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 the stuff they don't want you to know, a
Speaker 1: production of Iheartrading.
Speaker 2: Hello and welcome back to the show. My name is Noel.
Speaker 3: Our colleague Matt is on Skibbity Adventure and will be
Speaker 3: returning soon. They call me Ben. We're joined as always
Speaker 3: with our super producer Paul mission controlled decands. Most importantly,
Speaker 3: you are you. You are here. That makes this the
Speaker 3: stuff they don't want you to know, Noel, it is
Speaker 3: one of our favorite evenings of the week.
Speaker 2: It is bam. Sorry, I do have to say in
Speaker 2: the spirit of strange news which came before you mentioned Skibbitty,
Speaker 2: and I.
Speaker 3: Did just want to point out what I thought was a.
Speaker 2: Joke, strange news story, like a fake news story, was
Speaker 2: in fact true. Michael Bay is launching a cinematic intelevisial universe.
Speaker 2: I honestly, I mean I feel like I'm maybe more
Speaker 2: in the know than a lot of millennials. I thought
Speaker 2: Skimmity Toilet was just like one viral video. It's apparently
Speaker 2: a whole universe of this, like unreal Engine kind of
Speaker 2: dated video game engine generated content of this dystopian kind
Speaker 2: of universe that has been memed of course and turned
Speaker 2: into like games on Roadblocks and all of these other platforms.
Speaker 2: And Michael Bay, of all people, is developing this into
Speaker 2: a whole world, and I think it's the end. Times
Speaker 2: are nine.
Speaker 3: My friend, our buddies Jack and Miles over at the
Speaker 3: Daily Zeitgeist hipped me to that story, and I thought
Speaker 3: they were just riffing with each other in their typical
Speaker 3: dry humor. Also, skibbity is a thing Jack O'Brien made up.
Speaker 3: What do you mean, like parallel thinking made up? No,
Speaker 3: he completely manufactured the whole thing. No, yah, yeah he did.
Speaker 3: And gas lighting is also a thing he made up.
Speaker 2: Oh that's what you're doing. See I get it. Okay,
Speaker 2: got it, Consider me, consider my consider my gas lit
Speaker 2: As the kids say, not even know if they say
Speaker 2: that anymore? What do the kids say? Let's talk to
Speaker 2: some kids in the form of listener mail.
Speaker 3: All right, let's get into it, because we are going
Speaker 3: to hear some fantastic messages from our fellow conspiracy realists
Speaker 3: and Noel. There's an email that I think really spoke
Speaker 3: to both of us. I can't wait to I can't
Speaker 3: wait to hear this.
Speaker 2: One on air. Well, I can't remember exactly which segment
Speaker 2: it took place, and espe we talk about a lot,
Speaker 2: but Matt, I believe brought a story about a true
Speaker 2: crime event, you know, I believe either a murder, that
Speaker 2: some amount of the detective work was leaning on a
Speaker 2: dream or something like that, or like some purported psychic abilities.
Speaker 2: And then we got into the whole discussion of like
Speaker 2: is psych art psychic ability is real. It's in the
Speaker 2: original cold open of the video and the podcast, you know,
Speaker 2: from psychic powers to the paranormal, all of that good stuff.
Speaker 2: So it is kind of red meat for a show
Speaker 2: like this, But I was pretty surprised when I came
Speaker 2: out and said that I do think psychic phenomenon is real.
Speaker 2: And Matt was much more skeptical.
Speaker 3: He's skeptical about the weirdest things, which is part of why.
Speaker 3: But also what a genius this guy, our colleague, Matt.
Speaker 3: We have new chumps in the squad. I was interested
Speaker 3: in this too, and I think a lot of us
Speaker 3: playing along at home felt called to the concept of
Speaker 3: esp and intuition. We know that in the past law
Speaker 3: enforcement has used the idea of psychic discovery as a
Speaker 3: way to get around, you know, certain legal restrictions. But also,
Speaker 3: you know, my family's past. Man, I come from a
Speaker 3: place where people genuinely do believe that they practice psychic powers.
Speaker 3: And to your earlier point, we have spent years exploring
Speaker 3: the line between intuition and esp.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and not to you know, delay the message too
Speaker 2: much longer. But what also came up in that discussion,
Speaker 2: you know, around Matt's story was an interview we did
Speaker 2: with Russell targ years ago, who has a book called
Speaker 2: Third Eye Spies about a literal program the CIA had
Speaker 2: of this guy helped design very smart dude from MIT
Speaker 2: to supposedly help train psychic spies, you know, to be
Speaker 2: able to astrally project to locations where victims are being
Speaker 2: held or kidnapping or murder you know, evidence or bodies
Speaker 2: or what have you. And talking to him really turned
Speaker 2: a corner from me because this is like a really
Speaker 2: learned individual who really straddles the kind of line between
Speaker 2: science and the supernatural. And I'm pretty sure that this
Speaker 2: has been discussed outside of our crew, but dude clearly
Speaker 2: seemed to be the inspiration for Egon Spangler in the
Speaker 2: Ghostbusters because I think you know. Ghostbusters, of course a
Speaker 2: comedy movie with some horror elements. It is a very
Speaker 2: interesting exploration of that line between science and the occult
Speaker 2: and supernatural stuff. So now moving on to the letter
Speaker 2: from one of my favorite nicknames of recent memory, our
Speaker 2: borious master of plants. Yes, is very elden ring or
Speaker 2: something like. I don't know exactly what it is, but
Speaker 2: it has a great mouthfeel to it. And here we go,
Speaker 2: ohy gents, our bore is here master of plants. I
Speaker 2: inserted that regarding the woman whose dream led the police
Speaker 2: to the murder victim. My thinking on such matters is
Speaker 2: as follows. I fully believe in phenomena like prescient dreams,
Speaker 2: but I don't think there's anything supernatural involved our subcon Yeah,
Speaker 2: and she does. Our subconscious minds are orders of magnitude
Speaker 2: all caps more powerful than we realize, constantly compelling and
Speaker 2: connecting thousands of data points in ways we couldn't possibly
Speaker 2: imagine or accept. I like the computer analogy, our subconscious
Speaker 2: minds processors aren't down with piloting our meat machines, which
Speaker 2: is like an industrial band name for the ages instead
Speaker 2: running in the background performing millions of tiny calculations we
Speaker 2: know nothing about. When something comes together, it makes sense
Speaker 2: that it would be presented via a subconscious process like dreaming.
