Speaker 1: From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
Speaker 1: riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
Speaker 1: learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
Speaker 1: production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
Speaker 2: my name is Noel. They called me Ben.
Speaker 3: We're joined as always with our super producer Paul Michigan
Speaker 3: Troll decades. Most importantly, you are here. That makes this
Speaker 3: the stuff they don't want you to know. It's a
Speaker 3: interesting time to be alive. There's a lot of scuttle
Speaker 3: but going on on the surface and in the waves,
Speaker 3: and indeed in space. We're gonna learn about potassium. We
Speaker 3: might get some good news about some of our favorite pets.
Speaker 3: We're gonna have some conversations about Star Wars. I didn't
Speaker 3: drink a little fago. But before we do any of that,
Speaker 3: we received, as we mentioned in an earlier episode, this week,
Speaker 3: we received a lot of fascinating correspondence about chaos in
Speaker 3: Earth orbit.
Speaker 4: That's right, and this one comes to us from the
Speaker 4: Cold War Hammer. Let's jump right in. I'd love to
Speaker 4: hear your commentary on the news that dropped this week
Speaker 4: that Russia is developing a nuclear capable asat weapon platform.
Speaker 4: The way in which this is being reported has me
Speaker 4: sort of scratching my head. Seems like there was an
Speaker 4: emergency briefing in Washington about it, so that tells me
Speaker 4: that officials care about it and think that it's an
Speaker 4: urgent issue. Then John Kirby goes out of his way
Speaker 4: to make some statements to reassure the public, which I
Speaker 4: would paraphrase as quote, this technology definitely has not yet
Speaker 4: been deployed, and this weaponry definitely would not be able
Speaker 4: to nuke people on Earth. I'm serious, guys, Why would
Speaker 4: you ever think that the id The idea of using
Speaker 4: nukes to destroy satellites seems sort of overkilled, doesn't it.
Speaker 4: Wouldn't that be like using a ten pound sledgehammer to
Speaker 4: kill an ant I don't get it. Also, thanks to
Speaker 4: the movie Gravity, we all know that breaking satellites into
Speaker 4: many tiny pieces that will continue to orbit Earth is
Speaker 4: generally not a great thing for any nation interested in
Speaker 4: space operations. So again, why this leads me to a
Speaker 4: deeper question maybe another time? Is Russia really a relevant
Speaker 4: threat to Western nations this day and age? The war
Speaker 4: in Ukraine has shown the world that their military is
Speaker 4: not the mighty Cold War era behemoth that it used
Speaker 4: to be. If it was, then that war would have
Speaker 4: been over many many months ago. And I'm editorializing here
Speaker 4: like Putin indicated. You know, early on he said it
Speaker 4: was going to be a one and done, quickie kind
Speaker 4: of operation. Proof not to be the case. Part of
Speaker 4: me seriously wonders if our government uses the seventy plus
Speaker 4: year old notion of Russia as being a super unhinged, dangerous,
Speaker 4: technologically advanced as a baseline or easy fallback justification for
Speaker 4: the continued excessive dumping of taxpayer funds into our military
Speaker 4: a boogeyman. If you will at thirty five's anybody, If
Speaker 4: you don't end up covering this, please tell Josh and
Speaker 4: Chuck that they should do a short stuff on asat Technology.
Speaker 4: If you choose to read this on your podcast, you
Speaker 4: can refer to me as the Cold War hammer boom,
Speaker 4: which we did. I think this is just such a
Speaker 4: great piggyback on the episode that we just did about
Speaker 4: spy satellites. It came up a little bit THEEA we
Speaker 4: talked to good Actually, we talked a decent amount about
Speaker 4: what nukes would do in space, and about how there
Speaker 4: are a lot of questions around what that behavior might
Speaker 4: look like. But I think Cold War Hammer raises several
Speaker 4: really great questions, and I think we should maybe get
Speaker 4: to them one at a time. What would a quote
Speaker 4: unquote asat device in space need with nuclear technology? Is
Speaker 4: that overkill? As as he mentioned, I think the answer
Speaker 4: is probably yes, it is over kill. Is there a
Speaker 4: more measured approach to using this technology to interfere and
Speaker 4: or destroy satellites? That mean you wouldn't cause the kind
Speaker 4: of space debris that would clog up the works for everybody?
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, kinetic satellite anti satellite technology just smash them
Speaker 3: into each other.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you'd have the same resulting problem I think.
Speaker 4: With things getting dislodged.
Speaker 2: And yeah, I mean I want to say, guys, just
Speaker 2: shut down the ability for that satellite to communicate somehow.
Speaker 3: That's that's a good way. You could silence it. If
Speaker 3: you can't destroy it. You could also if you could
Speaker 3: somehow render it incapable of correcting its own orbit, then
Speaker 3: it would it would drift eventually reached the.
Speaker 2: Okay, just push it right.
Speaker 4: Yeah, here's the here's like a bully on the playground.
Speaker 3: Here's the proposition though, and this is increasingly we didn't
Speaker 3: mention this on the episode. This is increasingly what I
Speaker 3: suspect maybe part of the calculus. And I'm just guessing here.
Speaker 3: So usually when countries have nuclear capability, whether that's in
Speaker 3: a submarine like the Ohio class, whether that's in a silo,
Speaker 3: et cetera, it's not actually meant to be used. It's
Speaker 3: meant to exist as a deterrence. Therefore, we could say
Speaker 3: that part of the calculus here, maybe just to have
Speaker 3: that thing in the sky, let it be known as
Speaker 3: an open secret that you do have that capability. Now,
Speaker 3: is that a good idea? I don't think so. But
Speaker 3: I also, you know, if I were at the table
Speaker 3: at Moscow, I would say it's not a good idea
Speaker 3: to invade Ukraine. I'm just saying. Putin doesn't really answer
Speaker 3: my emails. I don't think he does email.
Speaker 4: I don't think he does email. He's probably still using
Speaker 4: like some sort of encrypted BlackBerry. So the Kirby in
Speaker 4: question in a Cold War Hammer's email is John Kirby,
Speaker 4: the spokesperson for US National Security Council, and he was
Speaker 4: respond to this briefing that took place. He didn't. There's
Speaker 4: actually a pretty good Axios article about this by Jacob Knutsen,
Speaker 4: and he, let's see, in the article, he kind of
Speaker 4: breaks down the what, when, where, why, and how of
Speaker 4: it all.
Speaker 2: He says.
Speaker 4: Kirby would not disclose the specific capabilities of the weapon
Speaker 4: and would not say whether the US has or is
Speaker 4: developing a defense strategy against it, but some media outlets
Speaker 4: reported Wednesday that the weapon is quote nuclear capable. However,
Speaker 4: Kirby didn't confirm if that description applied to the ASAT,
Speaker 4: but he did note that the term can actually have
Speaker 4: several meanings, like nuclear submarines, for example, which can launch
Speaker 4: nuclear weapons and also use nuclear power as a source
Speaker 4: of propulsion.
Speaker 3: So it's a I mean, it's again it's like the
Speaker 3: the dual use conundrum, because nuclear capable could also mean
Speaker 3: that the satellite somehow just has non offensive nuclear capability,
Speaker 3: right right. And the other thing is, you could, for
Speaker 3: all the world, you could make it look like you
Speaker 3: were launching some kind of nuke into space, but it
Speaker 3: could be a dummy warhead because it'd be very difficult
Speaker 3: to get in and verify what's actually under the hood,
Speaker 3: you know. So, I mean, there are calculations to it.
Speaker 3: There's also this idea of a ticking time bomb. To
Speaker 3: be clear, as we record right now, the intel is
Speaker 3: not that this has been launched. The intel is that
Speaker 3: there is there is significant breakthroughs or steps forward into
Speaker 3: the ultimate mission of launching something. But it's very I
Speaker 3: love this point called warhammer because it is it is
Speaker 3: easy to be hyperbolic about these claims, but it's also
Speaker 3: unfortunately we have to remember that sometimes these guys are
Speaker 3: talking to the US public. Often they're talking in a
Speaker 3: couple of different levels, and a lot of what Kirby
Speaker 3: is saying is meant to be heard by Moscow and Petersburg.
