is it inert?
Inert, yeah.
They made all the nuclear warheads inert, like these orbs that were floating around this military base on the site.
This was around the Cold War.
This was in the US.
It's worth looking up.
I can't think of what it was called right now, but there is a reference to that.
So I think nuclear bombs have got a massive part to play in what drew the attention of UFOs in this century,
or in the last thousand years, in the last hundred years at least.
But it's important to note that the Nazis themselves were designing UFOs.
Yeah, now this is something my housemate brought up with me.
He was talking about how flying saucers did exist in the US,
but they weren't using antimatter reactors, gravity amplifiers, gravity deflectors,
that there were just these craft which had jet engines inside them arranged in a spiral
so that it created this spinning motion which in total created a downwards thrust.
But I haven't done... I'm really sorry, mate.
This was brought up with me just an hour before this.
It's fine, because this is like my area of expertise, shall we say.
So the UFOs that the Nazis were working on were part of the secret space program
that the Nazis had during the Second World War.
Now during Project Paperclip, at the end of the Second World War,
the Nazi scientists that weren't killed by the end of the war were boxed up and shared between the US and the Russians.
And NASA was formed and the Russian space program was formed.
And a number of the scientists also joined things like the Manhattan Project
and worked on the nuclear bomb and stuff like that.
So scientists from the Nazi secret space program kind of continued their research
in more of a Western-appreciated kind of manner over in the US.
And there are images of Nazi UFOs that you can go and see on Google.
And like you said, they weren't stable, they were jet propelled,
they weren't through any kind of anti-gravity energy system.
They were just jet propelled spinning objects that were incredibly dangerous
because nine times out of ten they ended up blowing up or crashing
and the people that were test flying them died.
So they weren't the most successful, however they did exist.
And they were based on or reverse engineered by,
like from these sources that were apparently like crashing around.
I think there was one crash in Italy where the Pope picked up on it
and then handed it over to the Nazis during the Second World War.
And that's what kind of led to the Nazi spacecraft being designed.
And it was kept very hush-hush during the Second World War obviously.
As we know the Italians and the Nazis were hand in hand during the Second World War.
So it doesn't sound outlandish that the Italians would hand it off to them.
They were allied, they were part of that, like they had their own thing.
Was it their leader Franco at that time or was it Mussolini?
I think it was Mussolini, wasn't it?
I'm pretty sure Mussolini was the big bad from the Italians at that point.
But that's just a bit of the backstory I suppose.
He says they had nine and you can kind of pick out at least through the articles
I've read in the last 48 hours that there were at least three that had crashed.
Roswell, this Triditi site and the one in Italy that would have all ended up in the US's hands
by the time Bob Lazar was at S4.
And there's no saying how many more there would have been.
So you can kind of, as much as nine UFOs, you can kind of sit there and go wow that's a lot.
But no, you know what, if three were just by 1950,
there's another 30 years before Bob Lazar works there.
35 years.
And I guess that's the thing that really has kind of made me...
I don't know, I really don't want to believe that technology in today's day and age
is as stunted as a lot of theories would suggest that it is.
Because if technology is stunted,
then it means all the harm that we're doing to the planet and all the death that is caused by the increasing,
well, climate change could quite easily be solved if the technology has not been suppressed.
What stuff could we achieve with these sources?
Not just that, but think about the...
Bob Lazar was talking about the anti-gravity module being used as like a force field.
You put a force field around Earth and you never have to worry about meteor impacts again.
But in order for us to be able to have technology on that scale,
you'd need everybody to be working together, right?
Yeah.
But you can't because everybody wants their little bit of it.
Now, you say that technology doesn't exist or might not exist or it's skeptical,
or you hope that it doesn't exist because it means that it's been kind of kept out of our eyesight.
It's also the moral implications. All I can say is when that finally does register in my heart,
my heart will respond with hatred to those who are holding it back,
just as any kind of system which is too full of control,
for example, Christendom in the medieval era,
I just think anger and hatred is the natural response to any form of over-controlling authority.
And it's just like if we've got all of these problems,
and if it turns out that we have the solution to solve them all along, then that's not an act of omission.