Speaker 2: So that woman subconsciously absorbed thousands of tiny clues from
Speaker 2: people and situations around her, which eventually added up to
Speaker 2: the location of the bodies. Mannerism smells tiny visuals nearby
Speaker 2: people's conversations she wasn't listening to. Who knows, But how
Speaker 2: many times have you heard stories like I dreamed of
Speaker 2: someone I hadn't seen in years and randomly ran into
Speaker 2: them the next day. The majority of people, if they're honest,
Speaker 2: would probably tell you they've had similar experiences, And I
Speaker 2: think a lot of that comes down to the power
Speaker 2: of the subconscious mind. Something to think about when you
Speaker 2: can spare the bandwidth. Thanks Jens, I hope you know
Speaker 2: that what you do has a real impact on people's
Speaker 2: lives and mental states. That's very positive, even when you're
Speaker 2: talking about frightening things. I don't know how you manage
Speaker 2: that exactly, but keep it up, Arboreous Master of plants, Ben,
Speaker 2: I mean not to be redundant. We've certainly talked about
Speaker 2: various aspects of this, you know, over the many years
Speaker 2: we've been doing the show, but a couple of things
Speaker 2: stand out. I think Arboreus laid it out beautifully in
Speaker 2: terms of like what is the line between psychic abilities
Speaker 2: and intuition? I recently, I think we both did. We
Speaker 2: may be going to see it together for a second time.
Speaker 2: Saw the horror movie Long Legs, and there's a character
Speaker 2: who's an FBI agent who has these intuitions or these
Speaker 2: these premonitions, with the line where her boss is like, well,
Speaker 2: being half psychics better than nothing, and then said, how
Speaker 2: about we just call it? How about how about we
Speaker 2: just call you highly intuitive? And she she says that's fair.
Speaker 2: And I think that's really interesting. But I also know
Speaker 2: that we have problems sometimes in court cases with eyewitness accounts.
Speaker 2: So how do these things that up, Like if we're
Speaker 2: it all depends on the person, doesn't it? Like we
Speaker 2: all of us have these subconscious things that we're picking
Speaker 2: up on. Some people are just better at interpreting the
Speaker 2: data accurately with others because we know all of these
Speaker 2: things can also add up to stories we tell ourselves
Speaker 2: to complete fabrications.
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, I think that's a vary, astute, observational, and
Speaker 3: our boy is want to thank you in specific for,
Speaker 3: as we said, laying this out in such a perfect way.
Speaker 3: We don't want to be redundant. This is important. If
Speaker 3: you are looking for a book to teach you more
Speaker 3: about intuition, please please please read The Gift of Fear
Speaker 3: by Gavin de Becker. We've mentioned it in the past.
Speaker 3: It came out in nineteen ninety seven, so I guess
Speaker 3: it's relatively new in the grand scheme. But the idea
Speaker 3: here is this guy de Becker looked through the notion
Speaker 3: of intuition, the idea that you have a hunch, like Noel,
Speaker 3: for instance, have you ever met someone and had a
Speaker 3: really good or really bad vibe off them that you
Speaker 3: couldn't explain consciously?
Speaker 2: Bro Vibes are currency, my friend. I mean seriously, like,
Speaker 2: if you can't, if you don't have the ability to
Speaker 2: kind of discern that from somebody, then you're gonna be
Speaker 2: left in the dust a lot of times, or it's
Speaker 2: gonna be a lot easier people to take advantage of you,
Speaker 2: because I mean, if you don't kind of get a
Speaker 2: general sense of someone's authenticity, you know, from the moment
Speaker 2: you kind of meet them, then that things might not
Speaker 2: go super well for you, you know, in terms of
Speaker 2: you know, the ability for people to deceive you. Right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And this sensitivity, this sensitivity is no less magical
Speaker 3: when we understand it, right, It's still brilliant stuff. A
Speaker 3: lot of these unconscious cues you're describing a boreas are
Speaker 3: part of the daily interaction of humans with their environment
Speaker 3: and with other life forms. One thing that may be
Speaker 3: of particular interest to a lot of us listening tonight
Speaker 3: would be the concept of spell. You have vestigial pheromone
Speaker 3: receptors in your body if you are human, and sometimes
Speaker 3: that can explain why you do or do not vibe
Speaker 3: with another person. You can learn more about the use
Speaker 3: of intuition as seen through the framework of psychic powers
Speaker 3: in excellent documentaries like Vibes starring Jeff Goldbloom and Cyndi Laverer.
Speaker 2: It is a fabulous work of investigative journalism. Yeah, no,
Speaker 2: it's good. But seriously, though, I mean, when I say
Speaker 2: vibes are currency, I think I was. I was saying
Speaker 2: that coming from a lot of the coverage around the
Speaker 2: political climate or the race right now and how people
Speaker 2: were saying that JD jb Vance just has like no
Speaker 2: riz and just his vibes aire is instantly like trash.