Speaker 4: Right, like again some of the stuff we were talking
Speaker 4: about in the Spy Satellite episode, where a lot of
Speaker 4: this stuff is about optics and about perhaps subterfuge by
Speaker 4: you know, putting out a release about one thing so
Speaker 4: that they think that's what's going on, and then there's
Speaker 4: really other stuff going on behind the scenes or as
Speaker 4: you said, under the hood.
Speaker 3: And he's not being squirrely for fun. He's not being
Speaker 3: squarely just for like giggles and pranks. As we've discussed before.
Speaker 3: Part of the reason they can't say a lot about
Speaker 3: how they know this stuff is that it's going to
Speaker 3: compromise how they got it their collection methods. That's right,
Speaker 3: and unfortunately, and a lot of people don't like to
Speaker 3: hear this, but it's very very true. Unfortunately, when there
Speaker 3: was such heavy compromise of intel during the Trump administration,
Speaker 3: a lot of the old school assets that were already
Speaker 3: increasingly irrelevant, to be honest with you, were were burned.
Speaker 3: So now those collection methods are a much higher percentage
Speaker 3: than previously is now signals intelligence instead of on the
Speaker 3: ground like human assets, which is overall a good thing
Speaker 3: for the safety of those people for sure.
Speaker 4: And Kirby also went on to say that the US
Speaker 4: has known about this weapon for quote many many months,
Speaker 4: if not a few years, but that in recent weeks
Speaker 4: the intelligence community has been able to zero in with
Speaker 4: a bit higher degree of precision in order to assess
Speaker 4: the ways in which Russia might deploy such a weapon.
Speaker 2: So can we I'm want to stick on nuclear propulsion
Speaker 2: from yeah, sure, because my mind goes back to twenty seventeen,
Speaker 2: twenty eighteen when Russia comes out and says, hey, we've
Speaker 2: got this new type of cruise missile that actually has
Speaker 2: a nuclear power plant inside it and it can go
Speaker 2: up to ten times the distance that general cruise missiles
Speaker 2: could travel because of its power source. And they came
Speaker 2: out and said that they test did those weapons, at
Speaker 2: least allegedly, And it feels like maybe they would could
Speaker 2: be trying the same kind of thing with a rocket
Speaker 2: or with a system that is meant to be placed
Speaker 2: in space and then move around like a nuclear submarine.
Speaker 2: Like they had nuclear powered aircraft in design phase as
Speaker 2: well as the United States and the.
Speaker 3: US and almost the Russians.
Speaker 4: It's a little bit para.
Speaker 3: The US and the USS are also previously you guys
Speaker 3: know they launched nuclear powered and nuclear electric powered satellites.
Speaker 3: That's already been a thing.
Speaker 4: Well, my question though, is if there is a missile
Speaker 4: the while maybe not carrying a nuclear payload, but does
Speaker 4: have nuclear technology a board to help with the distance
Speaker 4: for a thing that's designed to make impact and go boom,
Speaker 4: wouldn't that also create a nuclear event.
Speaker 2: Unless that's not what it's designed for. Okay, if what
Speaker 2: if it's closer to the X thirty seven B kind
Speaker 2: of technology that's meant to have a propulsion system that
Speaker 2: is long lasting and stable that could stay in orbit
Speaker 2: for a long long time.
Speaker 3: And also if you are militarily outmatched, you're going to
Speaker 3: lean harder into the bluffs and many generations. Yeah, I've
Speaker 3: been in some weird conversations about nuclear capability, and right
Speaker 3: now the biggest question the West has about Russian nukes
Speaker 3: is how many actually work, because it's not set it
Speaker 3: and forget it like that made for TV rotisserie chicken cooker. Sure, yeah,
Speaker 3: there it is, thank you. It just it takes so
Speaker 3: much constant maintenance of all these other systems to keep
Speaker 3: a nuke working just on the surface, just sitting there.
Speaker 3: So there are serious questions about the deliverables or the capabilities.
Speaker 2: Well, the UK famously in the news this week failed
Speaker 2: or last week, I guess as you're hearing this failed
Speaker 2: to try and missile test again.
Speaker 3: The thing people are concerned about and the reason these
Speaker 3: concerns are valid to some of your questions there, gold Warhammer,
Speaker 3: it's it's primarily to things. It's the ability to somehow
Speaker 3: shut down satellite comms, satellite networks, which again is a
Speaker 3: quick ticket to the dark ages that things go wrong.
Speaker 3: And secondly related to that, it's what we have talked
Speaker 3: about the Kessler syndrome. The Kessler syndrome is the feedback
Speaker 3: loop of space debris. So, like, let's say it doesn't
Speaker 3: have a nuclear warhead, but it has the ability to
Speaker 3: switch or reposition itself such that, if it wanted, it
Speaker 3: could knock the right NRO satellite out of the sky.
Speaker 3: When it does that, even if it's not nuclear power,
Speaker 3: it's going to vastly increase the amount of space debris
Speaker 3: which spreads over time, which poses an existential threat to
Speaker 3: every other satellite. Yeah, so it's kind of I don't know,
Speaker 3: it remains to be seen, but I do appreciate Kirby,
Speaker 3: at least publicly saying guys, don't immediately go to some
Speaker 3: sci fi nuke from space thing.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: There's a scary part to that which they didn't say
Speaker 3: out loud, which is you don't need a nuclear weapon
Speaker 3: to screw things up.
Speaker 2: I just got this very clear image in my mind
Speaker 2: of competing space forces and everybody. The only way to
Speaker 2: feasibly take action against any enemy combatant satellites or vehicles
Speaker 2: is to nudge them towards the Earth so that they
Speaker 2: won't explode, they won't break apart, they will just go
Speaker 2: into the Earth.
Speaker 4: Change their trajectory.
Speaker 2: It's basically super sophisticated bumper guards that are trying to
Speaker 2: nudge each other and all the satellites. But what if,
Speaker 2: like think about that, the endgame of that scenario, one
Speaker 2: state power is able to in one swoop take out
Speaker 2: all of the primary let's say NRO satellites or the
Speaker 2: primary spy satellites that China controls, and they're able to
Speaker 2: nudge them all down to where nobody really understands what's
Speaker 2: going on until they realize, oh wait, it's the altitude
Speaker 2: is falling on like all of our satellites simultaneously, and
Speaker 2: then it's over and nobody you can't see anything. You're
Speaker 2: in the dark.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: That is especially given what happened with the AT and
Speaker 2: T this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, there's also which now current guests. By the way,
Speaker 3: just to clear it up for everybody, it's not a
Speaker 3: solar flare as I really thought for a minute, Yeah,
Speaker 3: it's it's not. It might be something. It might be
Speaker 3: a fumble on Cisco's part because they're a huge piece
Speaker 3: of that infrastructure. But with this, with your idea satellites
Speaker 3: failing that is the concern. That is why that is
Speaker 3: why the US and Russian diplomats are currently engaged in
Speaker 3: what corporate America would call healthy conversations. That's why the
Speaker 3: Biden administration reached out to India and China and these
Speaker 3: other world space powers and said, hey, help us stop
Speaker 3: Russia from deploying or launching whatever this thing may be,
Speaker 3: because if you game it out to a dystopian level,
Speaker 3: then what you know is that if satellites go down,
Speaker 3: or if there is like if you detonated a nuke
Speaker 3: in space, there's a massive electromagnetic pulse, it'll kill the birds.
Speaker 3: And so yeah, well I just kidding, I'm the birds
Speaker 3: of satellites. It'll kill the satellites. And if that happens,
Speaker 3: then anything that is not what we call a hardened
Speaker 3: target is basically toast in a very bad, un delicious way.
Speaker 3: Toasting no better.
Speaker 4: Well, Biden, the Biden administration rather actually, after Russia tested
Speaker 4: a satellite launch I believe in twenty twenty one, vowed
Speaker 4: that we would no longer conduct such tests that would
Speaker 4: add to the space debris problem and also acknowledge that
Speaker 4: we do have similar asat type weapons to what's being
Speaker 4: discussed here.
Speaker 3: Yes, and the one thing I do want to. It's
Speaker 3: a scary thing, but it's necessary to say, if you
Speaker 3: knew in advance that something like this would happen, you
Speaker 3: would be able to prepare things a little bit better
Speaker 3: than your adversaries. And that means then the land of
Speaker 3: the blind, the one eyed man is king as things go,
Speaker 3: and in that ensuing chaos, especially given how reliant modern
Speaker 3: militaries are on this technology, in that ensuing chaos, you
Speaker 3: could take a don beass. You know, you could get
Speaker 3: a crimea and you could do it pretty quickly.