I believe that when it comes to action and inaction,
I believe that guilt is normally on the part of those who actively do a bad thing.
But holding back technology is actively doing a bad thing.
It's not just, oh, well, actually, I'm just going to put this in a box for a minute.
No, no, no, because in order to get your hands on it and be the one who chooses whether it goes in a box,
what have you done in order to do that? And why did you do it?
You know? Yeah. Sorry, back to Bob Lazar.
Well, no, let's move on. Let's talk about more modern day sightings.
So I want to kind of bring in discussions around Commander David Fravor and his sightings of the Nimitz incident, the Tic Tac.
So let's give a little bit of backstory on David Fravor for a minute.
Now, Commander David Fravor is a retired naval pilot who commanded the VFA 41, also known as the Black Aces in the US Air Force and the US Navy.
He joined the military at 17 and had a career spanning 24 years, 18 of which was as a Navy pilot.
He had completed five tours in the Persian Gulf starting after Operation Desert Storm,
and he commanded a squadron of airplanes consisting of 330 people.
He is a key witness in the 2004 Nimitz incident titled The Tic Tac. He retired in 2006.
That's just my notes that I've pulled up on David Fravor.
And the reason I wanted to give that backstory a little bit is to tell you that, like, the guy that brought forwards the evidence
or witnessed the sighting of the Tic Tac was a revered commander in the US Navy.
He wasn't a crazy scientist guy from Nevada. He worked with technologies where you have to be mentally tested to be sound enough to have command of them.
He also took command of 300 plus people and had to check that their mentality was of sound mind to be able to fly the planes that they were flying and operate the machines they were operating.
So he knew the severity of great technology and how it should be handled and kind of was deemed to have sound mind when he made this sighting.
Now, for those that don't know the Nimitz incident, it's labeled as The Tic Tac, as I said in my notes, and you can see it on YouTube.
There's a couple of others that you should look into as well.
There's one titled The Go Fast, which I think is an absolutely incredible sighting recorded and out on YouTube.
And there's also The Gimbal, which is one that I want to touch on a little bit relative to Bob Lazar.
Now, David Fravers, just to give a little bit of backstory for those that can't see it, he says that he saw a bit of whitewash on the surface of the water.
And when he turned the plane towards it, he saw an object hovering above the surface of the water.
And then the object started to move really erratically, almost like he described it like a pinball being bounced around inside of a glass.
Like kind of going ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding all around, like really sharp turns, really quick movements side to side, up and down and stuff like that.
And it drew his attention, and he thought, wow, this object is incredible.
So he turned his plane towards it, and he kind of, as soon as he started moving towards it, it started to track his movements and fly in time with him. So it kind of stayed a set distance away from him.
And at the same time, his second, or his operations man, the guy in the backseat that operates all the radar equipment and everything, noticed that it was actively jamming a lot of his radar systems.
So he wasn't able to get a lock on it in the way that the computers wanted to.
They wanted to read about it and kind of like tell him how far away it was and how fast it was going.
And he couldn't get any of that data because it immediately started to jam.
Now that in itself is an act of war.
Anything that actively seeks to jam aircraft in the field, it's seen as an act of war by the American.
It's kind of go time. They kind of get their back up and decide.
But he decided he would try to track it, and they followed it for about five minutes.
I say followed it, it followed them, they followed it.
They kind of kept an eye on it for about five minutes, at which point it just disappeared.
And he said the speed that it moved off was like nothing that he'd seen before.
He, this is a commander of the US Navy. He'd flown the F-22 Raptor.
He has been in the fastest aircraft that we have in the air, or the US have in the air.
And he said we've got nothing that can do that, nothing at all.
And the most incredible thing about the Tic Tac incident is that it turned up.
The object that he was tracking turned up at his cat point, which for those that don't know,
a cat point is his next point of interest, the place he was going to next.
But he, it got there before he even had those coordinates.
It was over 60 miles away, and they found it floating in the air there,
and it had already been there less than a minute later.
Like they found the object floating in the air at his cat point,
not watched it come in and then found it there, but kind of went, what the fuck is that up there?
