Speaker 1: High Strange is released every Friday and brought to you
Speaker 1: absolutely free, but for ad free listening, exclusive bonuses, and
Speaker 1: early access to episodes, subscribe to tenderfoot Plus at tenderfootplus
Speaker 1: dot com or on Apple podcasts. The views and opinions
Speaker 1: expressed in this podcast are solely those of the podcast
Speaker 1: author or individuals participating in the podcast, and do not
Speaker 1: represent those of iHeartRadio, Tenderfoot TV, or their employees. This
Speaker 1: podcast also contains subject matter which may not be suitable
Speaker 1: for everyone.
Speaker 2: Listener discretion is advised.
Speaker 3: News articles once again mentioned the talk about alien spacecraft,
Speaker 3: and subsequent articles in national magazines quoted unnamed sources about
Speaker 3: things of alien origin flying in Nevada.
Speaker 4: Nowhere, like a Shiroco in the desert. He was in silhouette.
Speaker 4: He comes forward on the news and says, we are
Speaker 4: reverse engineering alien spacecraft at a place called Area fifty one,
Speaker 4: which you haven't heard about, but it's out there in
Speaker 4: the Nevada desert, nine flying saucers. And I was part
Speaker 4: of that program. And now I'm worried about my life.
Speaker 4: I feel a threat to my personal safety. That's my story.
Speaker 5: That's it.
Speaker 2: Don The story of Bob Blazar will never go quietly.
Speaker 1: He described a job, not a moment in the sky,
Speaker 1: but a workplace, a schedule, a commute, the chain of command,
Speaker 1: he said, or reverse engineering alien spacecraft at a place
Speaker 1: you've never heard of. That place was Area fifty one.
Speaker 6: He says.
Speaker 3: He was hired to work at an area called S four.
Speaker 3: At S four, he says, are flying saucers, technology that
Speaker 3: is seemingly beyond human capability, and overnight.
Speaker 1: A classified military test site became a cultural obsession.
Speaker 3: Lazar's story is by any standards, fantastic.
Speaker 7: He says.
Speaker 3: He's telling it in order to protect himself.
Speaker 4: So George Knapp was like, who is this? Lazar guide?
Speaker 4: His news people were like, is this true? In this
Speaker 4: I don't know. I'm going to find out.
Speaker 3: This week we've heard the contention of UFO researchers that
Speaker 3: there's a secret government within our government. It's a chilling
Speaker 3: scenario with worldwide implications that may have its roots right here.
Speaker 2: EREA fifty one.
Speaker 3: That mysterious corner of the Nevada test site is no
Speaker 3: longer much of a secret. The fact that secret of
Speaker 3: things go on here is a given even to the
Speaker 3: Soviets who make daily spy flights over the facility to
Speaker 3: take a peek at what's going on.
Speaker 1: The question was not just is this true? It was
Speaker 1: who is this guy?
Speaker 4: Very polarizing figure. If people look into the UFO world,
Speaker 4: can we believe him?
Speaker 5: Can we not? Does he have a shorted past? Is
Speaker 5: he a liar?
Speaker 1: If Lezaara is lying, it's an extraordinary line. And if
Speaker 1: he's telling the truth, it's one of the most important
Speaker 1: revelations in human history.
Speaker 2: There is no middle ground.
Speaker 5: I was thirteen years old.
Speaker 4: Then to hear on the radio Bob Tzar's voice and
Speaker 4: George Knapp interviewing him, and that was like my gateway drug.
Speaker 5: That's where my curiosity got weaponized.
Speaker 3: Strange stories of lights in the night sky. No one
Speaker 3: who's worked a Dreamland has ever publicly acknowledged what so
Speaker 3: many people have suspected for years, that alien technology is
Speaker 3: being tested and then avaded desert.
Speaker 6: It's a very interesting building.
Speaker 8: It's got a slope of probably about thirty degrees, which
Speaker 8: are hangar doors, nine flying saucers, flying discs of extraterrestrial origin.
Speaker 6: It's there. I saw it. This came from somewhere else.
Speaker 8: As a bizarre as it is to believe I know
Speaker 8: what the current state of the art is and physics,
Speaker 8: and it can't be done.
Speaker 3: He says he was never told exactly what he'd be
Speaker 3: working on, but figured it had something to do with
Speaker 3: advanced propulsion. On his first day, he was told to
Speaker 3: read a series of briefings that immediately realized how advanced
Speaker 3: the propulsion was.