Speaker 2: I thought you're making another reference to Boss and Boss.
Speaker 2: What is it? The two rappers, the British rappers, old
Speaker 2: guys y?
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, I mean also, it's something to think about.
Speaker 3: We're not saying that's happening, but it is something to
Speaker 3: keep an eye on, now, is I would say it
Speaker 3: to the question is a nuclear weapon in space overkill? Yeah? Yeah?
Speaker 3: Is that the point though?
Speaker 4: Probably? But on the moon though, guys, right, boy, Well,
Speaker 4: you know one thing we mentioned in the episode we
Speaker 4: just did on spy satellites is this nineteen sixty seven
Speaker 4: Outer Space Treaty, and putting a space nuke up there
Speaker 4: would in fact be a violation of said treaty Russia
Speaker 4: supposedly is an observance with this treaty And just last thing,
Speaker 4: Oh no, no, the problem with space chunk is just
Speaker 4: going to get worse as private industry, you know, continue
Speaker 4: to launch things into space and it can cause that
Speaker 4: bumper car problem that you're talking about, Matt, and it
Speaker 4: could potentially make it prohibitively difficult to launch any kind
Speaker 4: of satellites into space with predictable outcomes because of how
Speaker 4: much garbage is just floating around there, and could potentially
Speaker 4: nudge your stuff off of course, because again because of
Speaker 4: the conditions of space, a little nudge is all it
Speaker 4: would take to totally throw everything off kilter and cause
Speaker 4: it to no longer be effective at what it's supposed
Speaker 4: to do.
Speaker 2: What's the vocabulary word again, the something effect that you missed,
Speaker 2: Kessler effect.
Speaker 4: Well, I think that's a really solid Oh I was
Speaker 4: the last thing. I want to hear this from you
Speaker 4: guys both really quickly before we end the idea of
Speaker 4: Russia as a boogeyman? Is it is it relevant anymore
Speaker 4: like it used to be? Are we using it as
Speaker 4: an excuse to dump taxpayer money into military operations or
Speaker 4: is there a real threat both.
Speaker 3: You can poortt those like you going to have both
Speaker 3: of those, because that's something we mentioned at the end
Speaker 3: of the episode too, like it's quite advantageous for national
Speaker 3: defense companies to they make money off here.
Speaker 2: The folks are the Project for New American Century lamented
Speaker 2: the fact that USSR was gone and we needed a
Speaker 2: new enemy. Back in two thousand and we got one.
Speaker 2: It was just a morphous and a concept, right terror,
Speaker 2: Oh what's up?
Speaker 3: Weird on it.
Speaker 2: Apparently, But now we've got two posing potential, like what
Speaker 2: we call it Hedgemond's I think you're right, Ben is correct,
Speaker 2: it's both things simultaneous.
Speaker 4: That seems right to me as well. Well, thank you
Speaker 4: Cold War Hammer for that illuminating email. We're going to
Speaker 4: take a quick break here worth from our sponsor and
Speaker 4: then come back with more messages from you.
Speaker 2: And we're back and guys, let's stay in. I guess
Speaker 2: it's not space, it's this. We're going to talk more
Speaker 2: aerial things like phenomena. MM let's hear this message. It's
Speaker 2: a bit long. It's a message from Sergeant Will and
Speaker 2: this is his theory on the UAP phenomena and it's related.
Speaker 2: I think to the discussion we're having about nuclear capabilities.
Speaker 5: Hey guys, what's up, Sergeant Will I'm calling up because
Speaker 5: I wanted to discuss a theory that I that I have.
Speaker 5: You might sound kind of out there, but if they
Speaker 5: actually look at it, it's not really that far out there.
Speaker 3: So there was a.
Speaker 5: Documentary where there was a couple of people talking about
Speaker 5: where UFOs would come down and do specific things to
Speaker 5: the nuclear weapons that the United States had. The one
Speaker 5: came down and shut down all the nuclear weapons within
Speaker 5: the local silo and the secret location, rendering the systems
Speaker 5: inoperable during that time, and then turning them back on
Speaker 5: as it flew away. And then another one was from
Speaker 5: the Global Reconnaissance Office, you know, like the ones that
Speaker 5: have top secret clients, cosmic cop shacret it see everything
Speaker 5: that comes from out of space and stuff like that.
Speaker 5: What they were doing is they were launching a nuclear
Speaker 5: weapon test, and when they launched the nuclear weapon, the
Speaker 5: craft failed, so it took off and blew up kind
Speaker 5: of like a space X explosion type. And then when
Speaker 5: they looked at the footage to try to figure out
Speaker 5: what happened, they couldn't see it because it was too fast.
Speaker 5: But what happened was a small saucer shaped ship came
Speaker 5: down and Boom hit it with an array from one area.
Speaker 5: Boom went around it as it was launching to another area,
Speaker 5: and then Boom a third area and shot a laser
Speaker 5: at it and then flew away. After that third shot,
Speaker 5: the warhead was rendered inert and the machine, you know,
Speaker 5: the rocket was destroyed. So we're talking about our most
Speaker 5: advanced technology and going into space getting hit by something
Speaker 5: that can come down orbit it, hit it with laser
Speaker 5: precision strikes and then fly away. All right, So yes,
Speaker 5: everyone's gonna say, oh, yes, these are aliens in n
Speaker 5: DA da da da. For me, that is too specific
Speaker 5: for these things to come down and focus specifically on
Speaker 5: nuclear weapons. Even if you have that type of technology,
Speaker 5: you don't need to worry about nuclear weapons. My opinion
Speaker 5: on this is that this is a pinnacle technology of
Speaker 5: the sell warst program that we were working on under Ronaldgreagen.
Speaker 5: It's an anti nuclear war weapon. So the thing is
Speaker 5: because the United States is the leading power in the
Speaker 5: world with regards to nuclear weapons, with Russia in second place,
Speaker 5: where I don't actually really believe that Russia has a
Speaker 5: capability that they talk about, so I would consider China
Speaker 5: more of a threat. China's definitely a threat, but that's
Speaker 5: a different story. That's a cyber attack hacking type of stuff.
Speaker 5: But my issue is it's too specific, it's too direct, right,
Speaker 5: So when these things come down, they are focused specifically
Speaker 5: on nuclear capabilities, nuclear attacks, or even including nuclear submarines
Speaker 5: and nuclear aircraft carriers. So if you listen to those
Speaker 5: guys that saw those things that were, you know, in
Speaker 5: squads like multiple squadrons off of the coast of California,
Speaker 5: you know, with the tic Tec fridge, those things were
Speaker 5: in large numbers tracking our vehicles and then they knew
Speaker 5: where the rendezvous points were. For that level of intelligence,
Speaker 5: even if you're an alien species, it's inconceivable that you
Speaker 5: would first of all understand what we're saying, second of all,
Speaker 5: know exactly where we're going to be. That is human
Speaker 5: human intelligence. You couldn't calculate that with math. You couldn't
Speaker 5: calculate that with just understanding us. So that means that
Speaker 5: you would need to understand what we're thinking already. These
Speaker 5: things are mend These things are to make sure that
Speaker 5: we don't kill ourselves with nuclear fire and The reason
Speaker 5: that it's top secret is because if we were to
Speaker 5: reveal that we have machines that can render nuclear weapons
Speaker 5: that inert, then we lose our advantage as a nuclear
Speaker 5: power because we're the number one nuclear power in the world.
Speaker 5: So the leverage that comes with that would be immediately
Speaker 5: dissolved when the world would realize that we're all completely
Speaker 5: one hundred percent safe from nuclear war and that nuclear
Speaker 5: winter and nuclear war is never going to occur. And
Speaker 5: so that way, we can have our enemies expending ridiculous
Speaker 5: amounts of money on nuclear weapons. Why would we worry
Speaker 5: about it, you know, but let them spend their money
Speaker 5: and let them weaken their economy doing such when we
Speaker 5: know that we can just completely stop it. You know,
Speaker 5: we're smart enough to create vehicles and machines that will
Speaker 5: make sure that the human race continues, even though it
Speaker 5: looks like a evil empire. That's why we are not
Speaker 5: really that worried about it. And that's why, you know,
Speaker 5: we don't really care about proliferation. So, I mean, it's
Speaker 5: a theory. Splat it that way. It's my theory, and
Speaker 5: it's my theory based on what I've seen in the
Speaker 5: world at the capacity of being in top sic of environments.