Speaker 2: And we are playing a ViBe's game, a vibes based
Speaker 2: game where if someone comes off as insincere, immediately you're
Speaker 2: like not in their corner. And the thing is, you
Speaker 2: can be really good at feigning sincerity as well. And
Speaker 2: like tricking people's vibe sensors, you know, that is also
Speaker 2: a thing, but in general, if someone's just really ham
Speaker 2: fisted at it, it's gonna trip people's spidy senses in
Speaker 2: that way. And I love that you mentioned the smell
Speaker 2: angle because we often talk too about like what our
Speaker 2: equipment is as human beings, and like, you know, dogs,
Speaker 2: there's always the old trope in the movies when the
Speaker 2: bad guy comes into the house and the dog. The
Speaker 2: victim is clueless about his intention, but the dog knows
Speaker 2: what's up. And you know, while dogs maybe can't speak
Speaker 2: to us, it's very clear that they have equipment more
Speaker 2: finely tuned that are picking up. We even talked about spectrum,
Speaker 2: like the visual spectrum where they can maybe even see
Speaker 2: other dimensions or something like that, right, like and the
Speaker 2: idea of a color spectrum and things that transcend you know,
Speaker 2: this physical plane, I guess.
Speaker 3: Or at least the things that the humans can observe, right,
Speaker 3: infrared light, for instance, that's that's what Yeah, sorry, thank
Speaker 3: you Ben. No, no, it's perfect. There's also Look, what
Speaker 3: this teaches us is that if we are thinking critically
Speaker 3: about the concept of hunches or intuition or psychic powers,
Speaker 3: whatever you want to call it, we do know that
Speaker 3: the information the human brain thinks about, like the metacognition
Speaker 3: when you think about why do I like or not
Speaker 3: like a person that is coming to you in an
Speaker 3: incredibly digested, preanalyzed form from your subconscious. Your subconscious, the
Speaker 3: part of your brain that you don't really speak to,
Speaker 3: it is continually evaluating innumerable variables and factors. You might think,
Speaker 3: for instance, oh, this person's energy is really clicking with me,
Speaker 3: and you have to walk uphill cognitively to figure out
Speaker 3: why you have made that assumption. You are processing information
Speaker 3: that another part of you has delivered to you, sort
Speaker 3: of wrapped up and assembled.
Speaker 2: You know, it's almost like a packet of data, like
Speaker 2: a data stream coming into a computer over a network.
Speaker 2: It's all about like parsing it out and like separating
Speaker 2: the noise from like the actual good packets.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. So the concept of dreams is fascinating as well,
Speaker 3: because one of the best technological comparisons would be defragging
Speaker 3: a hard drive. That's what the human brain does when
Speaker 3: it sleeps, right, yes, ondred percent.
Speaker 2: But there are like different, I guess schools of thought
Speaker 2: behind that, even where it's like do dreams mean anything?
Speaker 2: You know, there's like Freudian thought or whatever, and that
Speaker 2: kind of you know, philosophy I guess behind it. I mean,
Speaker 2: there's a science to it, I suppose, but it is
Speaker 2: all kind of like theory, you know, like is it
Speaker 2: really your subconscious delivering important stuff to you? Or is
Speaker 2: it just kind of nonsense, fragmented gobbledegook, you know, Like
Speaker 2: I had a dream last night that I went on
Speaker 2: a laundry stealing caper, like I robbed a lotmat of
Speaker 2: other people's clothes with the cast of all that the
Speaker 2: nineteen nineties children's sketch show, and then we ended up
Speaker 2: going on a rampage and being chased by the police
Speaker 2: through like this suburban neighborhood and like some Northwestern kind
Speaker 2: of like place, and then I was arrested by a
Speaker 2: police officer who was played by Oh gosh, who's the
Speaker 2: guy that was the ladies man on SNL.
Speaker 3: Oh No, that guy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and he I had a bag of weed on
Speaker 2: me and he said I was in a part of
Speaker 2: New York where that wasn't legal and he took it.
Speaker 2: And then but then one of the guys from all that,
Speaker 2: Danny Tamberelli, Little Pete from Pete and Pete, he said, no,
Speaker 2: that's mine, it wasn't his. Oh, and he got me
Speaker 2: off with Tim Meadows. Yeah. But it's like, what is that?
Speaker 2: What is that possibly trying to tell me? If it's
Speaker 2: anything or is that just the product of a maybe
Speaker 2: not rested enough mind.
Speaker 3: It's it's telling us.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 3: You know, the defrat argument is interesting, and I agree
Speaker 3: with you, aarborious master of plants, that the subconscious mind
Speaker 3: is doing a lot of work behind the scenes. Right.
Speaker 3: So when we're always very careful when we wrestle with
Speaker 3: the concept of psychic abilities, right because it gets a
Speaker 3: bad rap. There are a lot of hoaxters out.
Speaker 2: There taking advantage of people cold readers on those TV shows,
Speaker 2: or they're trying to speak to people's deceased relatives, and
Speaker 2: it's all full flammed and absolutely taking advantage of people's emotions.
Speaker 3: Yes, exactly, leveraging those weaponizing them even But here's here's
Speaker 3: the thing, and we're when we say this what you're
Speaker 3: going to hear next, we know it's going to speak
Speaker 3: to a lot of us at home right now, personally.
Speaker 3: People who genuinely experience what we could call strong intuition
Speaker 3: if we're being diplomatic. Those people are not going to
Speaker 3: be your Madam Bell's. Those people are not going to
Speaker 3: do any kind of call in line or publish a
Speaker 3: book that they want you to buy or make you
Speaker 3: pay to talk to them. Those people are typically, and
Speaker 3: this is just my experience, they're typically going to have
Speaker 3: a number of discreete moments that are inexplicable to them, epiphanies, revelations.