Speaker 4: You're like, okay, well is this possibly true. The one
Speaker 4: thing he said that blew my mind was the way
Speaker 4: Bob Azar described the propulsion system.
Speaker 6: They run gravity amplifiers.
Speaker 8: There's no physical hookup between any of the systems in there.
Speaker 8: They use gravity as a wave, using wave guides like microwaves.
Speaker 8: Traveling these distances does require a level of technology that
Speaker 8: man has not yet achieved, but it has nothing to
Speaker 8: do with flying in a linear mode. Near the beat
Speaker 8: of light, we can distort the space time and in
Speaker 8: turn the distance between the point where we are and
Speaker 8: the point where we want to be.
Speaker 1: Blazaarre doesn't talk like a storyteller. He talks like someone
Speaker 1: describing a machine. Gravity amplifiers, non reactionary propulsion. I mean,
Speaker 1: are they just cool buzzwords or does he actually know
Speaker 1: what he's talking about?
Speaker 5: When you have a craft is propelled by something.
Speaker 4: Most things are reactionary propulsion rockets to roller skates. You
Speaker 4: push something out the back, you move forward. The thing
Speaker 4: that Lazarre said publicly that really struck me. He said,
Speaker 4: this is a non reactionary PU system. You can move
Speaker 4: through time and space. You can move somewhere without pushing
Speaker 4: something out the back. And I'm like, what does that mean.
Speaker 4: It's like you push your fist into a bed, and
Speaker 4: you've got a bowling ball on that bed, and the
Speaker 4: bowling ball falls into the divot where you put your fist,
Speaker 4: falling into place. If what he said is true, then
Speaker 4: the distance between stars and galaxies no longer matters. Because
Speaker 4: the big argument was, of course there's life out there
Speaker 4: in the university. If you had a propulsion system that
Speaker 4: negated the entire dilemma you have of distance, time and space,
Speaker 4: then there's no boundary that's stopping contact from other civilizations.
Speaker 4: So all these things people see disks in the sky
Speaker 4: for thousands of years.
Speaker 5: Well, there's a possibility could be true.
Speaker 4: So first time I heard it explained in a way
Speaker 4: that made sense from a point of physics, and I thought,
Speaker 4: holy shit. If what he saying is true, then distance
Speaker 4: doesn't matter. And if that's true, dude, I got to find.
Speaker 8: Out the hardware and technology I was exposed to should
Speaker 8: be placed in the proper hands of the scientific community.
Speaker 6: There is physical evidence.
Speaker 8: Which proves that there is life elsewhere, and that at
Speaker 8: least one form of that life has been here.
Speaker 1: Lazarre says he worked at S four south of Groome Lake,
Speaker 1: inside hangers built into the desert. Altogether, he claims to
Speaker 1: have seen nine craft, all different, all beyond human capability.
Speaker 4: What Bob Lazar said, then it is imperative that people
Speaker 4: try to understand what he meant by that and try
Speaker 4: to figure out for thisselves if he is worthy of
Speaker 4: your trust.
Speaker 2: And then the story fractures.
Speaker 4: When he came forward, whether you believe it or not,
Speaker 4: the idea was that he he was worried about his
Speaker 4: safety and as well being. I know everybody who's with
Speaker 4: him at that time, they don't even like each other anymore.
Speaker 4: Some of them they don't get along. They all agree
Speaker 4: on one thing. What Bob said happened happened. He was
Speaker 4: temporarily employed trying to reverse engineer these UFOs. Immediately when
Speaker 4: he came forward, George Knap tried to dig into these
Speaker 4: claims and say, what can I prove what is real?
Speaker 5: What is not real?
Speaker 1: Schools deny his education, agencies deny as employment records just disappear.
Speaker 3: Checking out Lazar's credentials proved to be a difficult task.
Speaker 3: He says he earned degrees in physics and electronics, but
Speaker 3: the schools we contacted say they've never heard of him.
Speaker 3: He also said he worked as a physicist at Los
Speaker 3: Alamo's National Lab, where he experimented with one of the
Speaker 3: world's largest particle beam accelerators, a half mile long behemoth
Speaker 3: capable of generating seven hundred million volts.
