Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Hey you welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. Listener mail.
Speaker 2: My name is Robert.
Speaker 3: Lamb and I am Joe McCormick. And it's Monday, the
Speaker 3: day of each week that we read back messages from
Speaker 3: the Stuff to Blow Your Mind email address. If you
Speaker 3: have never gotten in touch with us before, why not
Speaker 3: give it a shot. You can email us at contact
Speaker 3: at stuff to Blow your Mind dot com. Whatever kind
Speaker 3: of message you want to send is welcome. We sort
Speaker 3: of always prioritize feedback to recent episodes, especially if you've
Speaker 3: got something interesting you'd like to add to a topic
Speaker 3: we talked about. But whatever it is, send it on it. Okay,
Speaker 3: I'm going to kick things off with a response to
Speaker 3: our couple of episodes about pouring oil over the water.
Speaker 3: This was a series on the idea that oil poured
Speaker 3: over the top of the sea would calm the waves
Speaker 3: and how that sounds rather unbelievable but there actually is
Speaker 3: some truth to it to a limited extent. But yeah,
Speaker 3: interesting phenomenon. And this is also the one where we
Speaker 3: got into the stories of Benjamin Franklin walking around with
Speaker 3: a hollow cane and pouring oil in people's ponds. Matt says, Hey, guys,
Speaker 3: I was just listening to your first Oil and Troubled
Speaker 3: Waters episode, and I thought I would share some of
Speaker 3: the things that came to mind while listening. During the episode,
Speaker 3: it seemed to be implied that given time, oil would
Speaker 3: simply spread to cover the entire surface of water that
Speaker 3: it was poured into. But this isn't the case. As
Speaker 3: may come as no surprise, oil and water don't like
Speaker 3: to interact with each other so much so that they
Speaker 3: will actively position themselves in such a way to minimize
Speaker 3: the area where the oil contacts the water, so far
Speaker 3: as gravity, buoyancy, surface tension, etc. Will allow. As an example,
Speaker 3: if you put a small drop of oil into water,
Speaker 3: the oil will turn into a small bead as close
Speaker 3: to a sphere the aforementioned factors will allow. This is
Speaker 3: specifically because a sphere provides the smallest possible surface area
Speaker 3: for a given volume, thus minimizing the interface between the
Speaker 3: oil and the water. Now, something I think is pretty
Speaker 3: cool that happens at the point of interface is the
Speaker 3: water actually forms what amounts to a one atom thick
Speaker 3: layer of ice. This is because the water molecules really
Speaker 3: want to form hydrogen bonds, but this isn't possible with
Speaker 3: the oils, and in overly simplified terms, it has to
Speaker 3: double down on the bonds with the other water molecules
Speaker 3: around it, forming into a structure like you would normally
Speaker 3: find in ice. Ah, that's interesting that I had no idea,
Speaker 3: Matt says. I studied molecular biology, and these thoughts also
Speaker 3: reminded me of how the same kind of effect of
Speaker 3: oil plumping together to minimize contact with water also affects
Speaker 3: how proteins fold and become relatively stable in their intended structure.
Speaker 3: You see, proteins are made up of segments that are
Speaker 3: either hydrophilic meaning they like water, or hydrophobic, meaning they
Speaker 3: don't like water, and the same physics that causes the
Speaker 3: oil to clump also causes the hydrophobic segments to bury
Speaker 3: themselves in the protein structure, away from the water surrounding
Speaker 3: it and leaving the hydrophilic segments on the outside. It
Speaker 3: sometimes takes some trial and error to help to get there,
Speaker 3: but proteins use this to form and maintain their most
Speaker 3: stable structure and the one that allows them to function.
Speaker 3: Thanks for providing such breadth and depth in so many
Speaker 3: topics to keep us entertained and educated. Matt, Well, thank
Speaker 3: you for the insight, Matt. And that was really interesting
Speaker 3: about the one molecule thick layer of ice at the interfew.
Speaker 3: I'd never read or heard anything about that, but yeah,
Speaker 3: I guess it would be good to clarify what is
Speaker 3: happening with the oil in the water. And it is
Speaker 3: interesting that we get these seemingly opposite reactions because you
Speaker 3: can observe it like if you dump a drop of
Speaker 3: oil into water and it sinks. If it sinks, it
Speaker 3: will form this spherical ball that will float within the water,
Speaker 3: eventually rising to the surface, and the oil will be
Speaker 3: trying to cling to itself and repel contact with the water,
Speaker 3: which is why it forms a sphere like that. It doesn't,
Speaker 3: you know, it doesn't want to mix with the water.