Speaker 2: They might not even know what their abilities are. They
Speaker 2: might have explained them away, or like live their whole
Speaker 2: life feeling as so it's a burden or some kind
Speaker 2: of curse, you know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they wake up and they decide they shouldn't get
Speaker 3: on the plane right or they find themselves for some
Speaker 3: reason unable perhaps to leave their home to go to
Speaker 3: their job, and then later there's a massive car accident
Speaker 3: or an explosion. Now, how do we explain this? I
Speaker 3: can tell you that in most cases of which I
Speaker 3: am aware, most cases that I can prove of intuition,
Speaker 3: people are very afraid of being ridiculed or being seen
Speaker 3: as a wing nut. So there is a huge burden
Speaker 3: of trust that has to exist for someone to tell you, Hey,
Speaker 3: I have information about a thing that might apply to you,
Speaker 3: and I am trusting you to not tell other people.
Speaker 3: But just so you know, you know, even small stuff.
Speaker 3: I was recently, this is big in my family. Like
Speaker 3: I recently, I've got some friends moving out to Los
Speaker 3: Angeles and I had to tell them that the second
Speaker 3: house they look at is bad. Okay, I'm serious, you know,
Speaker 3: And it's weird to say that on air.
Speaker 2: So would you call that intuition or would you call
Speaker 2: that like something extra?
Speaker 3: Well, I just know the second house is a bad one.
Speaker 2: Man. Okay. That reminds me that, I mean, that reminds me.
Speaker 2: There's a scene again, there's no I'm not I don't
Speaker 2: want to spoil anything, but there is a scene in
Speaker 2: Long Legs where a character that knows something about a
Speaker 2: house without having the right to know it, you know,
Speaker 2: without having necessarily received any intel or any like, you know,
Speaker 2: actionable data or evidence. It's just a feeling. Oh, I
Speaker 2: know what I was gonna say too. Is a lot
Speaker 2: of times. That's why in movies you always see the
Speaker 2: person like, but you gotta listen to me, you gotta
Speaker 2: listen to me. They're gonna the building's gonna blow up.
Speaker 2: Nobody believes them, and they look like a crazy person
Speaker 2: until the thing happens, you know.
Speaker 3: Right, yeah, just like you said, uh and before we
Speaker 3: before he pause and move on. But one thing that's
Speaker 3: very important that you just brought up NOL is the
Speaker 3: idea of known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Not to sound
Speaker 3: too much like a certain politician, but the concept here is. Look,
Speaker 3: if you ground a plane because you know the plane
Speaker 3: will crash, and the plane therefore does not crash because
Speaker 3: you kept it on the ground, you are in a
Speaker 3: lose lose situation. Right, You've saved lives, but you look
Speaker 3: like a crazy person because you can't prove the plane
Speaker 3: would have crashed.
Speaker 2: Wow, And if the final Destination franchise has anything to
Speaker 2: be believed, you know death's coming for you. In an
Speaker 2: elaborate Rube Goldberg fashion sooner or later? So is it
Speaker 2: really just kind of like delaying the inevitable? Now I'm joking,
Speaker 2: but I think all of this stuff is absolutely you know,
Speaker 2: food for thought. Let's take a quick break. Thank you
Speaker 2: Rborius by the way for having both a delightful nickname
Speaker 2: and a great email for us to discuss. We're going
Speaker 2: to be right back with some more listener mail, and.
Speaker 3: We have returned. We're going to go to the phone
Speaker 3: lines here. This is a nice follow up to our
Speaker 3: earlier conversation. Joe asked a question that I would love
Speaker 3: your opinion on.
Speaker 2: Here we go.
Speaker 4: Hey, guys, it's Joe here from you know we should
Speaker 4: rather not say. Was just listening to that by episode
Speaker 4: and was also watching the documentary and the thought came
Speaker 4: to me, the CIA is declassifying all these documents and
Speaker 4: allowing people to have this knowledge of remote viewing and
Speaker 4: the like of psychic abilities. Don't you think they have
Speaker 4: some preventative measures for that already in place? So if
Speaker 4: the general public was to achieve set abilities, they have
Speaker 4: the proper protection. I don't know, it seems like they
Speaker 4: wouldn't just let us know that without you know, having
Speaker 4: some proper caution. I don't know. It's something to think about.
Speaker 4: Love you guys, keep it up. You know my name
Speaker 4: and this message and whatever you need to Thanks guys,
Speaker 4: all right.
Speaker 3: I knew this would be of interest to you, but absolutely,
Speaker 3: I mean it's it's perfect counterpoint to to what we
Speaker 3: just were talking about.
Speaker 2: And I think the Russell Target interview comes up yet
Speaker 2: again because we know the CIA had a program to
Speaker 2: train spies that was declassified or whatever led Target to
Speaker 2: be able to talk about it, but of course they
Speaker 2: would have to have countermeasures, you know. And we also
Speaker 2: know that there are other countries that also have secret
Speaker 2: spy type programs or I'm sorry, psychic spy type program right.
Speaker 3: Right right, most particularly the ussr UH and during the
Speaker 3: Cold War. This first off, Joe, what a fantastic question.
Speaker 3: The idea of counter measures against weaponized esp as we
Speaker 3: established earlier, we could we could use esp and intuition
Speaker 3: as synonyms right in practice, So is there a way
Speaker 3: to to protect against the weaponization of enemy intuition? What
Speaker 3: a weird sentence to say, you know, uh, this run
Speaker 3: you know what this reminds me of not just not
Speaker 3: just Targ Russell, Targ who is a super cool guy.