Speaker 4: Very clearly worked at Los Alamos, because guess why George
Speaker 4: Knapp went there bob led him in.
Speaker 5: There's video of that.
Speaker 3: Los Alamos officials told us they had no records of
Speaker 3: a Robert Lazar ever working there. They were either mistaken
Speaker 3: or were lying. A nineteen eighty two phone book from
Speaker 3: the lab lists Lazar right there among the other scientists
Speaker 3: and technicians. A nineteen eighty two clipping from the Los
Speaker 3: Alamos newspaper profiled Lazarre and his interest in jet cars.
Speaker 3: It too mentioned his employment at the lab as a physicist.
Speaker 1: At the same time, physical evidence refuses to cooperate with
Speaker 1: that denial. Phone books, newspaper clippings, actual video footage from
Speaker 1: Los Alamos. This is where the Bob Lazar story becomes
Speaker 1: impossible to hold together in a clean way.
Speaker 4: Obviously worked at Los Alamos. Why did they tell George
Speaker 4: Knapp that he didn't work there? Never worked there?
Speaker 5: They don't know what he's talking about.
Speaker 3: We called Los Alamos again. An exasperated official told us
Speaker 3: he still had no records on Lazarre. EG and G,
Speaker 3: which is where Lazarre says he was interviewed for the
Speaker 3: job at S four, also has no records. It's as
Speaker 3: if someone has made him disappear.
Speaker 6: Well, they're trying to make me a non person.
Speaker 8: They explain, you called where, well, the schools that I
Speaker 8: went to, the hospital that was born at past job,
Speaker 8: and essentially nothing comes up with my name in it.
Speaker 3: He smiles, but out of futility, knowing the whole thing
Speaker 3: must sound ridiculous. According to Lazarre, his employer was the
Speaker 3: United States Navy. He says he and other government employees
Speaker 3: would gather near EG and G flight to Groom Lake.
Speaker 3: Very few people would get into a bus with blacked
Speaker 3: out or no windows and drive to S four. It
Speaker 3: took a while, Azar says before he actually saw one
Speaker 3: of the flying discs. However, there were hints everywhere.
Speaker 8: They had a poster and it looked like a commercial poster,
Speaker 8: almost like it was lithographed and you could buy it
Speaker 8: at a kmart or something. But they were all over
Speaker 8: the place, and it had the disc that I coined
Speaker 8: the term the sport Model.
Speaker 3: The sport model his name for the craft stashed in
Speaker 3: the desert.
Speaker 6: When I was let in.
Speaker 8: It was the first time I saw the Sport Model
Speaker 8: in the hangar, sitting down, and I was told they
Speaker 8: could have walked me in the front door, but they
Speaker 8: purposely wanted to walk me by it. I was still
Speaker 8: not to say anything and just keep my eyes forward
Speaker 8: and walk past the disk into the office area. As
Speaker 8: I went by it, I just kind of stuck my
Speaker 8: hands on it, just to run it alongside the thing.
Speaker 8: And after that I got to see it. I actually
Speaker 8: left off the ground and operate. The hangars are all
Speaker 8: connected together and there are large bay doors between each one,
Speaker 8: and there were nine total that I saw, each one
Speaker 8: being different.
Speaker 3: Security it asked four was oppressive, Lazarre says, and his
Speaker 3: superiors used fear and intimidation almost as a brainwashing tool.
Speaker 6: Did everything but physically hurt me. Put a gun gear.
Speaker 8: Head, Yeah, guards there with them, sixteens and guys slamming
Speaker 8: their finger into my chest, screaming in my ear, some
Speaker 8: people pointing weapons at me.
Speaker 6: It's not a good place to work.
Speaker 1: Either he lied about parts of his background or someone
Speaker 1: tried very hard to erase him.
Speaker 8: Paul, I've just presented to you is true, and the
Speaker 8: government is keeping this a secret. How can I make
Speaker 8: a video telling you about it? Well, the bottom line
Speaker 8: is if there are any repercussis from making this video, well,
Speaker 8: it simply confirm that what I told you is true.
Speaker 6: So what you do with this information is up to you.
Speaker 8: What's going on up there could be the most important
Speaker 8: event in history. You're talking about contact, physical physical contact
Speaker 8: and proof from another system, another planet, another intelligence. That's
Speaker 8: got to be the biggest event in history period. I
Speaker 8: am telling the truth. I've tried to prove that.