It was already there less than a minute later, 60 miles away,
which was incredible to even conceive, like a mile a second.
And yet it was already there, so it traveled there faster than that.
What I found interesting as well is when he is talking about his experience with this,
he said it was there and then it wasn't, and then he goes into great detail
about how he's worked with a number of, yeah, a number of supersonic aircraft,
how he's watched a number of NASA aircraft flying at Mach 3,
which is something also I wasn't aware of, but then again, I'm not as much into aviation as I was as a child,
so I maybe need to get back into that.
But he's talked about how when something goes at Mach 3, he can't catch it and it disappears,
but he's able to watch it disappear.
Whereas what he's saying, what happened with the Tic Tac was it was there in front of his nose,
and then it was gone.
It was just gone.
And like he, like none of this was like, people assumed that this sighting would have then been like
men in black coats came and glasses came and told them what was shut up and hush hush,
and it was really confidential, but there was none of that.
They landed at their aircraft carrier, the Nimitz, and they were debriefed,
and the guys on the aircraft carrier all took the piss out of them,
and they like played men in black and stuff on the cinema just to kind of dig out the guys that had seen this UFO,
and there was all this funny talk about seeing a UFO,
and it was just general banter that you would expect to see from the Air Force or from the Navy,
from your comrades at sea.
None of it was like this cloak and dagger kind of super secret scenario that you kind of get fed by the media,
which is what I think is really interesting about this particular recount.
The other really interesting thing about this recount is who David Fravor is.
Now, obviously I said about who David Fravor is as a commander, who he is as an individual.
This is a guy that used to mock UFOs.
He genuinely didn't believe in them, had no interest in them.
There was a site near one of their Navy bases, which was renowned for UFO sightings,
and they knew it at the air base, and he used to fuck with the people that were camping there
by it would be pitch black at night, and he would go into complete ghost mode on his aircraft.
So the lights are all off, the engines shut off, so there's no sound from it, and it's completely dark.
And then you'd fly right into this campsite, and then all of a sudden he'd slam the lights on,
slam the afterburner on, and beam off in towards the sky, and he's like chuckling away to himself,
that's going to be a UFO sighting the next day, and he's talking about this.
Whilst he's on John Rogan podcast, and he's chuckling away to himself,
that we used to play those games and it's not just him, that's kind of like one of the games that they play with the public.
They make UFO sightings, so they don't take this stuff seriously at all, and yet he genuinely is taking this seriously.
Yeah, that's it, and it's just once again, it's like what does he have to gain from that?
Exactly.
Like if anything it looks like a black mark on his otherwise near perfect record.
Yeah, I mean the guy's retired from the Navy, he's done his bit, he's earned his money, he's done more than his bit for the US.
He doesn't need any more fame, he doesn't need any more of it, he doesn't even want it, I don't think.
But he is a witness in an ongoing investigation by the Senate in the US, and he'll do what he needs to do for his country.
So if he gets asked questions about something that he's witnessed, he's not being told to shut up about it, he'll talk about it.
Let's go back to the gimbal.
Now the gimbal is a sighting by the US Navy or the Air Force, which I think is really interesting,
because in the video it clearly shows a UFO hovering in, or an object hovering in the air,
and before it bugger off into nowhere, it rotates, which is why it kind of got the name the gimbal,
because it rotates and it moves off into the edge of the picture, barely first.
Bob Lazar covers this when he talks to Joe Rogan, and he says like that, no, actually,
when Joe and Jeremy are talking to David Fravor on the Joe Rogan,
they're talking about the way that Bob Lazar describes the way that his UFOs would move, they'd move belly first,
and they go, interestingly enough, that UFO moves belly first, like it travels the way that Bob Lazar was describing these UFOs back in 1989.
To be fair, that is when all three of the gravity arrays focus in on the same point.
So it can move in any other direction, but in order to allow it to move at full speed, it would move belly first.
So I'm assuming with this incident, it's moving around normally, and then it goes belly first, and then it disappears, because it moves that quickly.
What I struggle with this stuff as well is when people are talking about, oh, well, yeah, well, that's not something we make because it's moving too fast.