Speaker 3: But it also reminds me of our earlier episode on
Speaker 3: the concept of timfoil.
Speaker 2: Hats sure protecting our you know, shielding us from potential infiltration,
Speaker 2: like directly into our our minds, and God, man, give
Speaker 2: me not to to derail too far from us. But
Speaker 2: it makes me think too of like all of the
Speaker 2: implant technology that is now kind of becoming much more
Speaker 2: of a reality, and the idea of like our brains
Speaker 2: being able to literally be hacked. So that's not exactly
Speaker 2: esp but it's almost more terrifying and very real. So
Speaker 2: whatever your your thoughts on extrasensory perception and you know,
Speaker 2: psychic powers might be. But I don't know, Ben, do
Speaker 2: we have any evidence of any counter intelligence programs designed
Speaker 2: to protect against these sorts of things or is it
Speaker 2: more just sort of like space race type stuff where
Speaker 2: we have to like, you know, keep up with the
Speaker 2: John with the you know, what's a good Russian name?
Speaker 3: Uh, the the politically incorrect version would be keep up
Speaker 3: with the Ivans. There you go, is how they would
Speaker 3: have said it in World War Two and the Cold War. Look,
Speaker 3: we know there was provably some I would say dabbling
Speaker 3: in this idea of protecting protecting the information in an
Speaker 3: asset's mind. Uh, and this doesn't quite reach the level
Speaker 3: of like, okay, So what what Joe was asking about,
Speaker 3: basically is the Magneto helmet. If you're a fan of
Speaker 3: comic books, if you're if you're a Marvel nerd, then
Speaker 3: you know that the reason Magneto wears his special helmet
Speaker 3: is because it prevents telepaths from being able to mess
Speaker 3: with his mind. Right exactly, yeah, right, So it's.
Speaker 2: The idea is to have control of a mind that powerful,
Speaker 2: that already contains, you know, that has the ability to
Speaker 2: literally make anybody do anything, that would be you know,
Speaker 2: tantamount to handing over the launch codes to the naming.
Speaker 3: And I love that you're saying that because in this story,
Speaker 3: both or in the lore, both Charles Xavier and Eric
Speaker 3: Lyncher Magneto, they are both essentially walking weapons of mass destruction, right,
Speaker 3: and controlling that kind of mind could lead to catastrophic
Speaker 3: existential threats. So what we do see, or what we
Speaker 3: did see at least during the Cold War, was early
Speaker 3: research that I don't know, it was kind of spaghetti
Speaker 3: at the wall stuff. Early research in the Soviet era
Speaker 3: about the concept of using certain materials to build like
Speaker 3: a psychic Faraday cage. You know, so if Faraday cage
Speaker 3: is a real thing, it will prevent certain types of
Speaker 3: energy from penetrating a barrier. So back in earlier evenings,
Speaker 3: the Soviet government did fund research into not just the
Speaker 3: concept of astro projection. Here in the US, we had
Speaker 3: Stargate project, we had Project Start.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. At the same time the Soviets were conducting this
Speaker 3: kind of research, they were also working to figure out
Speaker 3: how to defend against this kind of thing. Now, for
Speaker 3: a lot of us more skeptical folks in the crowd,
Speaker 3: this all sounds very woo woo, you know, made up stuff.
Speaker 2: Well, because to build a device like this would kind
Speaker 2: of require a much clearer understanding of how these things work. Then,
Speaker 2: I would argue any and scientific I mean, the scientific
Speaker 2: community barely acknowledges that this stuff exists. So how would
Speaker 2: you like use science to build something to protect against
Speaker 2: something that scientists don't believe is real? I don't know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a great point. Also, further, if we're just
Speaker 3: being hard nosed about this, why would you evolve a
Speaker 3: countermeasure in addition to countermeasures that you already know work.
Speaker 3: For instance, why would you use polonium on someone who
Speaker 3: lives on the third story of a building with some
Speaker 3: really nice windows.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you don't bring polonium to a window fight. Never
Speaker 2: do it, that's true, that's aol and no promise we
Speaker 2: won't bring polonium to the window fight.
Speaker 3: But but you see what I'm saying, Like the question here.
Speaker 2: Path of least, there's a there's a path of less
Speaker 2: resistance at the very least, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, yeah. The acronym that is very popular here
Speaker 3: in the West is kiss keep it simple, stupid, So
Speaker 3: we don't want complicated Rube Goldberg esque attempts at solving something.
Speaker 3: If there was and this has not been proven, but
Speaker 3: if there was, if we're just freestyling, if there was
Speaker 3: some sort of weaponized psychic ability, then the immediate move
Speaker 3: would be to contain it, and if someone else controls it,
Speaker 3: to eradicate. And if you're eradicating it, then you're not
Speaker 3: going to make some kind of fancy you know, what's
Speaker 3: that Stranger Things solution to it type device or what right,
Speaker 3: You're just going to neutralize them with full prejudice.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then you know, an asset like that would
Speaker 2: be as accessible for that type of of let's call
Speaker 2: it operation as any other political figure would be, you know,
Speaker 2: in terms of protection, in terms of isolation, siloing or
Speaker 2: all of that good stuff. And I guess what we're
Speaker 2: talking about here too is maybe because you know, obviously
Speaker 2: regular old run of the mill ESP would be dangerous
Speaker 2: in terms of the ability to extract intelligence, to distract
Speaker 2: you know, as a surveillance right. But I think what
Speaker 2: we also might be talking about is going a little
Speaker 2: further into like hardcore telekinesis stabilities you know, to like
Speaker 2: use like Professor X could or magneto it could literally
Speaker 2: lift a building off the ground and smash it into
Speaker 2: you know, another building, or like use powers of their
Speaker 2: mind to act as weapons in and of themselves. So
Speaker 2: that to me maybe would be I don't know. The
Speaker 2: fairy day cage part is interesting because we certainly have
Speaker 2: facilities that like you know, clean rooms and such and
Speaker 2: like things that are like so like isolated, and they
Speaker 2: would be trouble by normal surveillance mechanisms. So I don't know,
Speaker 2: it's again today's kind of thought experiment day. Yeah, well
Speaker 2: it kind of always is, but more so than usual.
