"Lost Technology, Nephilim, & The Mainstream Lies" Michael & The Rogue Archaeologist | Tim Alberino

Many of these extraordinary megalithic sites around the world were built in the age before the flood.

The ancient Egyptians and the Greeks and the Romans and all the rest of them,

they believe that the very same thing occurred.

I don't even know if people are going to believe me when I say this.

When you started talking about the aliens and the antimatter, all the lights went off.

They have a $4,000 confidence monitor.

It like fizzed like the picture got all crazy.

Maybe somebody's signaling to us to shut up. Demons, aliens, ziggurats, ancient civilizations.
Much of what you think you know about archaeology and ancient history could be wrong. I, for one, know nothing about archaeology and ancient history could be wrong.

I, for one, know nothing about archaeology and ancient history, so I guess I'm not wrong.

I just, well, hopefully I will be right by the end of my interview with Timothy Albarino.

Mr. Albarino, thank you for coming on the show, sir.

Thank you so much for having me. It's my pleasure.

And thank you for smoking a delicious Mayflower cigar.

And it is delicious.

I thought for this conversation, we needed a cigar. Mm-hmm.
Mandatory. You wrote a very popular book, Birthright, about ancient civilizations, archaeology.
You're an explorer. You're a researcher.
You look like Indiana Jones. You've lived in Peru for a decade.
You wrote this very popular book about how there are some gaps in scholarly archaeology, ancient history, things that you're not allowed to talk about in the academy that scholars write off that you think are worth exploring. It's done very well.
And your view is that the Bible is actually a good guide to understanding the ancient past, which I guess distinguishes you from other people who are revisionist on ancient history and archaeology. Yeah, that's right.
I think that's accurate. So I come from a biblical paradigm.
That's my worldview. And it's not because I've been indoctrinated into Christianity.
It's because I've been entirely convinced that the gospel of Christ is true. So, that's my perspective.
I believe that the biblical narrative is an accurate account. Now, that doesn't mean I'm a literalist in every detail, but I think that it's remarkable.
It's the most remarkable book ever compiled for many reasons. And it does happen to be, in my opinion, very accurate and enlightening about the past, even the deep past, the distant past, the antediluvian world.
And so I've traveled all around the world and have investigated. I investigate, I guess you could describe it as fringe topics.
So I don't have a background in academia. I don't have a doctorate in anything, but I've spent a lot of years in, let's say, Central America, South America, studying megaliths, studying lost civilizations.
And really what I would say the moment that convinced me that we're missing large portions of our historic past, of the deep past, I'm talking about the antediluvian past, the pre-flood past, is when I stood in front of the megaliths for the first time in Cusco, in the city of Cusco. And especially the megalithic complex of Sacsayhuaman, which is in Cusco.
And it is one of the most magnificent stone structures on earth. The walls are mammoth.
They're made of polygonal stones that are fitted together so precisely that you cannot slip a butter knife between the joints. And they're beveled, so they have this pillowed appearance.
And some of these stones, the foundation stones, weigh in excess of 250 to 300 tons. And they were quarried some 10 miles, 10 to 20 miles away.
And it was standing in front of the walls of Sak Sai Waman that really, I mean, because you can read things in books and you can youize about lost civilizations and ancient technology, but when you stand in front of megalithic walls, there's something so convincing about that in relationship to the idea that we're missing something. We don't have the whole story.
What distinguishes specifically your view of the ancient past with the popularly held view in the academy? I've never been to Sacsayhuaman. I've never been invited.
But if I did go down there, I wouldn't even know how to distinguish what the scholarly crew thinks about it and what maybe the more fringe theorists think about it. In regard to the megaliths in Peru, there's many megalithic sites in Peru.
The academic consensus is that most of these sites, especially the ones around Cusco, also Ojantaytambo, Machu Picchu, were constructed by the Inca. And the Inca were an extraordinary empire.
I mean, this was an extraordinary civilization. They were able to do many things that other pre-Columbian cultures could not achieve.
In many ways, they were like the Romans of South America. They built amazing roads and aqueducts.
And so I have a lot of respect for the Inca civilization, but they did not build the megaliths. Because the Inca, while old, aren't that old.
No, they're not that old. So I believe that the Inca discovered these megalithic sites, Machu Picchu, certainly Sacsayhuaman, and they decided to inhabit them and rebuild them because the Inca viewed themselves as the offspring of the gods.
They were the children of the sun. And when you talk about the Inca, the Inca does not describe the totality of the culture, of the civilization.
The Inca was a very specific, very particular bloodline within that civilization. It was the royal bloodline.
Only they were the Inca. The Spanish called them the orejones because they had the large discs in their ears.
They had the large earlobes. Like my barista at Starbucks.
Yeah. Yes.
Right. Yes.
And so, this culture, within this culture, the Inca culture, you have this royal bloodline, as I said, who considered themselves to be the offspring of the gods. And so, when they came upon the megalithic ruins, the remains of what they could only interpret as the works of the gods.
I mean, we're talking about massive stones that are, as I said, cut with such precision that they're fitted together without the use of mortar. And archaeologists refer to this style of building, this style of masonry, as Cyclopean masonry.
And you find it all over the earth, especially as it pertains to megaliths,

