Thank you for listening to The Sean Ryan Show. If you haven't already, please take a minute, head over to iTunes, and leave The Sean Ryan Show a review. We read every review that comes through, and we really appreciate the support. Thank you. Let's get back to the show. All right, Avi, we're back from the break, and this is the last segment of the interview. We've got a little bit left, and I just have a couple of personal questions. One, we had an interesting discussion again at breakfast. We had a good breakfast, but we were talking about you know, if they're hiding stuff from us. I gave you, you know, kind of my thoughts on that. But then I had also brought up, I got really interested in the extraterrestrial UFO, UAP phenomena type topic. I think about two years ago is when I really started looking into it. And I've interviewed all kinds of people on the subject. And there seems to be about three main camps. And all of these camps are looking for, they all talk about disclosure. They want disclosure. But the funny thing about these camps is they all think that they know everything and that none of the other camps know anything. And so it reminds me

of religions. It's very similar. Each has their own god and they don't believe in the other tribe. It's

very odd that the commonality between all of them is they want full disclosure, but none of them work with each other. They just talk trash about each other. This

camp doesn't know anything. We know everything. Right. And the problem with that is when scientists look at that, they say, we don't want anything to do with it. And that's unfortunate because we should search for evidence and figure out the answers. It makes no sense to ignore a subject just because there are people fighting with each other about it and making statements that are not supported by evidence. So I think we should take the high road. And, you know, that is the approach that I'm taking also with respect to my critics. Very often there are people who jealous of the attention that my work gets from the public, and they just want to bring it down. They want to step on any flower that rises above the grass level. These are people in academia who are otherwise not accomplishing much. And so they decide to attack, very often it's personal. And sometimes the media listens to them. So just to give you an example, we searched for the interstellar meteor according to the coordinates provided by the Department of Defense. The fireball from the meteor was seen by sensors on US government satellites. And just before we went there, we looked at the seismometers and other sensors on the ground that have released public information. And we found one seismometer that had a blip consistent with the location that the U.S. Department of Defense provided. So we said, that's great. We went to the error box of DOD and surveyed it 26 times. Now, a team of scientists said, we don't believe the U.S. government. which by itself is a little bit odd because the US Space Command is funded at $30 billion a year, more than the budget of NASA. And they're supposed to advise the US president about any ballistic missiles launched from North Korea or Russia or Iran. And if their data is unreliable, they could advise the US president the missile is heading towards Mexico when it's actually going towards Washington. And the astronomers were arguing that they're wrong by a factor of three, that in fact the speed was much smaller. This was an object from the solar system. And, you know, that to me sounded quite unusual for a statement made in a scientific publication. And then they said, well, if we discard the U.S. government and we just look at the data that is publicly available otherwise, then we can't localize this meteor very well. So, in fact, it could have been in a much larger region. And so maybe the expedition went to the wrong place. And then they said this seismometer might have actually detected a truck that was passing by. It was not a signal from the explosion of the fireball.

And

so the New York Times published an interview with the lead author of this paper, and the title was, The Meteor Could Have Been a Truck. because we were attending mostly to the data that came from U.S. government satellites that detected the light coming from the explosion. It was nothing to do with the seismometer. That was just used to back up and look if there was any supporting evidence, but this was not what guided us. And the location from the U.S. DOD was consistent with the bigger error ellipse provided by these scientists. So they can't say that we went to the wrong place. And so this part of the story was not at all mentioned in New York Times reports. And so, you know, it led me to realize that, you know, if on scientific matters that are relying on evidence, you cannot trust science journalists, then how can you trust what is being published in the New York Times on politics? And the approach that I take to those critics who are looking for any possible way to raise dust and claim that they can't see anything. The approach is similar to the eagle. You know, the eagle very often has crows pecking at its neck. They're sitting on the back of the eagle. And you might think that the eagle will fight them off. But no, the eagle rises to greater heights where the oxygen level is low and the crows cannot survive, so they drop off the back of the eagle. And to me, the highest level as a scientist is to seek evidence so that my critics will not be able to survive. And that's what I'm doing. So taking the high ground, not attending to people who make no sense, that are not really collecting data, you know, to plan this expedition took us a year to go there. It was very elaborate and required a lot of effort. I didn't sleep much during the expedition. And then for nine months, we analyzed the materials. There were a few scientists that were claiming it's actually what we found is coal ash. And that led us to check 55 elements from the periodic table, and we demonstrated it's not coal ash. But for them to just make that claim required not much effort, nothing. And so it's very easy to criticize than to actually do the work. It's very easy to destroy something than to build it. We know that because that's the technique that terrorists take. They can easily destroy things, whereas to build those things took a lot of time. And so, you know, the fact that evidence does not play a central role and that constructive feedback is not dominant within academia bothers me, but I'm taking the high road on that. And within the UAP community, you have also voices that are not substantiated by evidence, but this is just noise. We should ignore it and do the right thing. I mean, isn't that a reoccurring