Speaker 2: Even in the episode that we just recorded, which will
Speaker 2: be coming out next week.
Speaker 3: I believe time is so weird.
Speaker 2: It is weird, especially when we do things kind of
Speaker 2: in reverse because we're recording this listener mail a day
Speaker 2: later than we normally do.
Speaker 3: Peak behind the curtain also before we move on, because
Speaker 3: I know we got to get to an ad break
Speaker 3: and I have something I'm very excited.
Speaker 2: To pitch to you.
Speaker 3: If you are if you have any awareness of attempts
Speaker 3: at preventative measures for something like you said, noel has
Speaker 3: not been proven to exist, we want to do conspiracydiheartradio
Speaker 3: dot com. If you are operating an asset that again
Speaker 3: just thought experiment. If you're operating an asset that has
Speaker 3: some sort of extraordinary ability, you don't want the big
Speaker 3: telekinetics you want. You want someone if telekinesis existed. You
Speaker 3: want someone who could just close an artery by looking.
Speaker 2: At that right, you know, and then you'd never be
Speaker 2: able to trace it back to anything you want talking about.
Speaker 2: Or maybe we I think we did an intro to
Speaker 2: a classic Ridiculous History episode about arsenic the idea of
Speaker 2: like you know, at the time, it was the perfect
Speaker 2: weapon because it was odorless, colorless, and utterly untraceable, at
Speaker 2: least at the with the technology of the time. But
Speaker 2: you I didn't even think about that. Then it wouldn't
Speaker 2: be like like the boys, you know, exploding someone ahead.
Speaker 2: It would be like something where you would never know
Speaker 2: what had happened, cause it just or just causing someone's
Speaker 2: heart to stop.
Speaker 3: Right, That's that's the dream, right, That's why, uh, that's
Speaker 3: why the British loved the what they call it inheritance powder.
Speaker 3: That's a good that that's part of it. And if
Speaker 3: there is an ability to delve into someone's mind, like
Speaker 3: use telepathy to extract information. Again, if something like that existed,
Speaker 3: then that would mean there was some sort of interchange
Speaker 3: of energy and information between those two brains. If that
Speaker 3: would be the case, then there would logically be a
Speaker 3: way to interfere with that passage, right with that process
Speaker 3: of back and forth. None of this is proven to exist.
Speaker 2: To there's no evidence of any of this in like
Speaker 2: what we've seen work in terms of history. Like it's
Speaker 2: just again to keep it simple, stupid, like the Russians
Speaker 2: are using bots and like internet you know, tactics to
Speaker 2: quote unquote rig elections or to like change public perception
Speaker 2: they're using. You know, AI is more of concern to
Speaker 2: me than psychic abilities. You know, we need to figure
Speaker 2: out how to guard against that stuff. Work behind the
Speaker 2: ape on that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because a lot of the things that we're considered
Speaker 3: to be supernatural or psychic are now being created via technology.
Speaker 3: They're the modeling systems that are capable of predicting behavior,
Speaker 3: get very close to foretelling the future. These same systems
Speaker 3: can be applied and are being applied to human beings
Speaker 3: to predict your own behavior. Because every person is their
Speaker 3: own country, right, we can model this stuff in that case.
Speaker 3: And I love that you bring this up. In that case, Joe,
Speaker 3: the preventative measure for weaponized esp on the ground, in
Speaker 3: a microcosm like in your life right now, the preventative
Speaker 3: measure is not to participate online.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a good point. Yeah, I mean the Internet
Speaker 2: is its own kind of weird oracle, and especially once
Speaker 2: you start figuring the AI in, because it all comes
Speaker 2: down to again, the psychology of the intuition question we
Speaker 2: were talking about earlier, Like, all this stuff is out
Speaker 2: there and again and I came out, you know, as
Speaker 2: believing to some degree in some form of extrasensory perception
Speaker 2: beyond just intuition. I don't know what it is, just
Speaker 2: like I say, I don't necessarily believe in a Christian God,
Speaker 2: but I don't believe in nothing. I just don't know
Speaker 2: what to call it. And I'm holding out hope that
Speaker 2: there is something out there beyond you know, what we
Speaker 2: know in the universe and in the afterlife and what
Speaker 2: have you. But I just don't know what to call it.
Speaker 2: And I feel the very same way about this kind
Speaker 2: of stuff. But I think our kind of coming full
Speaker 2: circle around to it, to AI and technology and the
Speaker 2: Internet being its own like exponentially dangerous form of this
Speaker 2: kind of stuff is absolutely accurate.
Speaker 3: And as as any student of the human condition understand,
Speaker 3: people don't know most things. Human civilization overall does not
Speaker 3: know most stuff, and that is a fact that needs
Speaker 3: to be acknowledged and addressed. Speaking of things we don't know,
Speaker 3: we're going to pause for a word from our sponsor.
Speaker 3: We're going to return with a letter from home, which
Speaker 3: is Noel spoiler, it's a weird one. I'm very interested
Speaker 3: in your thoughts, very interested in everybody else's thoughts. And
Speaker 3: we've returned. Okay, so this is a little bit different.