Speaker 5: You know what I mean? Right? Then, hope you guys
Speaker 5: have a good one. You guys are awesome RW Right.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean it makes me think of like stuff
Speaker 4: you might read about it in like fiction, like dystopian
Speaker 4: fiction like nineteen eighty four, where you have the threat
Speaker 4: of the thing that is what you base your entire
Speaker 4: strategy of control over the people on. And maybe the
Speaker 4: threat isn't even real, but like we were talking about,
Speaker 4: even with the Russia thing, it gives you a lot
Speaker 4: of power to wield over the populace, to have this
Speaker 4: perceived threat that only we can save you from.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, but in this case it's weird because if
Speaker 2: you go along with Sergeant Will's theory. Thank you so much,
Speaker 2: Sergeant Will for calling in before before I jump back
Speaker 2: into this. That was three three minute voicemails that are
Speaker 2: like scrunched down into.
Speaker 3: Water, and thank you Sergeant Will very much.
Speaker 2: And Sergeant Will, if you are listening back there, I
Speaker 2: don't remember saying it that way. I tried really hard
Speaker 2: to make sure I got like exactly what you were
Speaker 2: saying in there and didn't change what you were saying,
Speaker 2: but really scrunched it down. But what Sergeant will is
Speaker 2: saying is that you can't ever let anyone know that
Speaker 2: you are the source behind this tech if it existed
Speaker 2: like that to me was mind blowing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but there's I mean, okay, so, yes, there's lots
Speaker 3: of unpack here, and I'm really glad to thank you
Speaker 3: for your time, sergeant. So we've talked about some of
Speaker 3: these things in the past. One of the one of
Speaker 3: the big questions right at the conundrum of the terrens
Speaker 3: is maintaining that value and that leverage right that value
Speaker 3: proposition is that would say, however, there there is something
Speaker 3: interesting that I'd love to explore, which is the human aspect,
Speaker 3: of human intelligence aspect. So we know, for instance, like
Speaker 3: in efforts to stemy nuclear weaponization, we've seen things like
Speaker 3: Stuck's Net, and Stuck's Net relied on social engineering and
Speaker 3: relied on human intelligence because those systems were air gaped,
Speaker 3: so someone had to physically get something like a USB
Speaker 3: into that computer and hopefully get out, which we're pretty
Speaker 3: sure they did. But the idea then with human also
Speaker 3: brings an inherent vulnerability, and that vulnerability increases exacerbates with
Speaker 3: each new operator you add. So if there is this
Speaker 3: top secret capability that'll make the world a safer place
Speaker 3: while also retaining us position is the hedgemon, then you
Speaker 3: have to be very buttoned up about how anybody involved
Speaker 3: with that operates, you know, and secrets are tough to keep.
Speaker 3: So it's if this is true, and this is a
Speaker 3: fascinating theory. If this is true, one of the first
Speaker 3: questions would be, how come no one has come forward?
Speaker 3: How come there has never been a snowden right some
Speaker 3: as Soulenge purveyor of classified things. Is it just not
Speaker 3: existing on paper, never on the internet? Just handshaked?
Speaker 2: What if people have, it's just they are not to
Speaker 2: be believed according to popular or you know. I mean,
Speaker 2: you hear an outlandish claim from somebody like Bob Bazaar
Speaker 2: and you're like, oh, that can't be real. There's no
Speaker 2: way that's real. And there are reasons, as we've talked
Speaker 2: about on this show that to maybe a question.
Speaker 4: More to say, people closer to the actual source come
Speaker 4: out and say, wow, maybe there is some credence to that.
Speaker 4: Then it starts to feel a little more believable.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, but anybody who comes out and talks about it,
Speaker 2: who even testifies the front of Congress, gets put through
Speaker 2: the ringers when it comes to like their credibility, and
Speaker 2: I don't know, I just feel like maybe there have
Speaker 2: been people who have come forward. It's just who is
Speaker 2: going to.
Speaker 3: Believe and also consider this, like just because So what
Speaker 3: we're doing here, Sergeant, is we're taking this theory gave
Speaker 3: us and we're sort of turning it around in a
Speaker 3: show and tell, just getting a shape of it and
Speaker 3: a sense of its dimitrions. So lest we sound like
Speaker 3: we're poopoing it, which I don't think any of us are,
Speaker 3: I do want to point out this theory, even unproven,
Speaker 3: is so much more plausible than the idea of extraterrestrials,
Speaker 3: specifically eliminating nuclear capability.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because it gives a reason, right, it gives a
Speaker 2: reason to have to develop that tech and to deploy it.
Speaker 3: And to obscure it. And also all of the pieces
Speaker 3: described in this I'm holding my hands out here as
Speaker 3: though it's a physical thing that I'm playing with. All
Speaker 3: the pieces described here on their own are proven to
Speaker 3: exist with what exception the nuclear capability. That's the only
Speaker 3: thing it's really asking us other than the weakness of humans.
Speaker 4: Well, two quick questions. One, is this tech so out
Speaker 4: of the realm of anything that we fully understand that
Speaker 4: we wouldn't even know what it might look like like?
Speaker 4: What would it take to have a tech that could
Speaker 4: literally counter a nuclear blasts?
Speaker 2: Well, in this case, what is being described again in
Speaker 2: we have to state this in a documentary that was
Speaker 2: viewed by Sergeant Will that is then being used to
Speaker 2: develop this theory, right, which are based on testimonials that
Speaker 2: we have seen that we we talked with doctor Stephen
Speaker 2: Greer about the Disclosure Project and some of the officials
Speaker 2: that made statements in the year two thousand and I
Speaker 2: think two thousand and one. I think it was two
Speaker 2: thousand and one because of writer it was two thousand,
Speaker 2: two thousand and one, and who made disclosures about this
Speaker 2: exact activity with missile silos being targeted by whatever these
Speaker 2: things were that disabled nuclear weapons systems, which we.
Speaker 3: Have a video about, we have an episode about, we
Speaker 3: have video about that just came out on social media.
Speaker 2: I think, oh, yeah, we do. We absolutely do. Go
Speaker 2: check out Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. I think you can
Speaker 2: find it on all those places.
Speaker 4: Yeah, conspiracy stuff on YouTube, conspiracy stuff show on TikTok
Speaker 4: and Instagram.
Speaker 2: Yes, oh shoot, I forgot where I was going here,
Speaker 2: But the point was.
Speaker 3: The point was the like shutting down this capability, right
Speaker 3: what that tech would look like as well? Yes, questions.
Speaker 2: So, thinking about drone technology, we know of that the
Speaker 2: drone technology very well that was deployed with operations in
Speaker 2: Afghanistan and Iraq in the early two thousands. We know
Speaker 2: very well the newer drone technology that's coming out. There
Speaker 2: was a recent statement by somebody that I clocked, but
Speaker 2: I cannot regurgitate what it was right now. It was
Speaker 2: about a new type of drone that somebody really high
Speaker 2: up in defense talked about like, oh, that's just the
Speaker 2: new class of drones.
Speaker 3: And it came out because it's someone who had served
Speaker 3: I think in a UAP related field for a while. Yes,
Speaker 3: and they were saying, look, it's not aliens. We looked
Speaker 3: into this and this guy is i'll get his name,
Speaker 3: but this guy is publishing a sort of historic compilation
Speaker 3: of these activities that he's allowed to speak about now.
Speaker 3: And he said that the thing that pilots described that
Speaker 3: looked like roughly like a cube or maybe a dodecahedron
Speaker 3: or something that was surrounded in a transparent circle. You're
Speaker 3: saying that's the top level drone right now, because they
Speaker 3: have they have more maneuverability.