because obviously Peru isn't the only place on the planet with megaliths. But this architecture, cyclopean architecture, where they have these massive stones exquisitely cut and dressed and then fit together without the use of mortar, I believe that is the signature of an ancient advanced civilization that was annihilated from the face of the earth in the deep past.
What time are we talking about? How deep is it? We're talking 10,000 plus years ago. Okay.
So the scholarly consensus view is that human civilization arose within the last, what, 5,000 years? Yeah. And you're saying, no, no, there was this pre, to our understanding, human civilization that built all this stuff.
So then the question, of course, is who were they and where did they go? And why do you think this? I mean, why couldn't the Inca have done it? Well, let me address that first. We know that the Inca didn't build the walls of Sacsayhuaman.

Now, you won't read this in any history books, and you won't hear archaeologists saying this. But my friend and colleague, Anselm P.
Rambla, he's a Spanish explorer, researcher, and he actually excavated at the walls of Sacsayhuaman, the walls I was referring to earlier, those magnificent megalithic walls. He got permission from the Ministry of Culture in Peru to conduct an excavation in the site generally in various areas of Sacsayhuaman.
And he dug down to the foundation stones of Sacsayhuaman, to the lower levels. And what he discovered at the lower levels were pre-Incan artifacts and only pre-Incan artifacts.
How do you know? What distinguishes a pre-Incan artifact? Well, I mean, there's artifacts that archaeologists can identify as Inca and then artifacts that belong to cultures that pre-existed the Inca or that were conquered by the Inca. So the kind of artifact that you wouldn't have found at a higher level, I guess.
Precisely right. So he's digging deep down into the soil there in front of Sacsayhuaman, and he's finding only pre-Incan artifacts.
This is a definitive evidence that those walls pre-exist the Inca. They were there before the Inca discovered them.
In fact, we talked about Sacsayhuaman also being a megalithic site. Most people don't realize that Machu Picchu is also a megalithic site.
And Machu Picchu is extraordinary. It's one of the most beautiful places in the world that I've ever seen.
I mean, certainly in terms of archaeological remains, Machu Picchu is phenomenal. Most people don't realize that the foundations of Machu Picchu are megalithic.
And they have the same sort of polygonal cyclopean architecture as you see in Cusco. And the Inca, I believe, discovered these ruins and seeing themselves as the offspring of the gods, they concluded that it was their birthright to inhabit what was once the habitation of the gods and rebuild, rebuild their monuments.
And everywhere you go in Peru, and I would say all around the world, people have made use, obviously, of these magnificent megalithic foundations and have built with inferior techniques on top of them. And this is evident in Machu Picchu.
This is certainly evident in Machu Picchu. In fact, Machu Picchu, the Quechua, the real name for Machu Picchu is Ijampu.
And what does Ijampu mean? The abode of the gods, the dwelling of the gods. So if this is so evident in Machu Picchu, why don't any of the people at Harvard agree that this is a megalithic, pre-modern notions of ancient history structure? Because they're worried about their careers.
They're worried about the esteem of their colleagues. They're worried about being published in the prestigious magazines and having a future in their field.
And they would be ostracized. I mean, if you talk about, let's put it this way.
When I was at Machu, I've been to Machu Picchu numerous occasions. And there was this particular time, I was actually with my colleague Anselm P.
Romulo at the time, and there was a guide. And he was very, very, very knowledgeable.
He was an old guide. He's been a guide there for decades.
And the guides are very well trained in the conventional narrative of the Inca and especially of Machu Picchu. And we were quizzing him on certain aspects of the architecture at Machu Picchu.
For example, you can look across the courtyard at Machu Picchu and you'll see a wall, a megalithic wall with polygonal stones, which means they're stones that have all different kinds of angles in them. Some of these stones have a dozen angles in them and they're fit precisely to the other stones around them.
And they're anti-seismic, by the way. But then right on top of them, you would have this inferior stonework.
And some of that, much of that is archeological reconstruction, but some of it we know was not, was the Inca did it. They built on top.
And I asked him, I said, that wall there, very clearly, the lower levels are superior to the higher levels. You were looking at two different techniques of masonry, of architecture,