Speaker 3: But conversely, like we talked about in these two episodes,
Speaker 3: some oils, when they float on top of the water
Speaker 3: end up spreading out to form a film that is
Speaker 3: one molecule thick. Why exactly does that happen? What's going
Speaker 3: on at the molecular level. Well, I was just digging
Speaker 3: through some chemistry textbooks to try to find the answer
Speaker 3: to this, make sure I understood before commenting, and I
Speaker 3: think I've got it figured out. So, first of all,
Speaker 3: not all oils will spread out over the water's surface
Speaker 3: like this. For example, paraffin oils like kerosene will not
Speaker 3: spread out evenly on top of the water, while most
Speaker 3: vegetable oils, the commonly used example in the experiments we've
Speaker 3: talked about was pure olive oil, they do spread out
Speaker 3: to form the monolayer. So what makes the difference? Well,
Speaker 3: I found part of an answer in a book called
Speaker 3: Physical Chemistry, Experimental and Theoretical by Gordon Van Prague. This
Speaker 3: is Cambridge University Press, nineteen fifty and Van Prague clarifies
Speaker 3: that quote substances whose molecules contain water soluble groups such
Speaker 3: as cooh ANDCH two oh, et cetera. And then a
Speaker 3: parenthetical long chain acids and alcohols will spread into surface
Speaker 3: films on water. So according to this source, it is
Speaker 3: large oil molecules that have some kind of water attracted
Speaker 3: arm somewhere on them, somewhere on the molecule. So if
Speaker 3: you picture a molecule sort of like a tree, one
Speaker 3: branch of that molecule tree is water soluble, and this
Speaker 3: type of arm on the molecule structure that has its
Speaker 3: own reactive tendencies is called a group or functional group
Speaker 3: in chemistry. So in oils with this particular structure, what
Speaker 3: happens Well? I found more elaboration that helped clarify it
Speaker 3: in another book, this time a physics book by Eric M.
Speaker 3: Rogers called Physics for the Inquiring Mind The Methods, Nature
Speaker 3: and Philosophy of Physical Science. This is Princeton University Press,
Speaker 3: twenty eleven. So Rogers is in the middle of talking
Speaker 3: about the experiments of Lord Rayleigh, which we brought up
Speaker 3: in those episodes, and speaking of Lord Rayleigh, he says
Speaker 3: he pictured a spreading drop of oil as a huddle
Speaker 3: of molecules tumbling and crawling over each other till each
Speaker 3: reached the water surface and could hitch one end to water.
Speaker 3: For these oils have long chain molecules with a water
Speaker 3: liking chemical group at one end. Once all the oil
Speaker 3: molecules are thus attached, they should keep together in a
Speaker 3: monomolecular carpet, showing little tendency to spread more. With just
Speaker 3: enough oil for a given water surface, the layer would
Speaker 3: be one molecule thick, with the molecules packed close and upright,
Speaker 3: like the pile of velvet. With less oil, patches of
Speaker 3: open water should be revealed. With more oil, there should
Speaker 3: be excess puddles on the water, as on a greasy soup.
Speaker 3: So I think that clarifies the answer. First of all,
Speaker 3: whether or not the oil spreads out to become one
Speaker 3: molecule thick on the surface of water depends on the
Speaker 3: type of oil. It is oil molecules with a water
Speaker 3: soluble group somewhere on them that do this. And it
Speaker 3: happens because they all line up so that the water
Speaker 3: attracted arm of the molecule is pointed down at the
Speaker 3: water and the unattracted mass of the molecule is pointing
Speaker 3: up away from the water, and they arrange themselves in
Speaker 3: a single massive sheet layer, all oriented in the same
Speaker 3: way like this.
Speaker 2: Hmm, all right, right, that's illuminating. We still don't know
Speaker 2: exactly what kind of oil Benjamin Franklin had in his cane.
Speaker 3: Though I think it was olive oil.