Speaker 2: Yes, I'm just remembering when we're talking about the testimony
Speaker 2: given at Congress where Ryan Graves, somebody who talked with
Speaker 2: Payne Lindsay on high Strange and somebody that we discussed
Speaker 2: in the past, that's the type of craft or a
Speaker 2: very similar description of the craft that he saw, or
Speaker 2: the people who were working with him gave testimony about yes.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and oh, we're gonna have to we're gonna have
Speaker 3: to get this guy's name later, but we definitely both
Speaker 3: read the same testimony and it is it is true. Look,
Speaker 3: a lot of times people might think it's a bummer
Speaker 3: to figure this stuff out, but a lot of these
Speaker 3: things are mundane. They can be explained by the need
Speaker 3: to obscure collection methods. They can be explained by the
Speaker 3: need to keep whatever edge one has over rival military
Speaker 3: regardless of how.
Speaker 2: Slim dude, let's talk about the SDI, the Strategic Defense
Speaker 2: Initiative and ballistic missile systems and star wars program that
Speaker 2: started will match right, it's right, this is nineteen eighty
Speaker 2: four been working on it for a while. The concept
Speaker 2: was to use ray guns guys like lasers and other
Speaker 2: high powered energy weapons to disable nuclear missiles even if
Speaker 2: like before they've been launched, after they were launched launch.
Speaker 3: Yeah, like it.
Speaker 2: And again that's why started Will, I think makes such
Speaker 2: a great point saying this is the Star Wars program
Speaker 2: in the two thousands.
Speaker 3: That makes sense. Yeah, I mean I do. Again think
Speaker 3: it's far more plausible than extraterrestrials having like a chip
Speaker 3: on their shoulder or are in their tentacles specifically about
Speaker 3: nuclear power. Well, I'm so sorry.
Speaker 2: No, you keep trying to talk. Wouldn't you test that
Speaker 2: on yourself before you tested it on an enemy combatants
Speaker 2: nuclear weapons? Because think about what that if it didn't
Speaker 2: work and you're targeting your enemy's nukes, about what that
Speaker 2: could trigger a.
Speaker 4: Massive chain reaction, like in terms of just you know,
Speaker 4: just mutually assured destruction. But what I was just gonna
Speaker 4: mention is the thing I said at the top that
Speaker 4: maybe was jumping the gun a little bit, just the
Speaker 4: idea of how long the specter of nuclear war has
Speaker 4: been this thing, you know, for the world, The idea
Speaker 4: of like what that would be like and how that's
Speaker 4: where the power actually lies. What would it mean for
Speaker 4: the nature of warfare and relationships between countries that maybe
Speaker 4: don't get along so cozally if there were a known
Speaker 4: technology that would get rid of the specter of this
Speaker 4: big bad that's been hovering over everything for so.
Speaker 2: Long, then everyone would have to have that technology, right, Yeah.
Speaker 3: You got to keep up with the Joneses. And also
Speaker 3: there's the question of how long mad will hold, how
Speaker 3: long that strategy, that calculation and philosophy will remain relevant
Speaker 3: because as we speak right now, there are a lot
Speaker 3: of all right, don't laugh, but this is the real
Speaker 3: term revolutions and military affairs called rmas. So you'll hear
Speaker 3: people talking about like, oh, the rmas are coming, there's
Speaker 3: a you know, it's going to be difficult for NATO
Speaker 3: and Russia and China in particular. But what they really
Speaker 3: mean is they're talking in the long term about the
Speaker 3: evolution of breakthroughs in war. So like gun powder, use
Speaker 3: of cava, stuff like that. As soon as it became
Speaker 3: useful for that stuff to be public, as soon as
Speaker 3: the cost benefit swung just a little, then it instantly
Speaker 3: went pub that's right. Yeah, So sergent Will is saying,
Speaker 3: right now, that switch hasn't occurred.
Speaker 2: Sure, but we're on the cusp.
Speaker 4: Probably there is.
Speaker 3: A threat big enough where they say, Okay, we're going
Speaker 3: to have to rapidly evolve. We're gonna have to shut
Speaker 3: down MAD. We're gonna have to throw Mad out the
Speaker 3: window because we have to stop an imminent nuclear disaster. Oh,
Speaker 3: then that's that's a calculation that people will have to make.
Speaker 4: But this is the anti threat, right, Like, this is
Speaker 4: the antidote, you know, for this specter that we've been
Speaker 4: you know, in living in fear of. I mean, think
Speaker 4: how rarely nuclear bombs have actually been deployed, and yet
Speaker 4: it creates this boogeyman that we all live in fear
Speaker 4: of the threat of.
Speaker 3: But that's the thing, Like, when so there is such
Speaker 3: an enormous cost if such a technology exists. Let's say
Speaker 3: something terrible goes wrong, Putin is no longer a rational
Speaker 3: actor and the dead hand system is real, and the
Speaker 3: US says, well, the only way we can stop this
Speaker 3: is we shut down all the dead hand nukes, and
Speaker 3: then everybody knows and then what kind of crazy consequences
Speaker 3: are we going to face? Because people will say why
Speaker 3: did you do this for centuries? You know, or fix
Speaker 3: the tax system, but you can shut down.
Speaker 2: Whatever, Ben, yeah, or you say that it's not yours.
Speaker 2: Still you say that it's some kind of extraterrestrial force
Speaker 2: that saved the Earth very X files. No, but but
Speaker 2: not just X files, like Unite the Earth against whatever
Speaker 2: the thing is.
Speaker 4: Because that's my point with all this crap that I've
Speaker 4: been talking. We need that threat to some degree to
Speaker 4: get rid of that threat. It's such a sea change
Speaker 4: that it's going to have to be rethought, you know,
Speaker 4: otherwise where it's everything's going to be out of balance.
Speaker 4: We need to have a threat.
Speaker 2: Oh god, Ben, I can see that picture so clearly
Speaker 2: that you just painted with that moment.
Speaker 4: I think that's happened in sci fi there has been
Speaker 4: like a sort of a false flag and an me
Speaker 4: like extraterrestrial enemy that turns out wasn't really.
Speaker 2: We always talked about Watchmen. That's what it was.
Speaker 4: Of course, that's what it was. Yes, thank you, that's
Speaker 4: what it is. No spoilers, I mean you still can no,
Speaker 4: but that's exactly.
Speaker 2: But that specific moment when the nuke the nukes are being.
Speaker 4: Launched, right and Watchman. It wasn't a false flag. It
Speaker 4: was a manufactured, actual catastrophe that they then blamed on
Speaker 4: this thing. But we actually did it ourselves, right, But.
Speaker 2: In this case it would be benevolent forces from elsewhere.
Speaker 2: I think that's incredible, but it's actually the US military.
Speaker 3: It was the friends we made along the way.
Speaker 2: Right dude, Well, I yes, all right, guys, that's it.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Sergeant Will for sending us those messages.
Speaker 2: We really love the way you think and the way
Speaker 2: you speak, and anybody else who has ideas give us
Speaker 2: a call. Our number is one eight three three std
Speaker 2: w TK. We'll be right back with more messages from you.
Speaker 3: In return. You can also send us an email directly.
Speaker 3: We read every single one we get. Conspiracydiheartradio dot com.
Speaker 3: Let's hold up some examples. Here's one that I thought
Speaker 3: would be interesting because I hadn't really thought about this,
Speaker 3: and I don't know if you guys have either. This
Speaker 3: comes to us from iron Man. Iron Man. I love
Speaker 3: the way right you say the following. Hi everyone. I
Speaker 3: know you're aware of the status of American heart health,
Speaker 3: and I appreciate that you took on Big Sugar a
Speaker 3: while back that took hutzpah. What I want to offer
Speaker 3: to you is the opposite side of the same coin potassium.
Speaker 3: Potassium has been shown in long term studies to have
Speaker 3: a significant effect on heart health. It's the electrolyte that
Speaker 3: no one seems to talk about in a meaningful way.
Speaker 3: Of course, the SAD is high in sodium, and potassium
Speaker 3: is like the yin to sodium's yang. The great problem
Speaker 3: studies are showing is not that American sodium levels are
Speaker 3: so high, but that American potassium levels are so low.
Speaker 3: So it might be editorializing here, might be looking at
Speaker 3: the problem from the wrong angle. Iron Man continues, A
Speaker 3: higher sodium diet is not inherently bad, but it becomes
Speaker 3: bad without proportionately high potassium levels. The recommended daily allowance
Speaker 3: or OURDA of potassium is forty seven hundred milligrams. It's
Speaker 3: believed that less than two percent of Americans meet this number.