one superior, one inferior. How do you explain that if the Inca built that? Why would they start

off with this superior technique and then gradually the technique becomes inferior?

Why would they do that? What's the explanation? What is the conventional explanation?

And he thought about it for a moment and he said, because that's the way they like to do it. That was the answer.
Because that's the way they like to do it. Exactly.
And I said, well, how is that rational? How can you logically deduce this? I mean, honestly, that they did this just because that's the way they like to do it or they like the way it looked. I said, you're a smart guy.
You're well-trained in academia. And they are all of the guys up there at Machu Picchu.
I said, there's no way you actually believe that. And he conceded to us, yeah, you're right.
That's ludicrous. It really is ludicrous.
And so what are we looking at? The megaliths around the world, not just in Peru. We're talking about the ones in Peru here, but they're all over the world.
Baalbek, for example, is one of the most magnificent. I mean, you have...
Where's Baalbek? Baalbek is a megalithic site in Lebanon. It's one of the most magnificent megalithic sites on earth.
Huge stones that weigh thousands of tons. And, of course, the conventional explanation is that the Romans built it.
And indeed, they raised the temple to Jupiter there on that site. But just like the Inca discovered the megaliths and determined that they were going to build on top of them and rebuild the abode of the gods, so I believe the Romans and cultures that predate the Romans did the same thing.
Of course, you're going to use the megalithic foundations. See, the megaliths, they're not just, it's not just exquisite architecture.
It's not just exquisite masonry. They're anti-seismic.
Okay. They're built in such a way that they don't collapse during earthquakes.
And I'll go back to Cusco here because Cusco is a perfect example of this. When the Spaniards invaded and conquered the city of Cusco, they began to disassemble the higher levels of Sacsayhuaman because it starts off with large foundational stones and the stones gradually get smaller as they ascend to the top of the structure.
And so they took all of the stones that they could manage and carry away, and they built their cathedrals. And the Spanish were no slouches at building cathedrals.
The Spaniards had amazing architects, and they knew what they were doing. And they built their cathedrals in the city of Cusco, on top of the ruins of the Incan temples that they demolished.
And they built their cathedrals. And every time there's a major earthquake, the cathedrals fall.
But you know what doesn't fall? Those megalithic walls that I believe have been standing there for thousands of years. Is one explanation as to why the craftsmanship gets shoddier toward the top, just that it's harder to build stuff the higher up you go? I don't know.
What do I know? I don't know anything about architecture. No, if you look at some of these walls, you'll notice that there's this exquisite architecture.
There's this impressive superior masonry. And then you'll find gaps in that masonry where obviously something happened and they had to replace the original stone,

and they replaced it with a totally different inferior technique and inferior stone work.

And it's evident, for example, and we'll go back to Peru for a minute,

you go to this megalithic site called Ojantaytambo.

Ojantaytambo is a fascinating site because in Peru,

you're going to find two different techniques for megalith building. One of the techniques is the polygonal, what's known as the beveled polygonal, cyclopean walls.
But then you're going to find, and this other technique you find in Bolivia as well, it's, it's, it's the interlocking, the, the, the interlocking blocks. In this method, they would actually, it was like Leg Legos.
They would actually cut out, let's say, a rectangular shape inside of the block, and then they would fit it on top of a rectangular shape protruding from the block below it. It would interlock like a Lego.
And in Ojon Taitambo, you find both of these techniques together. You find the polygono and the interlocking.
And what's unique about Ojantai Tambo is that this megalithic complex was in the process of being built. You can see it.
The stones are being dressed and they're making their way up the side of the mountain where the complex crescendos in this temple structure called the Temple of the Sun at the top, very large stones in excess of probably somewhere around 80 to 100 tons.