Speaker 2: You think so, yeah, I mean it would it would
Speaker 2: make the most sense, right, And if what if your
Speaker 2: cane were to leak unexpectedly, what kind of oil would
Speaker 2: you want to have to deal with. I mean, obviously,
Speaker 2: olive oil is not that bad.
Speaker 3: Can you imagine how gross it would be to have
Speaker 3: a cane that just leaks oil sometimes, like you're out
Speaker 3: walking and oh it's coming out again. Oh I got
Speaker 3: oil all over my hand. Oh boy, you go give
Speaker 3: somebody a greasy handshake.
Speaker 2: All right, Well, on that note, let's turn to some
Speaker 2: of our listener mails concerning our recent episodes about anomaloust
Speaker 2: photos and those photos possible connections to ancient aliens, ancient civilizations,
Speaker 2: or anything else you want to connect to them.
Speaker 3: If you're new to the show, to clarify meaning that
Speaker 3: some people thought that and we don't. Right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's made for a good discussion across three episodes anyway.
Speaker 2: Mark writes then and says, Hi, guys, I'm listening to
Speaker 2: your episodes on enigmatic objects in photos this week. I
Speaker 2: like your take on walking through the debunking of these
Speaker 2: types of photos. The whole low resolution theory on how
Speaker 2: these photos become misunderstood is great. Something that came to
Speaker 2: mind was that I don't even really need to know
Speaker 2: anything about a particular photo, citing, etc. To know that
Speaker 2: aliens haven't visited us. That's because I think most people
Speaker 2: hugely underestimate the level of technology required to take an
Speaker 2: interstellar trip. Not to say that interstellar travel is impossible,
Speaker 2: just that it is very, very hard. As humans were
Speaker 2: used to failing at spaceflight, We've seen so many rocket crashes,
Speaker 2: satellite deorbits, and media about crashing your spaceship on an
Speaker 2: alien moon. The thing is, we as humans are just
Speaker 2: really bad at spaceflight at this point in our history.
Speaker 2: We take this bias into how we imagine aliens might
Speaker 2: interact with spaceflight, as if it might be common that
Speaker 2: they would crash or be seen without wanting to be seen.
Speaker 2: The level of technology required to literally compress space in
Speaker 2: front of your spaceship so that you can get from
Speaker 2: star to star in anything less than an eon is
Speaker 2: absolutely massive. I've seen estimates that it would require something
Speaker 2: on the order of all the energy contained in Jupiter's
Speaker 2: mass to be able to achieve such a thing, even
Speaker 2: for a short time. Aliens with that kind of technology
Speaker 2: will have mastered the physical world. They won't be crashing
Speaker 2: in roswell leaving alien corpses. They won't be placing visible
Speaker 2: beacons on our seafloor. They won't be Whoopsie, we turned
Speaker 2: on our headlights too bright and a fighter jet solace.
Speaker 2: Those are human like errors that we expect but aren't realistic.
Speaker 2: We will either see them because they want us to see,
Speaker 2: or we won't see them. That paired to the fact
Speaker 2: that many, many scientists dedicate their entire lives to detecting
Speaker 2: alien life with the most sophisticated technology we have and
Speaker 2: haven't come up with anything yet, it makes any testimony
Speaker 2: these supposed alien experts give to Congress ridiculous and unbelievable
Speaker 2: in my opinion, even without knowing anything more than how
Speaker 2: the universe works on a physical level. Give have the
Speaker 2: great work. Mark ps. Here's a photo of my friend
Speaker 2: on our recent road trip through Roswell. We went to Carlsbad,
Speaker 2: New Mexico to visit the caverns there and they were
Speaker 2: absolutely life changingly interesting. Some intriguing history on cave exploring
Speaker 2: comes from there, too, might be worth looking into as
Speaker 2: an episode topic.
Speaker 3: Oh man, yeah, the history of cave exploration. I think
Speaker 3: it could be a great subject for us. But I
Speaker 3: do want to comment on your photo here of your
Speaker 3: friend posing next to Is this like a statue of
Speaker 3: an alien installed about ten feet from the door of
Speaker 3: a McDonald's. That's McDonald's, right, I don't know. I don't
Speaker 3: recognize the branding there. So does the alien statue belong
Speaker 3: to the McDonald's or is this a public monument somehow
Speaker 3: situated in a McDonald's parking lot.