Speaker 2: Not every detail is perfect.
Speaker 1: So the question becomes, does one false truth or unresolved
Speaker 1: mystery collapse this story?
Speaker 2: Altogether?
Speaker 9: We have people ostensibly with credentials who are frauds. And
Speaker 9: who have blommed on to pop culture. Robert Scott Lazarre,
Speaker 9: supposedly a nuclear physicist with a master's and physics from MIT,
Speaker 9: a master in electronics from cal Tech, who supposedly worked
Speaker 9: at Area fifty one back engineering flying saucers. I did
Speaker 9: a lot of checking on Bob. I tried to meet
Speaker 9: with them twice. I was supposed to on one occasion,
Speaker 9: and he didn't go along. I checked at MIT, I
Speaker 9: checked at cal Tech. Neither one ever heard of him. Well,
Speaker 9: but the government wiped his records clean. As the response.
Speaker 9: I talked to the legal counsel at MIT.
Speaker 7: No way to do that.
Speaker 2: I talked with the guy who has the.
Speaker 9: Degrees, the commencement lists and all that sort of thing.
Speaker 9: No mention of Lazarre. None of the yearbooks show Lazar
Speaker 9: for a master's degree. You need a thesis. I talked
Speaker 9: to the guy who holds those No Lazarre item there.
Speaker 9: And the story goes on and on beyond that, and
Speaker 9: I got people telling me, well, I don't see why
Speaker 9: you don't believe him. He seemed so sincere. Sincerity is
Speaker 9: not a check on truth.
Speaker 1: So if you go back in his history and he
Speaker 1: talks about going to college. There's no record of him
Speaker 1: being at this college. How is that? So, what is
Speaker 1: the explanation for that?
Speaker 4: So let's open this up so your audience understands. So
Speaker 4: now we're going to like one of the points of contention.
Speaker 4: One of the first things George Knapp couldn't confirm was
Speaker 4: Bob Azar's education history. There are certain things he couldn't
Speaker 4: ever prove. Doesn't mean they didn't happen, just George couldn't
Speaker 4: prove him so in the first report, because I cannot
Speaker 4: verify his claimed educational roles what he said that he had.
Speaker 4: So it leaves you with one of three options. Either
Speaker 4: Bob a Zart lied about his educational history. That doesn't
Speaker 4: negate the fact that he did work at Los Alamos,
Speaker 4: and doesn't negate the fact of what we now know
Speaker 4: about his employment out at the test range area fifty one.
Speaker 4: That's version one. Okay, I'll accept that. If that's true.
Speaker 4: Already you've got one thing cool. Does it make the
Speaker 4: difference for me? It's a part of it. Maybe I
Speaker 4: just want to know he's he a liar? What is
Speaker 4: the value of that to you? Maybe you're trying to
Speaker 4: figure out if he's a liar.
Speaker 1: Well, it's like if you're on trial and this person
Speaker 1: had a history of lying about this, the defense would use.
Speaker 5: That that's evidence. You know, you look at the idea
Speaker 5: of well, what's the other options.
Speaker 4: The other option is that back in the eighties or
Speaker 4: eighty nine, when things were not as digital as they
Speaker 4: are now, could you and would you scrub elements of
Speaker 4: his educational background?
Speaker 5: Okay, I could see some of that happening. So then
Speaker 5: the third option is.
Speaker 4: What if Bob Blazar hasn't told us everything? What if
Speaker 4: he did have education at those schools he claimed, but
Speaker 4: he was maybe protecting a little bit the exact nature
Speaker 4: of that education. That's something that maybe Bob can talk
Speaker 4: about if he ever wants to. But that's a third
Speaker 4: option and want people to keep on the table. When
Speaker 4: you bring up one aspect of the Bob Blazar case
Speaker 4: that is on your mind, you have to assign it
Speaker 4: a value, like how important is that if we already
Speaker 4: know he worked at Area fifty one and we have
Speaker 4: some proof of that, like I have people that testified
Speaker 4: they saw him there, So then you have to assign
Speaker 4: a value to that. How much value does that one
Speaker 4: thing have you? It gave you three possibilities. Maybe we
Speaker 4: don't know the full story.
Speaker 5: That's how I would write the ship for you.