trait of humans since the beginning of time? If it wasn't you that made it, then destroy it. If you can't make it, destroy it. If you don't understand it, destroy it. Right. I mean, that's... But

that was a signature of tribalism, that you belong to a tribe that fights for resources with another tribe. And obviously, it's a zero-sum game. If the resources are limited, you can't allow both tribes to benefit from them. So the idea is that we're engaged in zero-sum games, and we are used to that. And so, often we fight people that belong to another tribe. But science is completely different. It's an infinite sum game in the sense that if I gain new knowledge, everyone benefits from it. That's the whole idea of science. And my hope is that we will become, as a species, intelligent enough at some point to realize that working together is much better than fighting each other. And it's not yet recognized in academia. That's what I'm telling you. But I have bruises to prove that. But I don't care. I'm a tough person. I jog every morning at sunrise. I enjoy nature. I don't have any footprint on social media. I don't care what other people say. I just want to do the right thing based on what sounds like common sense to me. And, you know, it's common sense to me that we are not alone, that we are likely to have neighbors that may have existed before us. Because there are hundreds of billions of stars like the sun in the Milky Way galaxy alone, and a substantial fraction of them may have a planet the size of the Earth, roughly the same separation. So it's really arrogant to suggest that we are unique and special. And, you know, one day I was at home and my wife called me and said, there is someone on the street looking at our home. Maybe it's one of your fans. You should check what this person wants. And I went there and I said, you've been staring at our home for an hour. Why? And he said, because I was born at this house 50 years ago. And I said, would you like to have a look at the backyard? And he said, sure. Actually, there was a cat that we buried in the backyard called Tiger. And I said, yeah, the name sounds familiar because I saw the tombstone with Tiger written all over it. But I was hoping it's not a real tiger. That it does. At any event, we went there and he explained it to me. Now, what did that lesson teach me? That you should welcome visitors, especially if they come from interstellar space. When you meet with another person, let's say on a blind date, you can pretty much assume that the other person looks just like you because you share the same DNA. That is a human and you are a human. However, if you meet something from another star, all bets are off. just as with the meeting with this stranger that looked at our home, you know, maybe the interstellar visitor was around longer than we did, knows about things that happened in our backyard that we don't even realize. And so it's always to our benefit to learn from our neighbors. And, you know, just ignoring the possibility that we have neighbors arguing that it's an extraordinary claim without seeking the evidence for it is really not intelligent. You know, only when we will become enough to allow ourselves to search for the neighbors, we might find them and we might be admitted to the club of intelligent civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. So far, we are just looking down, not looking up and focusing on conflicts. And that is not a sign of intelligence.

true very true when you think of extraterrestrial life especially when it comes to if there are more advanced organisms in the in the somewhere in the universe what do you imagine do you imagine i mean we had talked about looking for lights on other planets and water, and you brought up the stuff on the moon. Was it Saturn?

Titan, the moon of Saturn. Titan that has lakes and oceans of methane and ethan. I

mean, do you imagine they have the same senses? No. Communicate similar? Not necessarily. I don't want to imagine anything because

our imagination is limited to

our experience

on Earth. And all bets are off when you deal with someone from another star or another environment that is very different than ours. So I prefer to go to this blind date with my eyes open, not to assume anything. And, you know, that's how I met my wife on a blind date. So who knows? And if I'm offered, if they land in my backyard and offer me a one-way ticket, I will take it. I'm so disappointed with what's going on on Earth right now. It can only get better by going into Stellar.

Yeah, yeah.