Speaker 2: I don't know that. QP. See that sends for a
Speaker 2: quarter pounder with cheeks, right, this has to be this
Speaker 2: is a burger king, right.
Speaker 3: Oh, I don't know. I mean it could be something else.
Speaker 3: I saw McDonald's because I see like red and yellow.
Speaker 3: That's McDonald's colors, isn't it.
Speaker 2: I guess I don't know. I mean, we're as confused
Speaker 2: as the aliens at this point.
Speaker 3: If this alien does belong to the McDonald's, does does
Speaker 3: do they just have like a lax corporate policy about
Speaker 3: what kind of things franchise owners can put in the
Speaker 3: parking lot? Could you put a statue of a t
Speaker 3: rex in a McDonald's parking lot?
Speaker 2: I mean, my guess is it's kind of like the different,
Speaker 2: you know, public statues that you see endorsed by various cities,
Speaker 2: where like, this is part of our identity now, and
Speaker 2: therefore everyone who wants an alien statue in front of
Speaker 2: their business can have one painted.
Speaker 3: How you like you got the bronze fawns, you got
Speaker 3: the RoboCop, you got the uh you got the McDonald's alien,
Speaker 3: the quarter pounder alien. Yeah, but uh anyway, Sorry to
Speaker 3: come back to the sub sense of your message, Mark,
Speaker 3: I'm kind of two minds about this. On one hand,
Speaker 3: the points you make are things that I'm sympathetic to,
Speaker 3: and I used to be much more firmly in the
Speaker 3: camp of you know, travel between stars is so difficult
Speaker 3: that should massively wait our our starting I don't know
Speaker 3: what you call it, the starting probability of us entertaining
Speaker 3: ideas of alien visitation should wait that very low because
Speaker 3: that's so difficult. Now I've kind of come around that
Speaker 3: I don't think it's any more likely that we actually
Speaker 3: have been visited by aliens. But I just don't place
Speaker 3: as much emphasis on that kind of reasoning about the
Speaker 3: difficulty of traveling between stars, because that's sort of another
Speaker 3: one of those questions like the you know, I can't
Speaker 3: understand how they could have done the work inside the
Speaker 3: pyramids without leaving lamp black, so they must have had
Speaker 3: electric lights. It's to be fair to you. It's not
Speaker 3: quite that bad, but it is. It is sort of
Speaker 3: in that zone of I can't see how someone could
Speaker 3: have done this. Therefore it's very unlikely, you know, I
Speaker 3: would allow that there's just lots of things we don't understand.
Speaker 3: But on the other hand, I do see a kind
Speaker 3: of I do see your point about the incongruity of
Speaker 3: like the level of competence required to travel between stars,
Speaker 3: have an interstellar civilization and visit the Earth, but then
Speaker 3: also just be crashing all the time and showing up
Speaker 3: on you know, appearing in the side view of a
Speaker 3: jet fighter pilot's vision. That does seem kind of incongruous.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the whole idea that like, oh, we got a
Speaker 2: warehouse full of them, We've just been rounding them up.
Speaker 2: Every time there's a wreck, we throw it, throw it
Speaker 2: into the warehouse, I don't know. I mean it. As
Speaker 2: far as like the vast distances and times involved in
Speaker 2: all of this, I mean it. It certainly adds to
Speaker 2: the contemplation, like when I sort of do any kind
Speaker 2: of like navel gazing and stargazing and thinking about human
Speaker 2: and some other possible intelligent life out there with the
Speaker 2: technology to move around and visit us, you know, I
Speaker 2: mean you end up thinking about, like, well, what does
Speaker 2: it mean for a civilization to have that kind of technology,
Speaker 2: to have that kind of travel, that kind of reach,
Speaker 2: to perhaps have to deal with very long periods of time,
Speaker 2: to have to deal with perhaps a movement towards the inorganic.
Speaker 2: I mean, there are just so many there, you know,
Speaker 2: there's so many ideas about what such a civilization might
Speaker 2: be like, and it's all built along around, you know,
Speaker 2: guesses and best guesses based on what we think life
Speaker 2: could be elsewhere in the universe. So I mean it's
Speaker 2: I love thinking about it, but it's it's really hard
Speaker 2: to come to any kind of, you know, firm conclusion.