It also can't be something we make, because if we put humans inside of something, there's limits to what the human body can withstand.
You know, there are limits to...
You say that. Now, let me explain something to you.
Alright, alright, I'll hear something.
If you're thinking about it as inertia, right?
So you're looking at an object that's moving around, you're thinking, my God, that thing's moving around so fast.
If I was in there, I'd be splatting on one wall, splatting on the other wall, splatting on another wall, splatting on another wall.
I would die, yeah?
And the only reason that object can move that way is because it's generating its own gravitational field.
If it's generating its own gravitational field, it's operating outside of the gravitational effects of planet Earth, which is what creates inertia.
Shit, so what you're saying is anyone, you could literally be on the inside that flying saucer and you would...
You wouldn't feel a bloody thing.
You wouldn't feel a bloody... Okay, right.
Alright, well, I've learned something new, ladies and gentlemen.
Yeah, that's fair. That's fair.
And that's not necessarily...
That's not necessarily like Bob Lazar or David Fravor, that kind of...
That's logic that dictates that, that thinking.
Because we're moving through space.
We don't feel the effect of moving through space because we're within a gravitational bubble of planet Earth.
Yeah, like this was spinning over a hundred miles an hour.
I can't remember the exact thing. We are traveling...
Six hundred and something, rather, mile an hour, yep.
Weirdly enough, this is also one of the points that I love that ancient philosophers would use to prove that the Earth is the middle center of the universe because the Earth doesn't move.
Because if the Earth was moving, they'd use the plan of inertia and like they'd just jump up in the air and then land in the same spot.
And they were like, OK, well, if the Earth was moving, I wouldn't have landed there. I would have landed somewhere else.
But anyway, that's another topic for another time.
When I'm on the train with my kid, I like to sit with him and we kind of sit there on the train and we say that we're not moving, the train's not moving, the world's moving around us.
I love it. And he loves playing that little game on the train where the world is moving around him and the train's not.
The train's wheels are moving to keep up with the way that the Earth is moving.
And I'm like, it's incredibly, despite the fact it is whatever, however you might perceive it as wrong, there's also elements of it which are if the train's traveling in the right direction as the Earth is spinning,
there might be at least moving towards slowing down to a point of standstill. If you're traveling on a plane, traveling against the spin of the Earth at 650 mile an hour, are you not standing still on that plane?
Is that not the only time that you will find yourself standing still?
Hmm. That's a fair point.
Interesting. But anyway, there's a complete bloody tangent.
But yeah, so I just think that there is so much, I mean that the point I was trying to make about David Fravers' citing is that he quite clearly says, oh, this is nothing that humans can have achieved.
I don't necessarily know that you can rule that out, because if in 1989, Bob Lazar and his story was true,
and they reverse engineered aircraft that were behaving in the same way that David Fravers' craft was behaving in 2006, 2004,
then that's 25 years, 15 years, they had to work on that technology before it could have got to that point.
That's in the cloak, what's it, what they call it, in the shadow government that is operating within the US, that's more than achievable.
But these companies like Lockheed Martin, their skunkworks sector, that operate completely in secret, the Raytheon company, which operates completely in secret, its secret technologies,
that you have no idea what they're working on, they may well have designed a vehicle that is able to achieve these things.
Carl Sagan said, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, which I think is a really poignant saying to kind of round off this podcast. I'm not saying that humans do have technology like this.
What I am saying is that you can't rule out that we do, that we don't. But likewise, you can't rule out that UFOs are coming from other places, and we're seeing those either,
because we have not got enough evidence in the public domain to say one way or the other. To have an opinion that is concretized and affirmed and 100% is almost to be naive in this instance.
And to be open minded will only pave the way for your fear and your surprise and your shock and all the other emotions that may well come with some kind of revelation down the road to be lessened, and you'll be better prepared to process the information as and when it arrives.
I completely agree. I'm still not sure where I stand with all of this, but it's still a very interesting case study and does raise a lot of questions and has me questioning a lot of stuff, which is never a bad thing.
Well, I'm going to round it off there. So once again, from myself and from James, thank you very much for listening. I'll say goodbye.
Bye everyone.
Thank you.