And you can see the blocks making their way up and they're being dressed and they're huge megalithic blocks.

And there's even one particular block where it appears as if somebody was cutting into it with like a circular saw.

You can see the cut mark right through the block. Yeah, yeah.
And it just stopped. It halted.
The construction came to an abrupt halt. And now the conventional explanation is that the halt was because the Spaniards had arrived.
And the Inca were in the process of building another temple. The Spaniards arrived, so they stopped the work, and they had to combat the Spanish.
In fact, they fought a—the only battle the Inca really won against the Spaniards was one right there at Sacsayhuaman, because they were able to flood the valley. It's an amazing story.
It really is an incredible story. But they didn't build those walls.
I'm absolutely persuaded that the Inca did not build those walls. And furthermore, many of these megaliths around the world, including at Ojantaytambo, are specifically aligned to particular cosmological phenomena.
And you can date the monument with the stars. This is called archaeoastronomy.
And I have a good friend in Cusco, his name is Andres Adasme, he's an archaeoastronomer. And he figured out at Ojantaytambo that the dating, it was based on a solar alignment, and it's very complex.
But he dates it to around 10,000 BC. Well, he also did the same thing with the city of Cusco, and that's based on some particular solar phenomenon revolving around the three most important celestial objects for the Andean community, which is the Milky Way, the Winter Solstice, and the Southern Cross.
Those are the three primary celestial markers for the Andean people. And based on those markers, you can reverse the clock with programs such as Stellarium, and you can see if there are any celestial events, if the precession of the equinox and all kinds of different things, if there's a lock, if it can lock in.
In other words, if you can find a pattern, and he did in the city of Cusco, and the date was 10,000 BC. And I'm using Peru as an example to illustrate a larger point here.

It's the same all over the world as it pertains to megaliths. Okay, so if the construction didn't stop because the Spaniards arrived, as the conventional explanation goes, why did it stop? And who were these people 10,000 years ago? The construction came to an abrupt halt

Because the earth was subjected to cataclysm. Okay.
A massive... Like a global flood, for instance? Like a global flood, but it wasn't just a flood.
It was a cataclysm, the destructive potential of which we can scarcely imagine.

So, and I believe that to some extent, some of these megaliths were being built in anticipation of cataclysm, like they knew it was coming.

And so they were building these massive megalithic edifices in the hope to survive it.

And that's my own personal theory. So how would they have known it was coming? Well, that's very complex.
That's based on the precession of the equinox. It's based on the zodiac.
The transition of the aeons is cataclysmic. The ancients knew this.
That's the purpose of the zodiac. That's the purpose of many of these megalithic sites and other monuments around the world because the ancients knew.
I will say that the ancients believed. And when we say the ancients, we're talking about the ancient Near Eastern cultures, the Mesopotamians, the ancient Hebrews, the Egyptians, and then you have, of course, the ancient Greeks and the Romans, and then other cultures around the world like the Inca, like the Maya in Central and South America, they believed that the earth was subject to cyclic cataclysm, that every so many thousands of years, something happened and it would precipitate cataclysm on planet earth.
And we're talking about civilization ending cataclysm. And yes, the great flood of biblical fame is one such cataclysm, probably the greatest cataclysm in living memory.
And all of these ancient cultures around the world have a ubiquitous testimony of cataclysm. I mean, this is the testimony of our ancestors.
And it's ubiquitous in In every culture, you can find the mythologies, the legends of the great flood and of other kinds of cataclysms that annihilated the population of the earth. And there was only a handful of survivors.
And yet, archaeologists and historians and the conventional narrative of history totally disregards the testimony of our ancestors. Why are we doing that? I mean, if it was just one culture or two cultures, you know, oh, that's just something that's in the Bible.
See, a lot of people think that the great flood is just in the Bible. That couldn't be further from the truth.
It is everywhere. I mean, there are hundreds of flood myths around the world that correspond to the same.
But they would say that the kind of secularist, modern flatterers of our own time would say, well, the flood myths recur in every civilization ever because it speaks to something within human nature. So it might not have anything to do with a literal historical event, and it almost certainly does not.
But there's just something about our nature that makes us imagine these flood myths. I don't think I'm being unfair to them.
I think that's actually their point of view. No, that's willful ignorance.
That's what that is. They know that that's not true.
You give them more credit than I do. I think they're not that smart.
Well, I've talked to, you know, there's the academic who's speaking. Ex-Cathedra.
Yeah, that's right. And then there's the academic who's talking to you, smoking a cigar, having a cup of coffee.
Yeah, yeah. Okay, they have their public face, and then they have their private opinions.
Yes, that's right. And many of these guys privately will admit many things, many interesting things.
I've talked to academics and archaeologists and historians, and privately they'll admit, yeah, there probably was a cataclysm. Yeah, that's not hard to see.
And more, they'll admit many of these guys privately that giants existed. So not only we have the cataclysm confirmed in the Bible, also the existence of giants, what are designated as the Nephilim in Genesis 6 and elsewhere in the Old Testament.
So are the giants the ones who built the big megaliths and then stopped cutting at the moment of the cataclysm? I don't know. I don't know.
See, I think that's a possibility that some of these edifices perhaps could have been built by giants, but certainly not all of them simply because of the proportions. You know, there's people out there who are in my community who will say all the megaliths were built by giants.
Well, that can't be true because if you walk through some of the megaliths, they have doorways and the doorways are, you know, maybe a foot higher than my head, and it's the original doorway.