Speaker 4: The educational background of Bob Bazaar is that maybe there's
Speaker 4: something that we don't fully understand yet, or he's lying,
Speaker 4: or they scribed it a sign of value to that.
Speaker 4: Just keep an open mind. If I found out he
Speaker 4: was lying, I would have already said so, and I could.
Speaker 1: Swallow the pill that if he came forward and said, hey, man,
Speaker 1: I lie about this, think he's more credible if he
Speaker 1: told me though, But just to.
Speaker 4: Be fundamentally clear, my understanding, like my belief, I guess
Speaker 4: my direct knowledge is that Bob Azar is telling you
Speaker 4: how it is, and there's probably more to hear from him.
Speaker 4: The other thing I think you should consider, if there's
Speaker 4: tons of evidence in the favor of Bob having experienced
Speaker 4: what he said he did. We can't dismiss all of
Speaker 4: that based upon a few things that are unlooped for you.
Speaker 4: Don't discount there is a mountain of evidence. The other
Speaker 4: thing you can reconcile is that it is possible that
Speaker 4: someone like Bob Bazaar is the perfect person to bring
Speaker 4: into a program Rocket guy. He's a pirate. If you
Speaker 4: want to this credit, Bob, you can do it.
Speaker 1: The bottom line is some things add up, some things
Speaker 1: do not, and there's no one explanation that covers all
Speaker 1: of it, at least in a clean way. So instead
Speaker 1: of arguing about Bob Blazar as a person, let's widen
Speaker 1: the frame. The deeper question is about how we decide
Speaker 1: what counts as knowledge, what do we accept as evidence,
Speaker 1: and how much uncertainty are we willing to take before
Speaker 1: we stop looking.
Speaker 10: More than a dozen agents serving federal search warrants Tatan is.
Speaker 11: Now chief investigator George Knapp now with the exclusive story.
Speaker 7: Secrecy has always been paramount.
Speaker 3: That Area fifty one, a once obscure outpost in then
Speaker 3: about a desert that might be the world's best known
Speaker 3: secret base.
Speaker 4: He was pulled into court in crazy ways, pulled into
Speaker 4: court for setting up a security system for a brothel.
Speaker 4: Bob had a crazy life. And when you talk about
Speaker 4: discrediting the messenger so that you can discredit the message,
Speaker 4: that's where it gets sticky. Just because you can discredit
Speaker 4: somebody from what a moral standpoint, doesn't mean what they're
Speaker 4: saying ain't true. You should be disturbed by certain lacks
Speaker 4: of information in the Bob Blazar report, in what he
Speaker 4: has reported to us, it would make logical sense for
Speaker 4: you to be a little bit like, well, wait a second, there,
Speaker 4: Wait a second there. I was trying to catch Bob
Speaker 4: Bazar and a lie absolutely every day from my own knowledge,
Speaker 4: and I'm sorry to report bizarre has never ever been disingenuously,
Speaker 4: not even disingenuous.
Speaker 5: You gave me acceit to everything.
Speaker 2: Thirty years ago.
Speaker 11: Today, KLAS aired a live interview with an anonymous man
Speaker 11: who made some really astonishing claims. He alleged that the
Speaker 11: US military was secretly studying alien technology out of the
Speaker 11: Nevada Desert area fifty one.
Speaker 7: A lot has.
Speaker 10: Changed in the decades since Bob Blazar first told this
Speaker 10: wild story. The Pentagon recently admitted that it really has
Speaker 10: been secretly studying UFOs, and then it wanted to figure
Speaker 10: out and duplicate that technology.
Speaker 7: Pentagon officials reluctantly admitted to The New York Times that
Speaker 7: the military has secretly studied UFO incidents in parts of
Speaker 7: it might figure out the technology.
Speaker 4: It is what it is, But ultimately I wasn't there.
Speaker 4: I don't know for a fact that everything he saw
Speaker 4: was what he thinks it was the mysterious case of
Speaker 4: Bob Blazar. He's a hell of a guy, a really
Speaker 4: good person, and that's more important to me than flying saucers.