Speaker 3: I agree. I mean, I do love speculating about this
Speaker 3: kind of stuff, but when it comes down to judging
Speaker 3: what really has happened or not, I guess I think
Speaker 3: it's fair to be humble about the limitations of our imagination,
Speaker 3: you know, us just trying to speculate about what aliens
Speaker 3: could or couldn't do. I don't know that there's that
Speaker 3: it's that fruitful. But then to come back on the
Speaker 3: other hand, like I have similar thoughts, Mark, I mean,
Speaker 3: like one is how come how come like we're seeing
Speaker 3: saucers all the time but there is like absolutely no
Speaker 3: radio frequency communication at all. That seems like a really
Speaker 3: strange kind of mismatch there, Like wouldn't we be more
Speaker 3: likely to pick up radio frequency communications or some kind
Speaker 3: of signal of some kind and not be seeing spaceships?
Speaker 2: Yeah, but then you can easily say, well, they don't
Speaker 2: want you to. They're using a different bandwidth or something
Speaker 2: that we just don't have access to. But then again
Speaker 2: then you get into almost religious level where it's like, well,
Speaker 2: of course you can't detect God, and then the answer
Speaker 2: as well, if God is moving within the physical world,
Speaker 2: then there might be like a footprint. There must be
Speaker 2: some sort of sign that God has interacted with a
Speaker 2: physics based world. So I don't know, you can just
Speaker 2: run around in circles with all of this.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, actually this is a good comparison because while
Speaker 3: I would say that I don't think you can use
Speaker 3: science to prove that a god does not exist, you
Speaker 3: can use science to prove that the Shroud of Turin
Speaker 3: is a medieval forgery. And likewise, with like UFOs, I
Speaker 3: don't think we have any way of saying like aliens
Speaker 3: don't exist, or that you can know with certainty that
Speaker 3: they've never been here. But you can look at the
Speaker 3: supposed individual pieces of evidence and claims people make about
Speaker 3: it and say like, yeah, this is not convincing.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, so yeah you can again, you can spend
Speaker 2: all day thinking about this this sort of thing, and
Speaker 2: there's so many ways to spend it, you know. Some
Speaker 2: of some of the ways of thinking about it involve
Speaker 2: casting humanity as the most interesting thing that an interstellar
Speaker 2: civilization could come across. But you know, maybe we should
Speaker 2: think of ourselves. If each planet that has life and
Speaker 2: is observable to some hypothetical alien is like a television channel,
Speaker 2: perhaps we are not like peak MTV, Perhaps we are
Speaker 2: c SPAN and you know, and that kind of lines
Speaker 2: up with the idea that you know, we shouldn't be
Speaker 2: thinking about there being anything privileged about the human viewpoint
Speaker 2: of the cosmos or human identity. Maybe yeah, maybe we're
Speaker 2: just only marginally interesting maybe important at the end of
Speaker 2: the day, but you know, not the kind of thing
Speaker 2: you give a lot of attention to.
Speaker 3: But anyway, thanks again Mark for getting in touch interesting thoughts,
Speaker 3: and I once again I appreciate the idea about the
Speaker 3: history of cave exploration. I think we could come back
Speaker 3: to that absolutely. Okay, we got another response to our
Speaker 3: episode on the El Tana antenna. This is from Chris.
Speaker 3: Chris says, Dear Robert and Joe, after listening to a
Speaker 3: recent episode on the Altana and antenna, the point you
Speaker 3: were making about you were making regarding low quality data
Speaker 3: being used to make extraordinary claims is well received and
Speaker 3: indeed a common problem in the larger community of UFO enthusiasts.
Speaker 3: In the episode, this concept is introduced by mentioning the
Speaker 3: recent UFO hearings by the Congressional Oversight Committee. This is
Speaker 3: something that happened in the United States Congress. If you're
Speaker 3: not up to speed, basically, there was whistleblower testimony that
Speaker 3: included claims from one whistleblower that essentially amounted to this
Speaker 3: guy saying that other people in the government had told
Speaker 3: him that the government was in possession of crashed alien
Speaker 3: spacecraft and alien bodies and had been using that technology
Speaker 3: to reverse engineer other types of technology. And I think
Speaker 3: we were just saying, like, you know, remain open minded,
Speaker 3: but at this point, it's just it's a guy saying
Speaker 3: other people told him something, So I would reserve judgment
Speaker 3: until any actual solid evidence is presented. So, coming back
Speaker 3: to Chris's message, while it is an aside from the
Speaker 3: main concept you were discussing, this investigation is important for
Speaker 3: multiple reasons unrelated to extraterrestrial non human intelligence, and it's
Speaker 3: worrisome that aliens are a reason people are tuning out.