And nobody's going to build a house that they have to crouch down to get into, right?

Nobody's going to do that.

So if one of these sites was built by giants for giants, then you would expect to see the proportions, right?

And you would expect to see very large doorways, very large corridors, very large stairwells, and you do at some of them. I'll go back to Sacsayhuaman in Peru.
Sacsayhuaman, the doorways are massive. The steps are spread apart so that, let's say they were built like we would build steps, so that's the normal stride of our stature.
If these stairs were built proportional to the stride of the builders, these are very tall guys. We're talking nine, ten feet tall.
But if I go to great cathedrals or great, even, I don't know, even a great symphony hall or something, sometimes they'll have very large doors. That's a good point.
That's true. So could it just be that? It could very well just be that.
I'm not saying that megaliths were built by giants. It's possible.
I don't know who built the megaliths. I don't know who built them.
Whoever built them, though, the conventional explanations are inadequate to account for the phenomenon. So if they were so technologically advanced that we can't even understand how they did what they did.
Where did the technology go?

Who were they? Were they some smarter race of creature? Were they just human beings who figured things out and then generational knowledge was lost? How did it happen? The knowledge was lost and the ancients knew it. The ancient Egyptians knew it.
The ancient Mesopotamians knew it. They knew it.

They knew that the civilizations that had preexisted them, specifically the civilizations from before the great cataclysm, from before the flood, were superior to their own. They acknowledged them as such.
And this is what I'm trying to illustrate. is all over the world, you have the fingerprints in the megaliths, you have the fingerprints of an advanced lost civilization, and it's ubiquitous.
Cyclopean architecture is ubiquitous all over the earth. It's not that the Inca over here developed their, you know, megalith building technique and the guys who built Baalbek developed a different one.
No, it's the same. It's the same Cyclopean architecture.
They're working with the same knowledge. You've used the word multiple times.
Forgive my ignorance. Cyclopean like the Cyclops? Like the Cyclops.
So was it a race of Cyclops? This is an archaeological term. Interestingly enough, the Cyclopes were the offspring of the gods in Greek mythology.
They were demigods.

And so the Greeks attributed the megalithic constructions that they saw strewn around the land, but in a state of ruination.

They attributed those constructions to the Cyclopes, to the offspring of the gods.

Because the Cyclopes in Greek mythology was the master builder.

It was the Cyclopes, for example, who forged the thunderbolts of Zeus. I mean, these were the master builders.
And I think that's a myth. I'm not saying that the walls were built by actual Cyclopes, but I think it's- You're just saying, you're using an archaeological term.
It's an archaeological term. You're using it in a literal way and in a way that the ancients might have used it.

Exactly.

Okay.

Exactly.

The ancients that we think of as the ancients. If you ask the ancients, okay, I keep going back to Peru because I lived there for 10 years and I have so much experience there.
But if you ask a Quechua person, and the Quechuan people are the native people who live in the Andes.