Speaker 3: I want to pause there, because you know, I'm not
Speaker 3: a great example of an entity taking care of itself.
Speaker 3: But I've never thought about potassium levels.
Speaker 2: Banana is literally the only thing to hear potassium.
Speaker 3: I think about kazakhstein.
Speaker 4: Because also that it's one of the weirder periodic table symbols.
Speaker 4: It's k Yeah, nothing to do with potassium. It is
Speaker 4: probably a reference to its Greek name. Where else do
Speaker 4: we get potassium in a diet pills? People take supplements
Speaker 4: for it.
Speaker 3: Oh, we have a we have an answer at the end. Okay,
Speaker 3: so it's not all bad news. So at the same time,
Speaker 3: continues iron Man, OTC over the counter potassium supplement regulations
Speaker 3: are so tight that you cannot get a meaningful supplement
Speaker 3: in stores. The maximum amount of potassium allowed in an
Speaker 3: OTC pill is one hundred milligrams, and that's two percent
Speaker 3: of the recommended daily allowance, So you have to take
Speaker 3: a lot of them. I did not either. Iron Man
Speaker 3: says this is due to the adverse effects of high
Speaker 3: amounts of potassium for people with certain pre existing health issues.
Speaker 3: While the reasoning for not allowing greater amounts is sound,
Speaker 3: it exacerbates this problem. People can take whatever multi item
Speaker 3: and they want, but they'll always be missing out on
Speaker 3: this one incredibly crucial nutrient. Not only that, but the
Speaker 3: meaningless potassium supplements they allow to be put on the
Speaker 3: shelf and sold over the counter trick people into thinking
Speaker 3: they're meeting their needs. Watch out, big potassium. He's coming
Speaker 3: for you.
Speaker 2: Iron This is intense.
Speaker 4: This is a lot all dreadfully lacking in potassium.
Speaker 3: Maybe that's the source of all our problems.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, you guys, I thought I was just having.
Speaker 3: A terrible time existing. Iron Man, whomever they may be, says,
Speaker 3: this is terrible, but not all that conspiratorial. That is
Speaker 3: until you consider the unimaginable amount of money spent on
Speaker 3: heart related healthcare in the US. I'm sure you've looked
Speaker 3: in that number, into that number, and it's growing, not shrinking.
Speaker 3: There is a cosmic level of financial motivation here. Could
Speaker 3: it be a happy coincidence for the American medical care
Speaker 3: scamp I mean system? Maybe? Could it be an insanely
Speaker 3: deadly and wildly profitable conspiracy. Probably either way. I'm writing
Speaker 3: to you guys because you care about people. It's very
Speaker 3: kind and about trying to make a difference through the
Speaker 3: dissemination of important information. Conspiracy or not, this is a
Speaker 3: PSA that just hasn't gotten out there in a meaningful way.
Speaker 3: The number of lives that could save is like most
Speaker 3: of them. Anyways, I hope you all looked into this
Speaker 3: because you're proven yourselves to be expert level researchers. Love
Speaker 3: the show. Keep going. Thanks iron Man. Ps at iron
Speaker 3: Man's opinion. Beans to your question, Matt, are magical. Fruit
Speaker 3: are the best shot at fixing this. White beans especially
Speaker 3: what if.
Speaker 4: You're like a good white chili that'll work. Also, other
Speaker 4: leafy greens like spinach and broccoli apparently contain some amounts
Speaker 4: of potassium. Also potatoes and the other lentils which I'm
Speaker 4: a fan of. Legumes. Avocado also is really nice, and
Speaker 4: of course the humble banana, the humble radioactive banana. I
Speaker 4: do have beef, and I think we all do. With
Speaker 4: the American healthcare system, but I will say I get
Speaker 4: a decent amount of blood work done because of the
Speaker 4: thyroid condition that I have, so I have to get
Speaker 4: at my levels checked pretty regularly. And I got a
Speaker 4: message from my doctor saying that my vitamin D levels
Speaker 4: were really bad. Yeah, it's probably because I don't go
Speaker 4: outside enough. But they prescribed me, you know, a prescription
Speaker 4: level supplements three.
Speaker 2: Thousand I use, how many I don't recall.
Speaker 4: I don't recall, but it is they are monitoring for
Speaker 4: that kind of strung and I would imagine that if
Speaker 4: my potassium levels were ridiculously low. They would have said
Speaker 4: something about that too. Well maybe not.
Speaker 3: Maybe is like order of operations as well. They fix
Speaker 3: this the D, then the K, and then.
Speaker 2: I see, by the way, by the way p s A. Guys,
Speaker 2: you know that stands for right Vitamin D Potassium Service Announcement.
Speaker 3: Worth it? Okay, I thought you were going blue. No,
Speaker 3: I respect it.
Speaker 4: I went blue secretly, subvert covertly.
Speaker 3: So this is the reason I'm sharing this. First off,
Speaker 3: we'd love to hear your thoughts on this, folks, especially
Speaker 3: if you're a medical professional. Also want to hear is
Speaker 3: very important. If you think we should do an episode
Speaker 3: on supplements, I'm super into it. We may get some feedback,
Speaker 3: but I think it's okay to come for supplements because
Speaker 3: it's a very widely unregulated industry. A lot of times
Speaker 3: people get miserable situations because they have been built by
Speaker 3: a bad faith actor.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 4: You know what's interesting too is I have a dear
Speaker 4: friend who is a lifelong vegan and later in life
Speaker 4: has started to run into some health issues because you know,
Speaker 4: you're there's something called like a sugar vegan. They eat
Speaker 4: a lot of tofu and things like that a lot
Speaker 4: of starchy kind of things.
Speaker 3: I guess that's also a thing.
Speaker 4: And apparently over time it can really affect things like
Speaker 4: bone density. It can really affect your health, and problems
Speaker 4: can emerge despite your best efforts to live a quote
Speaker 4: unquote healthier lifestyle. So I think that really ties into
Speaker 4: what you're talking about ben with supplements, where I think
Speaker 4: you know, people take them not out of like snake
Speaker 4: oil superstition. Most of the time they're trying to just
Speaker 4: have a more balanced diet. But there can be issues
Speaker 4: that arise, and I think the marketing behind it and
Speaker 4: the math and the science behind it probably very much
Speaker 4: worth an exploration.
Speaker 2: Is there some isn't there something with supplements like that
Speaker 2: too that your body doesn't metabolize depending upon Yeah, because.
Speaker 3: They depending on the substance, depending upon the delivery method
Speaker 3: of the substance.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because you have to have other things in your
Speaker 2: like system to break down certain stuff something like that. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's so much more complicated than take a pill.
Speaker 3: To be very crass about it. One example for one
Speaker 3: like dirty don't do drugs kids. Example is the reason
Speaker 3: that people insulflate cocaine right instead of snort okay, instead
Speaker 3: of you can't smoke it because it's not soluble, or you.
Speaker 4: Can't like swallow, you can't swallow it, won't do it, yeah,
Speaker 4: whatever like that. That's the reason crack is a thing
Speaker 4: because cocaine in its form powder form cannot be smoked,
Speaker 4: so it has to be bound with whatever, baking soda, whatever.
Speaker 4: I don't know how to make crack, but there is
Speaker 4: a reason that that is smokable versus the kind that
Speaker 4: has to be either injected or insulfatedated.
Speaker 3: Not related, Okay, Yeah, And so the important thing here
Speaker 3: that we're saying, folks, that you need to understand, and
Speaker 3: a lot of chemists will confirm this potassium is basically
Speaker 3: the cocaine of the chemic bioavailability bioavailability as part of it. Yeah,
Speaker 3: but like the argument has crossed, is the example the
Speaker 3: analogy holds because of that that method of delivery and
Speaker 3: digestion is key, and a lot of over the counter supplements.
Speaker 4: Don't take that into account. They don't or at very
Speaker 4: at least don't share with you the detail.
Speaker 3: And also, of course this is not a ding on
Speaker 3: anybody who has been taking a supplement felt very strongly
Speaker 3: about it, and then found the science wasn't there. There
Speaker 3: are no such thing really as stupid people, and people
Speaker 3: are given the opportunity to access information and digest it,
Speaker 3: perhaps dependent upon the method of delivery as well, then
Speaker 3: they're going to amaze you because people are pretty smart.