Speaker 3: The primary concern of the whistleblowers grush at all is
Speaker 3: that is that government spending is occurring on technological research
Speaker 3: and development is occurring without congressional oversight. Contrary to mandates
Speaker 3: in the Constitution. It is against the law for whistleblowers
Speaker 3: to release their information and evidence to the public, which
Speaker 3: is the reason the hearing is taking place. It introduces
Speaker 3: the problem so that laws can be introduced to allow
Speaker 3: whistleblowers to bring forth their evidence and not be immediately
Speaker 3: arrested for leaking classified information. Matters of pilot safety and
Speaker 3: the failure to declassify documents to the public as required
Speaker 3: are also center stage. Bills have already been introduced by
Speaker 3: the Senate Majority Leader Chuck and may be worth a
Speaker 3: read for those interested, But I wanted to point out
Speaker 3: one particular section per the quote Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure
Speaker 3: Act of twenty twenty three, and then Chris includes a
Speaker 3: link this is something that would require the disclosure if
Speaker 3: such existed of recovered technologies of unknown origin and biological
Speaker 3: evidence of non human intelligence. And then the I guess
Speaker 3: the first item or statute from it exercise of imminent domain.
Speaker 3: The Federal Government shall exercise imminent domain over any and
Speaker 3: all recovered technologies of unknown origin and biological evidence of
Speaker 3: non human intelligence that may be controlled by private persons
Speaker 3: or entities in the interests of the public good. And
Speaker 3: then back to Chris's message here, regardless of aliens, we
Speaker 3: might look back in history and consider how certain laws
Speaker 3: regarding matters of national security are interpreted and enforced, even
Speaker 3: if UAPs are not real or aliens are not visiting US.
Speaker 3: If this law passes, it may have very important use
Speaker 3: to the US government. With the correct broad interpretation, perhaps
Speaker 3: this law could be used to force companies doing business
Speaker 3: on US soil to turn over any AI developed by
Speaker 3: a foreign government or by another generative or self improving
Speaker 3: AI system which may be considered to be a non
Speaker 3: human intelligence. A non human intelligence may simply be quote
Speaker 3: any AI, chatbot, etc. Regardless of actual levels of intelligence
Speaker 3: or ability. We might imagine further legislation in the near
Speaker 3: future that also allows the same imminent domain of non
Speaker 3: human intelligence, regardless of source. I think this phrase will
Speaker 3: be very important in future legislation and used to ensure
Speaker 3: that the US government can take over any AI system
Speaker 3: of sufficient capability or concern. Best regards Chris.
Speaker 2: That's a lot to think about.
Speaker 3: That's an interesting point regarding the idea that the real
Speaker 3: purpose of the testimony is to try to force government
Speaker 3: agents to disclose any knowledge they have of any knowledge
Speaker 3: and any evidence they have of contact with aliens, alien technology,
Speaker 3: alien bodies, whatever. I feel like this is something where
Speaker 3: I hope like skeptics and UFO enthusiasts can be on
Speaker 3: the same page about because I mean, obviously, I think
Speaker 3: if the government had alien bodies and alien ships and
Speaker 3: all that they should be open about that, I would
Speaker 3: be in favor of transparency. Nobody with good faith wants
Speaker 3: to cover up. At the same time, I think I
Speaker 3: would acknowledge that while we're probably on the same page
Speaker 3: about that, if they don't actually possess anything like that,
Speaker 3: which I think is probably what's most likely the case.
Speaker 3: Then all they could say is, well, we don't actually
Speaker 3: have anything like that, weren't able to find it, in
Speaker 3: which case the UFO enthusiasts can always just say, you know, aha,
Speaker 3: see the cover up continues. So I don't know that's tricky,
Speaker 3: but I certainly do favor transparency.