If you ask a Quechua person, one who hasn't been modernized, one who still keeps the old ways and the old traditions, who built these walls? Yeah. Soxai woman.
Who built those walls? You know what they'll tell you? An ancient race of giants who existed in the world before a flood. That's what they'll tell you.
And you'll find the same answer all around the world when you talk to the people and when you inform yourselves of the traditions of the people who live there. And that doesn't mean that all the traditions of these cultures are true.
No, there's a lot of mythology. But mythology is designed to convey scientific information.
Yes, it reminds me of one of my absolute favorite books by Owen Barfield, one of the Inklings, actually the Inklings who probably was most responsible for converting C.S. Lewis to Christianity.
Owen Barfield in poetic diction says that we have this modern view that language goes from being prosaic and literal to being figurative and poetic.

That's how we under...

But actually, it's the opposite.

That early primordial language is poetic.

And the first example he uses is pneuma, you know, the spirit or the breath or...

And that actually all those meanings are just collapsed into this one word, pneuma.

And it has poetic meaning.

It has spiritual reality.

It has literal reality.

And as language develops and people become more self-conscious, I suppose, the language loses its poetry and becomes more prosaic.

And he said, that's lost.

It's not that we're going to get back to that.

He said, but the echo of that, the last kind of hint, whisper that we have of it are the myths. That the myths are this kind of, which is not to say that one takes the myths literally.
It's just that that is the way to convey an early kind of melding of meaning and literal reality. I agree with that, but I would say it's even more than that.

I would say that the myths were crafted by the adepts of the mystery schools, and that these were very learned men, and that they understood things about the universe and about the earth, things that we would equate to modern science, and that they encrypted that knowledge in the myth. so that the myth is like, a myth is like, much like prophetic content from the Bible.

Yeah.

It's like an encrypted folder.

So if I'm going to send you a folder with information that I want to conceal, that requires decryption for you to view, I'm going to send you a zipped folder.

Yeah.

And you're going to take that zipped folder onto your computer, and you have to decrypt that folder.

You have to unzip it.

Thank you. to view.
I'm going to send you a zipped folder. And you're going to take that zipped folder onto your computer and you have to decrypt that folder.
You have to unzip it in order to extract the contents. So a myth is like the folder.
A myth is that folder with its title and you kind of have an idea of what it's about. And for the lay people, for who the mystery school adepts would describe as the profane, who the occult would describe as the profane.
The hoi polloi. Yeah.
They're not the initiated. They're initiated.
We're profane. That's how they would see us.
We think of these stories, these myths and legends in a different way than they think of them. They know how to decrypt the myths and extract the knowledge.
Well, this would be a divergence probably between your view and the inklings, I think, especially of Tolkien, author of Lord of the Rings, who said, you know, he didn't really like allegory. There's a difference between allegory.
He hated allegory. Because allegory is like Pilgrim's Progress, you know, just big walking symbols.
Like the Chronicles of Narnia. The Chronicles, right, yeah.
Lewis is probably less talented at his fiction than Tolkien was. Tolkien created myth, though.
And so, I guess, not to speak for Tolkien, one of the great writers of the 20th century, but the Tolkien view of myth, and maybe the inkling view of myth, is that it's not that it's hidden knowledge exactly. It's just, it is conveying in the best possible way knowledge that is not really susceptible to prosaic literal speech.
Whereas there are also other schools I'm thinking of in the 20th century, a writer like Leo Strauss or other people who write in an esoteric or even Gnostic tradition who say, no, no, this is really about, this is about encryption. This is persecution in the art of writing.
At all times, the philosophers, the sages are under attack by the unwashed and the tyrants and the barbarians. And so we need to keep secret from these unwashed masses, these ancient truths that will pass on down the general.
That's your view. I believe that's absolutely true.
It's not just my view uh one isaac newton also believed that newton was because we think of newton as a natural scientist but he spent a lot of time especially in the later part of his career in alchemy and in a successful alchemist by the way how's it i knew he was into alchemy i didn't know he was well and i don't i don't want to i don't know all the details, and every time I try and recount this, I get the details wrong. But let's just say, generally speaking, he was into alchemy, and he believed, as did some of his predecessors, that the myths encapsulated real scientific information, alchemy recipes, from which you could extract different kinds of elements.
Yeah, yeah. And he performed some of these.
He read the recipe, so to speak, from the myths,

a couple of these myths, and he was successful in extracting the element that was theorized that

you would get if you did that with the myth, if you read the recipe correct. But myths also