Speaker 1: The bottom line is some things add up, some things
Speaker 1: do not, and there's no one explanation that covers all
Speaker 1: of it, at least in a clean way. So instead
Speaker 1: of arguing about Bob Blazar as a person, let's widen
Speaker 1: the frame. The deeper question is about how we decide
Speaker 1: what counts as knowledge, what do we accept as evidence,
Speaker 1: and how much uncertainty are we willing to take before
Speaker 1: we stop looking To help do that, I wanted to
Speaker 1: bring in two minds who approached this problem from a
Speaker 1: very different angle, not as whistleblowers or journalists, but as thinkers,
Speaker 1: scientists who are less interested in answers than in frameworks.
Speaker 1: That brings us to Gary Nolan, who you heard briefly
Speaker 1: in episode one in the Legendary Jacques Valet.
Speaker 12: It's like the end of that lessons and now you
Speaker 12: need to get a job, and you need to get money,
Speaker 12: and you get to invest in structures, which is what
Speaker 12: doctor Nolan is leading. And that's possible now because I
Speaker 12: think in part because of people like me writing those books,
Speaker 12: and those books getting attention through the web. On a
Speaker 12: number of people know the basic facts, you know, the
Speaker 12: basic data, and a number of people have started to
Speaker 12: do their own investigations. And if you have a computer today,
Speaker 12: you can build a professional level catalog and you can
Speaker 12: do your own statistics. If you're no statistics, you know,
Speaker 12: you don't need to wait for somebody to give you
Speaker 12: authorization to do that. That has changed the audience. It's
Speaker 12: made it a lot larger, and it has changed the
Speaker 12: level of professionalism that you can apply to them. The
Speaker 12: mystery goes through phases, and every phase is taken up
Speaker 12: by the media and then forgotten and then reboard some
Speaker 12: other way. So I've seen all these different waves of
Speaker 12: of interest along the way. Then it became international. Today
Speaker 12: most of the information suddenly that I get or the
Speaker 12: people here get is through the web. Now everybody can
Speaker 12: be in contact know what's going on in other countries.
Speaker 12: I think we're at a point of major transition.
Speaker 13: You know.
Speaker 12: The media has driven that. You know, once you have television,
Speaker 12: then people have access to a larger audience. Before it
Speaker 12: was just radio interviews, you know, once in a while,
Speaker 12: and they will only happen when there was some event.
Speaker 12: Journalists are not going to be interested in the subject
Speaker 12: where there is no breakthrough, when we're still standing here
Speaker 12: with no real answer to the mystery. I'm taking the
Speaker 12: time to answer your question because I think that's the
Speaker 12: profound question. There isn't one truth. I'm an information scientist,
Speaker 12: So what I'm going to do is ask how many
Speaker 12: cases like that are there? And I'm going to build
Speaker 12: a little catalog of those cases if I can. I'm
Speaker 12: going to go talk to the witnesses in the other
Speaker 12: cases they are like it. Then I'll try to build
Speaker 12: a pattern or a model of what the operation or
Speaker 12: what the situation was, and where that person was with
Speaker 12: respect to that situation. And I think that's all I
Speaker 12: can do. That's the best I can do.
Speaker 13: Data is different than evidence. The same data I kind
Speaker 13: of a list of numbers. It could be you know
Speaker 13: what last year's wine harvest is, or what the output
Speaker 13: of the sewage plant was across the United States.
Speaker 2: Numbers.
Speaker 13: That's just data, right, But contextualize data, at least in science,
Speaker 13: in the context of a hypothesis, saying, Okay, here's data
Speaker 13: that I've collected around biology. Does the data support in
Speaker 13: the context of the question whether or not the hypothesis
Speaker 13: is correct. At that level, it starts to become evidence,
Speaker 13: and we call it evidence, but it's not Evidence is
Speaker 13: not proof. Evidence is no more proof in biology or
Speaker 13: uap UFOs than it is in a courtroom. Evidence is evidence,
Speaker 13: and you have a jury of your peers who you
Speaker 13: are looking at the evidence and how you the prosecutor
Speaker 13: or the defense pitch it different ways of interpreting what
Speaker 13: the evidence means. But the evidence truly is just data.
Speaker 12: The question is what is the nature of evidence? I mean,
Speaker 12: there has to be a framework. It's like in court,
Speaker 12: you can have a witness who is telling the truth
Speaker 12: about what he saw and he saw a blue car.