Speaker 2: I feel like I've enough science fiction and horror and
Speaker 2: read enough science fiction and horror though that I can
Speaker 2: think of numerous scenarios in which I would be like, Okay,
Speaker 2: cover up, great idea, let's do that. That truth is
Speaker 2: too horrible, Like yeah, I'm not even gonna spitball any
Speaker 2: any of the ideas here, but you know, you can
Speaker 2: just think of various scenarios in which like, oh, oh,
Speaker 2: it's much worse than we thought. The public is just
Speaker 2: better off not knowing this.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, I mean, I wonder if there's like kind
Speaker 3: of snow crash type scenario where knowledge of the aliens
Speaker 3: entails like the activation of a virus in our brains
Speaker 3: that would just cause all of our heads to melt
Speaker 3: or something.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just you know, some Lovecraftian revelation about the
Speaker 2: nature of the outer cosmos, and it's just too much
Speaker 2: to bear, or it's just like you know, it's instant
Speaker 2: event horizon territory to really know what's up, I don't know.
Speaker 2: I can think of scenarios. I can dream up scenarios
Speaker 2: of varying degrees of ridiculousness that that make a cover
Speaker 2: up sound like a good idea.
Speaker 3: Well, event horizon scenarios aside, we will need eyes to
Speaker 3: see where we're going, and so I do think transparency
Speaker 3: is by and large good, so we can agree on that.
Speaker 3: If there actually is evidence, I do want it revealed.
Speaker 2: Yes, I will agree transparency is good, but I have
Speaker 2: various anxiety written caveats to them.
Speaker 3: Regarding your other point about this kind of legislation having
Speaker 3: secondary effects about other types of quote intelligence like AI,
Speaker 3: I mean, in one sense, I think, well, that's interesting,
Speaker 3: and I appreciate those thoughts. Though I would also think, like,
Speaker 3: if we're going to have a legislation like that, I
Speaker 3: would prefer it to be like really targeted at that,
Speaker 3: so that like there's no ambiguity in how the law
Speaker 3: should be interpreted, Like you know, we should have very clear,
Speaker 3: well thought out targeted regulations of the development of AI,
Speaker 3: not trying to like use a law of meant for
Speaker 3: something else to kind of like wiggle over into that
Speaker 3: space too. Be my men.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I see what you mean, Like we need
Speaker 2: to have clear laws to deal with AI, and you
Speaker 2: should have to have it all hinge on a broad
Speaker 2: interpretation of a UFO Act.
Speaker 3: But finally to come back to your original point and
Speaker 3: again on the agreement. If the truth is out there,
Speaker 3: I want it revealed. Yeah, bring it on.
Speaker 2: All right. At this point, I think we have time
Speaker 2: for just one listener mail from the Weird House Cinema category,
Speaker 2: so I'm just gonna read it. I'm gonna read a
Speaker 2: quick one here. This one comes to us from Adrian.
Speaker 2: Adrian writes, Hey, guys, love the show. Just listen to
Speaker 2: your episode on the Chronicles of Riddick. I love the
Speaker 2: Riddick universe. I just wanted to ask how you mentioned
Speaker 2: the actor column Fior and some of his movies, but
Speaker 2: you didn't mention how he had a prominent role in
Speaker 2: the movie Titus, which you mentioned in a Weird House
Speaker 2: Cinema a couple of weeks ago. Sorry, I forget which episode.
Speaker 2: After you brought up Titus, I found it on an
Speaker 2: eBay and acquired it watched it three days ago. That
Speaker 2: would be a great movie to feature on Weird House.
Speaker 3: I haven't seen Titus in many years, but I remember
Speaker 3: loving it. That's the one directed by Julie Taymoor that
Speaker 3: has Anthony Hopkins as as the title character as Titus.
Speaker 3: But that's also got a great cast all around. It's
Speaker 3: got Jessica Lang, It's got Alan Cumming as the villain
Speaker 3: as Emperor Saturnine. Uh yeah, it's it's a good one though.
Speaker 3: It's it is uh, you know, weirdly. It's a weird
Speaker 3: thing to caution about a Shakespeare play, but it is
Speaker 3: incredibly violent.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, yeah, it's also interesting kind of a historical note.
Speaker 2: The one of the co executive producers on it was
Speaker 2: Steve Bannon.
Speaker 3: What Yeah, Okay, that's odd.