Speaker 3: It's a conversation I've been having over or a series
Speaker 3: of months now with various experts in various fields, veterans, biologists,
Speaker 3: oceanographers as well. Riddle me this, what is the most
Speaker 3: dangerous large non human animal? We're building a leader board
Speaker 3: and we're sept to be cleangerious.
Speaker 2: I mean, shark. Trump won't stop talking about sharks.
Speaker 3: Well, I think he saw one or something.
Speaker 2: What is he saying? I have I've been hearing chatter
Speaker 2: about him talking about great white sharks, But what exactly
Speaker 2: is the thing that he keeps saying about sharks?
Speaker 3: Oh, he's amazed by them, you know how like when
Speaker 3: you see a kid have their first day at the
Speaker 3: zoo and they just won't shut up about pandas or whatever.
Speaker 2: Trump just found out about sharks.
Speaker 3: He said he would prefer to be electrocuted instead of
Speaker 3: eaten by a shark.
Speaker 2: Why are the where does that equivalency come from?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 2: How are those the two things you're weighing?
Speaker 3: We who are we to judge? We do a lot
Speaker 3: of thought experiments here. That's true, fair enough, but he
Speaker 3: said in a speech in Grand Rapids, Michigan recently, he said,
Speaker 3: if I'm in a boat and it's all electric and
Speaker 3: it starts to sink, I asked the guy, do you
Speaker 3: get electrocuted sitting over this? And then I say, and
Speaker 3: I don't think there's anything wrong with this, because it's
Speaker 3: an analogy. If there's a shark about ten yards away,
Speaker 3: do I get electrocuted? Or do I go with the shark?
Speaker 2: I would told shark battery conundrum real? What is it
Speaker 2: a kobayashima room?
Speaker 3: There is no question for the ages.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think you can probably escape that. I don't
Speaker 2: think the battery would electrify the entire ocean or whatever. Like,
Speaker 2: I think you irrelevant. Agreed, though, shark's equal scary and
Speaker 2: they will eat your ass.
Speaker 3: Shark attacks are such a it's like the old John
Speaker 3: mulaney joke about quicksand quicksand is way less of a
Speaker 3: threat in your adult life than it seems when you're
Speaker 3: a k and sharks are an easily avoidable threat.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: You earlier asked me in a previous I think it
Speaker 3: was strange news or maybe an episode. We're talking about this.
Speaker 3: You straight up asked me whether you thought whether I
Speaker 3: was confident that I can fight a shark.
Speaker 2: Yeah, PvP is the term we've been using TVP Yes, yeah,
Speaker 2: you think, yeah, And we didn't have an Australian listener
Speaker 2: right in with incredulity about your ability to do so
Speaker 2: with a kangaroo.
Speaker 3: Yeah, look, folks, I understand the skepticism, but youet thumbs,
Speaker 3: you got agility. Kangaroos are forward moving threats that make sideways.
Speaker 3: They can do you know, they could do stuff if
Speaker 3: they were, but they're not boxers.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I don't want to hurt one. I just think it's.
Speaker 2: You're gonna have to get your hands dirty if you're
Speaker 2: in the ring.
Speaker 3: You can't just bob And I'm just saying if you're
Speaker 3: in a situation.
Speaker 2: But I believe your point about the shark was it
Speaker 2: would you mean a little bit of a handicap? I
Speaker 2: need to not be fully immersed right.
Speaker 3: Right, right right, So we in this discourse, so we
Speaker 3: want to hear from you, folks. We differentiated on our
Speaker 3: leader boards between maritime animals and surface animals. So nol.
Speaker 3: The question on everybody's mind right now is to you
Speaker 3: you in particular, sir, what is one of the most
Speaker 3: dangerous surface animals? Well, it's the human being then, I
Speaker 3: mean not non human, non human.
Speaker 2: The most dangerous game. I don't know. Bears are pretty gnarly. Yeah,
Speaker 2: they'll they'll there, they'll rip you up.
Speaker 3: I never believed that Daily cropic story.
Speaker 2: Yeah, oh what what was the Davy croc?
Speaker 3: Oh? Yeah, he killed a bar with.
Speaker 2: Threes? I don't know. I hes some when he was
Speaker 2: only three, which that's definitely three year olds. Have you
Speaker 2: seen them? They're useless, they can't do it.
Speaker 3: Wow, hot takes uh Yeah, but you know, like I've
Speaker 3: been talking about this on Instagram, Twitter, various social media platforms,
Speaker 3: hanging out with people because I'm fun at parties obviously,
Speaker 3: and one of the questions that came up was about
Speaker 3: you man. People were asking me which bird Noel thinks
Speaker 3: is the most dangerous surface animal. They just assumed that
Speaker 3: it would be about They assumed that you would go bird, Well, I.
Speaker 2: Wouldn't know, And now that's it's the most terrifying to
Speaker 2: me personally. It would be the casuary, you know, the
Speaker 2: velociraptor esque dinosaur remnant, you know, walks on two legs
Speaker 2: and will disembalue you with its long you know, razor
Speaker 2: sharp who wouldn't be scared of nothing. But well, the
Speaker 2: Internet says that it's the hippopotamus.
Speaker 3: Well, the hippo has the highest kill count, but the
Speaker 3: hippo is also extremely stupid.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they're not. They're they're also I don't know,
Speaker 2: maybe I guess are we talking about most likely encounter
Speaker 2: you know you definitely, yeah, killing five hundred people a
Speaker 2: year in Africa. I guess it's because they're just aggressive
Speaker 2: and they just tend to get freaked out really easily
Speaker 2: and kind of like just you know.