encapsulate, more than anything else, astronomical information. And there's no question about that.
I mean, you look at the ancient world and you see, for example, you look at ancient Egypt and you see all kinds of composite beings like the Sphinx. The Sphinx is a great example.
And you have the Sphinx, which I believe originally originally the sphinx was the head of a woman in the body of a lion yeah and and i have to give credit to the late david flynn for much of this i read a book the most consequential book i've ever read in my life is called sidonia the secret chronicles of mars by david the late david flynn he passed away in 2012 but the sphinx is actually a that composite being that the head of the woman in the body of the lion today it's the head of a man because in it but it's a very it's not proportional the head is small it appears to have been recarved i think originally it was the head of a woman because i believe what the sphinx is marking is the exact period in time when the when the the cataclysm of the flood occurred. And that happened between the transition of, and we're talking about the zodiac here, because this is how the ancients calculated time.
It was the great mill in the sky. It was the celestial timepiece.
Zodiac, ubiquitous in many different cultures around the world, same figures. And that transition from the age of, it was the transition from the age of Virgo to the age of Leo, when the cataclysm, I'm talking about the cataclysm as described in the Bible, occurred.
It ensued during that transitional period between Virgo and Leo. And what is the zodiacal sign for Virgo? The glyph is a woman.
And what's the glyph for Leo? A lion. So you have the head of a woman and the body of a lion.
It's a time marker. So I believe that, and there's other astronomical phenomena that solidifies this idea that the Sphinx is a time marker, but it's marking the age in which it was built, but it's also marking the occurrence of the cataclysm.
So when would that have been? Is that at the historically academically accepted time, or is that some earlier time? When do you pay? It is a historical time that academics do acknowledge, are increasingly acknowledging that was a time of potential cataclysm on earth. They call that the younger dry ass period, the end of the last ice age.
It's not a time frame that most Christians are accustomed to thinking about in regard to the flood because it's somewhere around 10,500 BC. Somewhere in the neighborhood.
And so you're saying Christians who take a young earth creation view don't like that? Okay. I'm not a young earth creationist.
Yeah, I'm a Catholic. We're not too hardcore about any of those particular things, you know.
I believe that the great flood of biblical fame happens sometime in the neighborhood. When I say in the neighborhood, give or take a thousand years.
Sometime in the neighborhood of 10,000 BC. Yeah, it's funny because I do know some of our Protestant friends and viewers are very particular about the earth is exactly this old.
And I'm open to the possibility, but also the tradition, going back to the ancients, our ancients, not the super ancients who were earlier, doesn't insist upon a literal historical reading of Genesis. Certainly not.
And what's interesting is we talked in the beginning about how all of this conversation for me is framed within the biblical narrative, not because it has to be, but because it simply is. You don't have to read this into the narrative.
It is already incorporated into the narrative. What do I mean by that? Well, this period of time, the antediluvian world was considered, again, almost universally by the primary ancient cultures around the world as the golden age.
Of course, this is a term that comes from the Greeks and they all have their own terms for it. For example, the ancient Egyptians referred to it as Zeptepe, the first time.
It's the same thing. It's the same idea.
So what is the golden age? What is the first time? This is the time when the gods descended from heaven and co-inhabited the earth with mankind. And furthermore, copulated with human women and progenerated hybrid offspring.
So I'm thinking now, we were just talking about the book of Genesis, of Genesis 6. Genesis 6.
A confusing passage where the church fathers are somewhat divided on it. You know, one explanation of Genesis 6, the sons of God looked on the daughters of men and found them to be beautiful and went and did the thing that men and women do, that one reading of that

is it's demons or something.

Angels or demons mating with human beings.

One issue with that, of course, is that to make a human being in the ordinary course

of things, you need two people that have bodies, not an incorporeal being and a corporeal

being.