Speaker 4: I think that's very magnanimous of you, Ben. I would
Speaker 4: have to disagree. I think there are such a thing
Speaker 4: as stupid people, but I do think your point holds
Speaker 4: true that it is about education, and most people, when
Speaker 4: given the opportunity to educate themselves, will do so, that's
Speaker 4: what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: Yeah, like maybe we're looking at again.
Speaker 4: I'm just saying, yeah, you're absolutely spot on.
Speaker 3: So let us know your favorite supplement conspiracies, whether they're
Speaker 3: pro a certain supplement, anti a certain supplement, and if so,
Speaker 3: why looking forward to those emails. For sure you will
Speaker 3: probably end up in the show because we're hoping people
Speaker 3: have a lot of opinions on these. Luckily we ended
Speaker 3: with some beans and some spinach and stuff.
Speaker 4: Can I just add, really, there is a sort of
Speaker 4: maybe not a fad diet, but there is a type
Speaker 4: of diet called a low potassium diet. So there also
Speaker 4: might be health reasons because of the health individuals.
Speaker 3: Which is why the supplements have to be below a
Speaker 3: certain amount. So maybe it's a thing where.
Speaker 4: Otherwise they could like kill you or something.
Speaker 3: Not solving it for everybody, right shout out to of course,
Speaker 3: the the overdoses that scientology makes people take right the nius.
Speaker 2: But then again, guys, I think in the end this
Speaker 2: is just a sodium conspiracy.
Speaker 4: It's big sodi salts, exalt.
Speaker 2: Let's take them on.
Speaker 3: Speaking of there's while we're while we're guarding ours those
Speaker 3: for supplement war. Speaking of big salt, there's one last
Speaker 3: thing I wanted to share here, so you still got
Speaker 3: a little time, which is a letter from a guy
Speaker 3: we're gonna call big Shucks. Big Shucks to be clear,
Speaker 3: did not choose the name. We're giving that to you.
Speaker 3: It is our gift to you, big shucks, and big
Speaker 3: Shucks said the following, I, Big Shucks, hence forward with
Speaker 3: this declaration, irrevocably and perpetually, grant them my unqualified assent
Speaker 3: say for express stipulations to the contrary, here and after
Speaker 3: provided to peruse audibly all compositions I direct onto.
Speaker 2: The Okay, so this is permission, this permission.
Speaker 3: But here's the thing you really said. I just like
Speaker 3: the way he wrote that big shucks, so big Shuck says,
Speaker 3: just got to say, fellas, everyone will love. This topic
Speaker 3: a good one to try and get new viewers on.
Speaker 3: Keep up the good work, my friends. Keep it weird
Speaker 3: out there. Also do more weird on China. There's a
Speaker 3: ton out there all the time, and it's looking weird
Speaker 3: and fascinatings. We're just putting some bleeps in there. But folks,
Speaker 3: you can tell if you're playing along at home.
Speaker 4: Fashion.
Speaker 3: Yeah, what big shucks means this is the news. I
Speaker 3: thought that's a great one to end on. There is
Speaker 3: apparently a new drug that is going to extend the
Speaker 3: life of dogs, and there's another one that will extend
Speaker 3: the life of cats. So this is one for the
Speaker 3: animal lovers. Please, of course, always send your pet pictures or,
Speaker 3: in case of the pictures, conspiracy diheartradio dot com. I
Speaker 3: think this is kind of good news unless you hate
Speaker 3: your dog or your cat.
Speaker 2: I think this is amazing news.
Speaker 4: I mean, I sometimes hate my cat. I think we've
Speaker 4: all been there are kind of a whole Sometimes.
Speaker 3: I thought you were talking about no specifically about your cat,
Speaker 3: like shrugging and.
Speaker 4: They're like, yeah, oh no, no, your cats are probably great
Speaker 4: cats are They can be kind of jerks. They're agents
Speaker 4: of chaos. I'll take them, Matt. It's a love hate thing.
Speaker 4: It's fine, it's natural.
Speaker 3: So here's the here's the thing too. Uh. This medicine
Speaker 3: has been developed, the one for dogs. It's been developed
Speaker 3: by a veterinary biotech company called Loyal for Dogs. This
Speaker 3: is coming to us from Science Alert by Carly Cassella
Speaker 3: from December of last year, so it saw us to
Speaker 3: go through clinical trials, but it appears to be on
Speaker 3: the way. The FDA has formerly formally accepted this drug
Speaker 3: for development, and they believe this thing, which is called
Speaker 3: l o YDS one. They believe this can be given
Speaker 3: to dogs as an injection every three to six months
Speaker 3: by vets once the dogs are seven years of age
Speaker 3: or old, or as long as they weigh at least
Speaker 3: forty pounds. It may, especially with larger breeds, help them
Speaker 3: live much longer, because you know, that's the heartbreaking thing
Speaker 3: about a lot large dog breeds, like Great Danes, Irish wolfhounds,
Speaker 3: they burn bright but briefly.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, and I don't think it's directly proportional to
Speaker 2: their size and weight when you go down all the way.
Speaker 2: But it is like smaller dogs live quite a long time, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah. If you hate chaua, well that's fad is because
Speaker 3: those little guys will stick around forever.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean, you know the humping' you know exercise.
Speaker 2: Hand nobody, it's really all the shivering.
Speaker 3: It's a continual workout.
Speaker 2: But there's there's just so little body to you know,
Speaker 2: fuel for so long. And then you have those big animals.
Speaker 2: I've got medium dogs. Owner what the actual life expects Charlie.
Speaker 4: Is Charlie a big dog or a medium dog? Charlie? Yeah,
Speaker 4: my dog Charlie medium.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Also, also check out a brain stuff video I did
Speaker 3: years ago on the doll human age thing. It's not
Speaker 3: a one to seven ratio all the time. It does,
Speaker 3: It evolves and it changes. But there's another question here
Speaker 3: which I think Big Shucks probably also appreciates. Is it
Speaker 3: so much about the extension of the lifespan or is
Speaker 3: it about the extension of the good parts of the lifespan?
Speaker 3: Humans are running into that right now. Dennis Leary had
Speaker 3: a great bit on it years ago where he said, look, yes,
Speaker 3: you could live to one hundred fifty or whatever. If
Speaker 3: you're human one day in the future, would you want
Speaker 3: to have the next fifty years just sort of.
Speaker 2: Suck coming up to you after you give a speech
Speaker 2: to a bunch of people about how you want to
Speaker 2: still be the president.
Speaker 3: Sorry, we should put.
Speaker 4: That sides of the aisle.
Speaker 3: That's how we were all I've set up before. I
Speaker 3: strongly believe there should be age limits to high political offices.
Speaker 2: John Stewart had a joke. Do you see him go
Speaker 2: back on the Daily Show?
Speaker 4: I haven't seen.
Speaker 3: He'szoomed in on his face.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what do you say the two this year we're
Speaker 2: breaking We will break the record for the two oldest
Speaker 2: candidates running for president, and they're breaking the record that
Speaker 2: they set last election.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's it's terrible. That's something to let us know
Speaker 3: about two folks like Honestly, if you want to be
Speaker 3: a centenarian comptroller, fine, go with God. But if you
Speaker 3: want to be like president or maybe on Scotis, I
Speaker 3: don't think it's agis. I don't think it's a hot
Speaker 3: take to say you should be somewhat representative of the
Speaker 3: population that you purport to represent.
Speaker 2: Wouldn't it be smart to age out of a public
Speaker 2: position like that to where the next generation that's in
Speaker 2: line would have actual representation.
Speaker 4: Frankly, I think it's by design to keep that next
Speaker 4: generation from gaining that representation for as long as humanly possible.
Speaker 4: That's the same with justices and stuff.
Speaker 3: You know, that's a big part of But there's also
Speaker 3: the in theory we were saying there's a certain amount
Speaker 3: of time needed to accumulate the experience, the networks and
Speaker 3: the expertise, but that's clearly not always true. You know.
Speaker 3: I think that's there's an ulterior motive, and I think
Speaker 3: that's what you're getting at.