Speaker 12: Now I'm going to get other witnesses to come forward,
Speaker 12: and some of them will be truthful, and they will
Speaker 12: have seen a red car. Okay, and they're both telling
Speaker 12: the truth as they experienced it at the time. But
Speaker 12: at the time the event was confusing. There were many people,
Speaker 12: there was blood on the floor, there was an accident,
Speaker 12: there was something happening. The police arrived with sirens and
Speaker 12: lights and everything else. Ambulances arrived, and everybody got very confused.
Speaker 13: If you look in the papers and you read the
Speaker 13: actual science of the papers. Biologists and even often physicists
Speaker 13: will leave themselves so much diplomatic room to be wrong.
Speaker 13: They'll always say it is supportive of the hypothesis.
Speaker 7: Do you leave yourself room to be wrong?
Speaker 13: Scientists are right today, wrong tomorrow, but right the next day.
Speaker 13: You know, so what it is, It's an incremental reinterpretation
Speaker 13: of reality.
Speaker 12: Reality is a construct of my brain based on my perceptions.
Speaker 12: And my perceptions are limited, and they are limited by
Speaker 12: my culture. They are biased by you know, my beliefs.
Speaker 12: Some people might see the virgin Mary and I'll just
Speaker 12: see a light. If you want to go back to
Speaker 12: was it real or not? You have to ask that question.
Speaker 12: And what do you mean by rail? You know what
Speaker 12: I mean? Was there a physical version Mary there? And
Speaker 12: if saw? How come only one person saw her?
Speaker 13: There's only really one place where proof exists, and that's
Speaker 13: in math, because you have set the parameters so tightly.
Speaker 13: Usually in a mathematical regime, you've created a sandbox within
Speaker 13: which it's either right or wrong. One plus one equals
Speaker 13: to always. But we do come eventually to conclusions. Certain
Speaker 13: things get accepted as fact because so many people have
Speaker 13: looked at it over time. That is like, okay, well,
Speaker 13: I don't need to check it again. Every time I've
Speaker 13: checked it, and all the things that I do based
Speaker 13: on it.
Speaker 7: Continue to be true.
Speaker 13: So therefore I can proceed as if it was a
Speaker 13: formal conclusion.
Speaker 12: And if you dequote it the way I try to
Speaker 12: decote those, it says your idea of time is wrong
Speaker 12: and your idea of space is wrong. Now I can
Speaker 12: introduce you to my own some of my friends in
Speaker 12: the physics and you know, in theoly call physics while
Speaker 12: telling me the same pain. There is no such thing
Speaker 12: as time, There is no such thing as space. Those
Speaker 12: are things that our brains and eyes and are constructing
Speaker 12: to account for things around us well enough that we
Speaker 12: can survive, you know, in this environment for a while. Okay,
Speaker 12: that's all there is. But that's not true in terms
Speaker 12: of the way the universe is constructed. All those messages,
Speaker 12: whether they are overt or you know, more subtle, planted
Speaker 12: in the brain or whatever they they are at another
Speaker 12: level that needs to be needs to be decoded. But
Speaker 12: you find the same message being told in many different cultures,
Speaker 12: in many different ways intependently. You know, the physicists today
Speaker 12: are starting to teach that time and space are convenient
Speaker 12: valuables to do math about this world, so we can
Speaker 12: build the Eiffel Tower. But that's really not the basic
Speaker 12: physics is a form of uncertainty, you know, form of
Speaker 12: of quanta or something like that. Okay, So physics is
Speaker 12: in a crisis because of that. They need to reconcile
Speaker 12: with reality the way the way it is, the way
Speaker 12: the way we manipulate it. We're facing something that's where
Speaker 12: ahead of us, with control of physics that we don't understand,
Speaker 12: and control of life, you know, at a level that
Speaker 12: we haven't considered yet. To me, the driver is that
Speaker 12: this should be an inspiration for us. This is not
Speaker 12: a threat, which is why the Air Force wanted to
Speaker 12: get out of it, because you know, everything they do
Speaker 12: is designed for war. Okay, this is not a war.
Speaker 12: We don't know what it is. The science is based
Speaker 12: on observing nature and being seduced by nature or threatened
Speaker 12: by nature and adapting to it. So this is part
Speaker 12: of our learning, you know, about the universe. Generally we
Speaker 12: think we understand the earth, and that's not true when
Speaker 12: you talk to you know, the Navy people who are here.
Speaker 12: So I think we're getting humble as out of this,
Speaker 12: and it's good for us to be a little bit humble.