Speaker 2: But still yes, a very beautifully weirdly rendered film. I
Speaker 2: hadn't been thinking about Titus specifically, but I have now
Speaker 2: and again thought we should do a weird adaptation of
Speaker 2: Shakespeare at some point or another. There are so many,
Speaker 2: there's so many good ones, you know, there's so many
Speaker 2: weird takes on Shakespeare. Some I like, some I don't like.
Speaker 2: But there's always something worth talking about.
Speaker 3: There I would be very into that.
Speaker 2: So, Hey, shakespeare fans, let us know what your favorite
Speaker 2: weird adaptations of Shakespeare are and we'll throw them in
Speaker 2: the hat for consideration.
Speaker 3: That's a great idea. I do like Shakespeare that has
Speaker 3: kind of cheeky anachronisms in it, though from what I recall,
Speaker 3: the anachronisms in Taymor's Titus are mainly in the framing narrative,
Speaker 3: Like at the beginning, it's showing like a young child
Speaker 3: sort of like playing with toy soldiers and stuff, and
Speaker 3: this represents the battle that sets up the plot in
Speaker 3: which you know, at the beginning of the story, Titus
Speaker 3: is coming home victorious from a military campaign with prisoner
Speaker 3: of war, including the Tamara, the queen of the Goths,
Speaker 3: I think, and that's that's Jessica Lang's character. But after that,
Speaker 3: while it is a very great looking and visually striking
Speaker 3: kind of at least like textually weird movie, it is
Speaker 3: mostly I think, set within an ancient Roman millieu. It
Speaker 3: doesn't have weird technology running all around. There is another
Speaker 3: Shakespeare adaptation that I do remember being anachronistic in a
Speaker 3: way that I liked, which is the Oh, what's it
Speaker 3: the Ian McKellen version of Richard the Third, where oh yes,
Speaker 3: he plays Richard the Third and it's got Jim Broadbent
Speaker 3: is Buckingham.
Speaker 2: That's a really good one. Yeah. I was fond of
Speaker 2: that one back in the day.
Speaker 3: But it's set in like a World War One kind
Speaker 3: of context.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, that was great. There are various adaptations of
Speaker 2: Macbeth that I love. I mean, I love the old
Speaker 2: seventy one Macbeth. I of course love a Curra Crissaw
Speaker 2: was Thrown of Blood and even though the more recent one,
Speaker 2: Joe Cohen's twenty twenty one adaptation, The Tragedy of McBath
Speaker 2: is wonderful and has some tremendously weird choices in it.
Speaker 3: I haven't seen that yet, I should have. I love
Speaker 3: Francis McDorman, so yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, she's great in it. Everybody's great. Wonderful cast, wonderful,
Speaker 2: weird cast that one, because you also have you have
Speaker 2: some expected names popping up, but then you also have
Speaker 2: like Brian Thompson showing up as one of the murderers,
Speaker 2: who many of you would remember from He's been in
Speaker 2: a lot of b movies. He played Shao Khan in
Speaker 2: one of the live action Mortal Kombat films, a big
Speaker 2: muscle guy. He's not the kind of fella earlier on
Speaker 2: in his career that you would have thought, Oh, this
Speaker 2: guy's doing Shakespeare at some point. But he's a small role,
Speaker 2: but he's great in it.
Speaker 3: You weak, pathetic fools. Your souls are mine, I don't
Speaker 3: think so.
Speaker 2: Yeah. He was also one of the punks in The Terminator.
Speaker 3: Okay, I gotta see that now.
Speaker 2: All right, Well, we're gonna go and close up the
Speaker 2: mail bag now, but yeah, right in, we'd love to
Speaker 2: hear from him if you have thought. It's on past,
Speaker 2: current and future episodes Stuff to Blow your Mind, Weird House, Cinema, Artifact,
Speaker 2: Monster Fact, other episodes, a listener mail. It's all fair game. Yeah,
Speaker 2: right in, we'd love to hear from you. Next listener
Speaker 2: mail will occur on the next Monday in the cycle.
Speaker 3: Huge thanks to our excellent audio producer JJ Posway. If
Speaker 3: you would like to get in touch with us with
Speaker 3: feedback on this episode or any other, to suggest a
Speaker 3: topic for the future, or just to say hello, you
Speaker 3: can email us at contact at stuff to Blow your
Speaker 3: Mind dot com.
Speaker 1: Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio for
Speaker 1: more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.