Speaker 2: I think so, yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean again, I'm not saying that's the founding father
Speaker 4: necessarily had in mind, but it doesn't feel like our
Speaker 4: founding documents are very focused on bringing new ideas into
Speaker 4: the mix.
Speaker 3: Fathers would be horrified by everything that they did.
Speaker 4: Mean for it to be more malleable than we have
Speaker 4: allowed it to be, I would.
Speaker 3: Argue, yeah, but they would still they'd be freaking out
Speaker 3: about television, let alone space. The fel Crow is insane, right.
Speaker 2: You guys, can we do that next video shoot? It's
Speaker 2: where we're founding Fathers and we're just freaked out.
Speaker 5: That's the thing.
Speaker 3: I think about that though with time travelers, like, uh,
Speaker 3: you know, we always talk about I think it's kind
Speaker 3: of like a dumb question to say how someone would
Speaker 3: fare if they went entries back into the past. The
Speaker 3: answer for the vast majority of humanity is not very
Speaker 3: well at all.
Speaker 4: Connecticut Yankee is a good example of that in fiction.
Speaker 4: Was that Twain?
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's Twain. But the idea of
Speaker 3: people traveling forward in time is much more interesting to
Speaker 3: me because it gives us a fun opportunity to question
Speaker 3: our assumptions about the past, Like, we don't know what
Speaker 3: would amaze Thomas Jefferson. He probably have some complicated takes
Speaker 3: that didn't age well. Yeah, and then you know, think
Speaker 3: about like if you had never heard of things that
Speaker 3: we take for granted, how amazed would you be when
Speaker 3: you when you see them? Like, we don't know what
Speaker 3: would amaze time travelers. I don't know how I got
Speaker 3: here from potassium, but.
Speaker 4: Time, so there it is time. Well, I mean, you know,
Speaker 4: it makes me think of back to the future, too,
Speaker 4: which I think, you know, one handles the past and
Speaker 4: two handles the future, and honestly, think they they did
Speaker 4: a pretty dang good job of presenting the these kind
Speaker 4: of futuristic things, some of which have very much come
Speaker 4: to pass. But at the time, Marty McFly is us,
Speaker 4: you know, and he is like experiencing all this crazy stuff.
Speaker 4: He's blown away. There's that thing where there's the giant
Speaker 4: three D shark and he goes to the shark still
Speaker 4: looks fake.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 4: As much as things change, they stay the same as well.
Speaker 3: I mean, yeah, let's make that video because think about
Speaker 3: other things, like we're we're saying yes, space, yes, nuclear weapons,
Speaker 3: and they're the naturally any person who had heard of
Speaker 3: them before. But I think it's simpler stuff. I think
Speaker 3: it's the fact that you can buy oranges year round.
Speaker 3: It would be like, this is fucking astonishing, but devil.
Speaker 2: Devilish, this is against the laws of nature, against.
Speaker 3: The laws of nature. Let us know, folks, what you
Speaker 3: think the strangest thing would be for people traveling to
Speaker 3: the future, no holds barred, give us your honest opinions.
Speaker 3: I think gasoline would be up there. Sure. I think
Speaker 3: maybe the way socks have changed would be a big,
Speaker 3: big one for him, because they were super into the leggings,
Speaker 3: you know.
Speaker 4: I mean now the closest thing we had to that
Speaker 4: I guess are just high socks. Well, leggis are still
Speaker 4: a thing, but you know, gentlemen don't typically wear them.
Speaker 4: They can.
Speaker 3: Wigs are way less popular, it depends or demographic.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that they're more of like an outlandish fashion choice,
Speaker 4: you know, as opposed to like the norm.
Speaker 3: Did I tell you? I was talking with some French
Speaker 3: people about one of our show is Ridiculous History, and
Speaker 3: I was saying, how much I enjoyed an episode about
Speaker 3: why British lawyers and former colonial officials or officials from
Speaker 3: former colonial places where those wigs called perukes.
Speaker 4: To hide their scabies or something, and yeah, it's very
Speaker 4: dirty stuff.
Speaker 3: And then the it was so weird because these very
Speaker 3: nice French people that hung out with and had a
Speaker 3: karaoke adventure with Paris.
Speaker 4: Just encountered in the wild and became bals.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but they they very phlegmatically. They were like, you know,
Speaker 3: peruk is just the word for wig in French, and
Speaker 3: I was like, why it's not a special word. They're like,
Speaker 3: I'm sure the episode is very good. I would love
Speaker 3: to listen to it, but no, but.
Speaker 4: That's a great example of appropriating the language of other
Speaker 4: cultures and just making it like a new American word
Speaker 4: that means the thing we see it all the time,
Speaker 4: Like a file at, you know, is just a French
Speaker 4: word that means like a certain size or a cut
Speaker 4: of meat or cut of meat, but we refer to
Speaker 4: as specifically as like a filet mignon.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there remans to be Italian scallopini. It's just fun
Speaker 3: to say scalop.
Speaker 2: Yeah, guys, I've got a pitch for the video really quickly.
Speaker 2: So it's a it's an intro that's too long, you know,
Speaker 2: like SNL style kind of back in the day, Like no,
Speaker 2: like the intro to like a TV show or something.
Speaker 2: It's way too long. It tells you exactly what's going on.
Speaker 3: It feels like Mister Belvidere the Nanny.
Speaker 2: And so the actual content of each episode or each
Speaker 2: super short, and it's like a very simple thing like
Speaker 2: somebody whatever eating an orange and it's clearly winter or wherever,
Speaker 2: and it just cuts to them. They're just and they're
Speaker 2: just screaming and terrified like.
Speaker 3: Toilets. Yeah, that's another big like.
Speaker 4: This very much. I fear we've given away the game.
Speaker 4: But now you guys just have to wait and see
Speaker 4: how we pull it off. Slash. If we pull it.
Speaker 3: Off and you don't have to sit and wait in hush,
Speaker 3: frightened silence for our attempts at Sketch Comedy, you can
Speaker 3: join your compatriots iron Man, Big Shuck, Sergeant Will and
Speaker 3: the Cold Warhammer and Moore to become part of the show.
Speaker 3: Let us know your thoughts. Let us know what you
Speaker 3: think about Sergeant Will's fascinating Star Wars theory. Let us
Speaker 3: know what you think about the Russian weapons and the
Speaker 3: calculus behind them. Please please please help us explain or
Speaker 3: the very many supplement conspiracies like literally, think of whatever
Speaker 3: it is that you have taken that you think works,
Speaker 3: or you saw someone take it and you think it's
Speaker 3: utter bunk or indeed conspiratorial. Tell Us, tell us, tell us,
Speaker 3: send us pictures of your cats, dogs. We try to
Speaker 3: be easy to find online, correct.
Speaker 4: You can find us at the handle conspiracy stuff, where
Speaker 4: we exist on Facebook, the aforementioned you two, where we
Speaker 4: do have those attempts at Sketch Comedy rolling out every
Speaker 4: single week, as well as x FKA Twitter. If you'd
Speaker 4: like to find us on Instagram and TikTok. We are
Speaker 4: the handle Conspiracy Stuff Show. But wait, there's more.
Speaker 2: Do you have a telephonic device? Do you like to
Speaker 2: use it to call people? I was a founding father,
Speaker 2: So there you go, like a boomer call us. Our
Speaker 2: number is one eight three three std WYTK. When you
Speaker 2: call in it it is a voicemail. So you've got
Speaker 2: three minutes. Give yourself a cool nickname and let us
Speaker 2: know if we can use your name and message on
Speaker 2: the air. If you've got more to see what is.
Speaker 4: This apparition speaking words back to me through this cylindrical device.
Speaker 2: Chill out, Hamilton, We're good. He was a founding father, right,
Speaker 2: I mean Central Bank, Federal Reserve? All okay? Why not
Speaker 2: instead send us an email?
Speaker 3: It's one of the best ways to get in contact
Speaker 3: with us. Twenty four hours a day, seven days a week,
Speaker 3: as the humans reckon time. Love it, love it, love
Speaker 3: it because we can go back to what you have written.
Speaker 3: You can send us links, you can send us pictures,
Speaker 3: perhaps of your pets, and we read every single email
Speaker 3: we get. Where we are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2: Stuff they don't want you to know is the production
Speaker 2: of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 2: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.