Speaker 12: For example, there are three universities in the United States
Speaker 12: that are now engaged with projects that are funded. There
Speaker 12: is you know, Stanford and the Columbia and Harvard. Excuse me,
Speaker 12: but those are not depending on money from the government.
Speaker 12: They do whatever they want, and a professor with tenure
Speaker 12: in one of those universities, like doctor Nolan or doctor
Speaker 12: Avilbe at Harvard can pretty much raise money from from
Speaker 12: companies or from interested people and design the project he
Speaker 12: wants and get his students involved. At the very beginning,
Speaker 12: when I spoke to doctor Heinez, there were a number
Speaker 12: of secret projects, if you remember, on the Air Force
Speaker 12: in the US. So the hypothesis was that this was,
Speaker 12: this could come from an adversary, you know, as part
Speaker 12: of the Cold War, that this was part of spying,
Speaker 12: this was and that hypothesis didn't work. I mean, what
Speaker 12: they were observing was beyond the capabilities of even the
Speaker 12: Soviet Union. The thing that I saw as a kid,
Speaker 12: I have no idea I would compare it to you know,
Speaker 12: I could give you hundreds of observer stress like it
Speaker 12: between ten and fifteen meters in diameter, a disc that
Speaker 12: flies without noise or trail and has some sort of
Speaker 12: a dome on dup priceauser.
Speaker 1: When you listen to people like Jock Valet and Gary Nolan,
Speaker 1: it forces you to slow down, not because they're giving
Speaker 1: you answers, but they remind you how limited our frameworks
Speaker 1: still are, how much of reality we explain through habit
Speaker 1: and comfort instead of actual understanding. Science likes clean categories,
Speaker 1: clear definitions, results that are repeatable, but the human experience
Speaker 1: is never that tidy, making this season of high strange.
Speaker 1: There's so many nuanced details that stand out to me.
Speaker 1: People's tone, they're timing, body language, what somebody hesitates on,
Speaker 1: what they tend to rush through, and what feels heavy.
Speaker 1: Not just the stories themselves, but the real life moments
Speaker 1: around them. Sitting across from someone and feeling the room
Speaker 1: change when a certain detail comes up, watching people light
Speaker 1: up or shut down, realizing how much information lives in
Speaker 1: these pauses. They don't show up in transcripts, they don't
Speaker 1: fit neatly into an evidence folder, but they matter.
Speaker 2: This show is not just about what people say happened.
Speaker 1: It's about how they carry it, how it sits with them,
Speaker 1: how it shaped the way they move through the world.
Speaker 2: And the same goes for us.
Speaker 1: Every interview, every drive, every late night conversation, all that
Speaker 1: becomes part of the story too. So in the next episode,
Speaker 1: I sit down with my team and we pull the
Speaker 1: camera back even further. We talk openly about the people
Speaker 1: we've met, the places we went, the moments that's stuck
Speaker 1: with us, and the stories that never quite fit into
Speaker 1: a single episode. But I just have to tell you,
Speaker 1: since twenty twenty three, we've been researching this topic at length.
Speaker 1: We have dozens of more stories to share with you.
Speaker 1: That's why we're coming back again. Season three of High
Speaker 1: Strange will be even longer and begins on June six.
Speaker 1: And before we get there, let's take the gloves off
Speaker 1: and talk about some aliens. High Strange is a production
Speaker 1: by Tenderfoot TV in association with iHeart Podcasts, created, hosted
Speaker 1: and edited by myself Payne Lindsay. Executive producers are myself
Speaker 1: and Donald Albright, editing by Mike Rooney, Cooper Skinner and myself.
Speaker 1: Original scorer by Makeup and Vanity Set, sound design, mixing,
Speaker 1: and mastering by Cooper Skinner, Additional production by Mike Rooney,
Speaker 1: Dylan Harrington, Eric Quintana, Sean Nurney, and Meredith Stedman.
Speaker 2: Our cover art is by Polygon.
Speaker 1: Special thanks to Orrin Rosenbaum and the whole team at UTA,
Speaker 1: the Nord Group, Station sixteen, and Beck Media and Marketing.
Speaker 2: Check out the show's website.
Speaker 1: At high Strange dot com, and if you're enjoying the show,
Speaker 1: please help us out by rating and reviewing the podcast
Speaker 1: and share it with your friends.
Speaker 2: Thanks for listening.