Speaker 3: They have poor eyesight. Oh yeah, and they're real they're
Speaker 3: real chonkers. It's similar to the problem of the rhinoceros,
Speaker 3: but the hippo is more dangerous. Uh. The the way
Speaker 3: we were thinking about the leaderboard is the idea of
Speaker 3: which animal could whip every other animal. So like, could
Speaker 3: a tiger fight a hippo, for example, a Siberian tiger
Speaker 3: would it?
Speaker 2: No, it would, yeah, I would, it would eat it.
Speaker 2: I think it would.
Speaker 5: I mean hippos are aren't aren't They picked off? Usually
Speaker 5: like because they're so stupid in their eyesight's so bad,
Speaker 5: like guard hippos often you know, killed by other predatory
Speaker 5: and they're chonkers.
Speaker 3: Though, is the thing like, uh, gators won't or crocodiles right,
Speaker 3: large reptiles don't usually mess with the hippo.
Speaker 2: They're just too formidable, just too really. Dogs with rabies
Speaker 2: kill fifty nine thousand people per year. Wow, just from
Speaker 2: BBC Science Focused. I don't think this is bullshit. Snakes
Speaker 2: one hundred and thirty eight thousand humans a year. This
Speaker 2: is you know, because again we're talking about much broader
Speaker 2: categories of animal now rather than just like a particular
Speaker 2: type you know, hippo right right, Yeah, Snakes is number
Speaker 2: three according to this list. Mosquitoes we forgot about mosquitoes. Well,
Speaker 2: they're not large disease Okay, they.
Speaker 3: Have a huge like they have a huge skill count
Speaker 3: in that they are the one of the most most
Speaker 3: murderous life forms toward humans.
Speaker 2: Humans is number two though, four hundred thousand deaths per year.
Speaker 3: Get it together, guys.
Speaker 2: Number one as one hundred and thirty eight thousand dogs
Speaker 2: with rabies not large, I guess medium size fifty nine
Speaker 2: k a year. Something called assassin bugs gozas bugs spread.
Speaker 2: They're primary spreaders of the deadly chagas disease. It's a
Speaker 2: bloodsucking predator and found in Central and South America. The
Speaker 2: Choggas disease potentially fatal and is transmitted through an assassin
Speaker 2: bug bite or by consumption of cold food or drink
Speaker 2: that has been infected by the incense insect and or
Speaker 2: its feces, which carries the protozoan trippan tripanosoma cruisy also
Speaker 2: known as T cruzy. It's ta cruisy less scary sounding.
Speaker 2: Scorpions are a big killer. Crocodiles a thousand. I think
Speaker 2: those are what are we talking when we say large though?
Speaker 2: Do we have a threshold for that? I think we
Speaker 2: need a little bit more data around the data points.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is great. This is where we need help
Speaker 3: from our fellow conspiracy realist. Also, quick point of correction,
Speaker 3: hippos do use their eyesight. Rhinos are the ones that
Speaker 3: are tragically near sighted. Hippos aren't intelligent. Just to be clear,
Speaker 3: they're not very smart, but they primarily use their hearing
Speaker 3: when they're underwater and when they get out of the water,
Speaker 3: they're looking around like where's the watermelon? Or who do
Speaker 3: I bite? At this point, I love your question about
Speaker 3: our threshold. We've got to figure this out. We need
Speaker 3: your help, fellow conspiracy realists join us for the most
Speaker 3: Dangerous Animal leader board. We've got excellent discourse going on
Speaker 3: on Twitter about this. No, you raise fantastic points there.
Speaker 3: I think that's our most immediate question. What is the
Speaker 3: threshold for quote unquote large animal? Tell us all about it,
Speaker 3: and also if you have if you have provable psychic
Speaker 3: power or a proven means of preventing weaponized psychic powers,
Speaker 3: we want to hear from you. We try to be
Speaker 3: easy to find online.
Speaker 2: Or hit us up via the psychic plane.
Speaker 3: There is get too many.
Speaker 2: I saw the TV glow fans out there. You can
Speaker 2: find us however on the Internet if that's your bag
Speaker 2: at the handle conspiracy stuff where we exist. On to
Speaker 2: Ben's point, x fka Twitter. You know, I actually saw
Speaker 2: a staff the other day, Ben that like ninety percent
Speaker 2: of the media still refers to x as X formerly
Speaker 2: known as Twitter. You're by making it one of the
Speaker 2: least successful rebrands in the history of rebrands, just putting
Speaker 2: that out there because we're one of them. Yeah, that's
Speaker 2: also conspiracy stuff. On Facebook. We have our Here's where
Speaker 2: it Gets Crazy Facebook group where you can get in
Speaker 2: on the conversation and on youtubehere. We have video content
Speaker 2: coming at you on the regular on Instagram and TikTok. However,
Speaker 2: we are Conspiracy Stuff Show.
Speaker 3: You can also give us a phone call on a
Speaker 3: telephonic device. The number is one eight three three stdyk.
Speaker 3: When you call in, you will hear a hopefully familiar
Speaker 3: voice and then a peep like so pep After that beep,
Speaker 3: that's sort of your gunshot. At the beginning of the race,
Speaker 3: you have three minutes. Those three minutes are yours. Tell
Speaker 3: us what's on your mind. Tell us the name you
Speaker 3: would like to be referred to. Let us know if
Speaker 3: we can use your name and or message on the air.
Speaker 3: Most importantly, do not censor yourself. One of the best
Speaker 3: ways to contact us as a group is also email.
Speaker 3: Give us the links, give us the pictures, take us
Speaker 3: to the edge of the rabbit hole, and we will
Speaker 3: do the rest. Just drop us a line at our
Speaker 3: good old fashioned email address.
Speaker 6: Where we are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 3: Stuff they Don't Want You to Know is a production
Speaker 3: of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 3: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.