However, I think Justin Marder in the second Apology says that it's angels and humans. That's right.
Though there is some... Tertullian? Tertullian, yeah, yeah.
Really a number of church fathers, early Christian fathers. Origin? Yeah.
But there is some disagreement. One view is the Sethite view, that the sons of God refer to the descendants of Seth, and the daughters of man refer to the descendants of Cain.
And then if you were to take an even more metaphorical and symbolic view, it's this notion that virtuous men are seduced by not so virtuous women, which is an anthropological fact of history. But your view is...
You've covered the basis there. So, I would say the biblical view, and the only one that makes logical sense, is that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are an angelic faction.
These are angels. These are not men.
The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were comely, and they decided to take wives from among the daughters of men, and they copulated with them, and the production of their union was giants, the Nephilim. See, that story that's found in Genesis 6, the writer of Genesis, when he's writing about the sons of God and this affair, and it's just a little snippet.
Yeah, yeah. He does not elaborate.
He doesn't enlarge on this strange digression in the Genesis narrative. He just mentions this bizarre thing.
You know, I've started to read the Bible since I was a kid. I want to read the whole Bible, but I wouldn't finish it often.
So I would start it again eventually. I'd say, okay, I'm going to start it again.
So I've read the book of Genesis like a billion times or something. And, you know, every time you get to that, you say, wait, what? Hold on.
Exactly. What was that part about? Hold on.
That's right. Back up.
We need an elaboration on that. Well, the thing is that I'm totally persuaded that the writer of Genesis, as he's writing about the sons of God, this bizarre affair, he's not elaborating on it because the story is already well known.
He's just assuming that the audience already knows what he's talking about because this was one of the most monumental events that's ever happened. Even you see this in the New Testament when specific people who were either alive at the time of the writing or who had been alive within living memory.

They'll say, yeah, you know, so-and-so, the daughter of so-and-so or the son of so-and-so. Yeah, he saw this happen.
Here's just a little bit, you know, anyway, we all know, right? Exactly. You all know Johnny, right? Exactly.
Okay, so you're saying that this is happening in the book of Genesis. Like, yeah, of course, we all know about it.
I'm saying that the writer of Genesis is assuming that his audience is conversant with the larger narrative that expands on the mention of the sons of God, on the writer of Genesis' allusion to that story. The audience already knew the whole story, so he didn't have to repeat it.
There was no need to go back into all the details. Now, two questions then.
One, how does at least the traditional Christian understanding of what an angel is, which I'm persuaded by, is that an angel is incorporeal. And one can go further.
St. Thomas Aquinas describes angels as being, in a way, unique species.
We have choirs of angels. We have hierarchy of angels.
But they don't communicate by speaking, for instance, because they don't have vocal cords and mouths. Now, angels do interact with human beings in mystical and interesting ways, but angels in themselves don't have bodies.
Human beings do have bodies and rational souls. We have intellect, and we have flesh, and we have will.
And then there are the lower animals who have bodies, and they have instinct, and they have appetite, but they don't have intellect and we have flesh and we have will. And then there are the lower animals who have bodies and they have instinct and they have appetite, but they don't have intellect and will.
So we're kind of this middle ground. We've got the reason, the intellect and the will, albeit greatly degraded, of an angel, but we got the body of an animal and we're kind of this meeting point.
So how does an incorporeal being create a child with a corporeal being,

or do you have a different view of angels?

I think we need to back up a little bit because we have to deal with what I call the first cause.

So let's assume for a moment that Genesis 6 is angels,

and they're looking down at the daughters of men, and they're lusting after them.

They're desiring to take them as wives and to copulate with them, to have intercourse with them. So what's the first cause here? Lust.
In fact, when I was talking about the elaboration of that story, why the writer of Genesis didn't bother to elaborate on it, it's because it was well known to the ancient Hebrews in the book of Enoch, which was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The book of Enoch is actually quoted verbatim in the New Testament, the book of Jude, verbatim.
Right. So it's considered an apocryphal book or non-canonical book.
It's not included in any canon of the Bible that we're familiar with. Certainly not in the history of the church making, you know, ecumenical council, formal decrees, but it has been around.
Except for in Ethiopia. Ethiopia.
Ethiopia, both the Beta Israel Jews, the ancient Jewish community, and the Tallahado Orthodox Christians long ago incorporated and preserved the Book of Enoch in their canon. And as you say, there are references, it would seem, in the New Testament.
Many. There are allusions.
There are many allusions to the book of Enoch. For example, when Jesus says, in my father's house are many mansions.
Well, where does that come from? The book of Enoch. I've never read the book of Enoch.
There are many, many allusions. But then, as I said, in Jude, it's verbatim.
And Jude says that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, and then copy, paste. Copy from first Enoch, paste into his epistle.
So, they were conversant. The early church, the church fathers, the disciples of Christ, Christ himself, and all of the writers of the Bible, all of them were conversant with the book of Enoch.
There's no question. In fact, I believe that if you were living in first century Jerusalem, before it was destroyed by the Romans, and if you were to walk into the temple during the time of Christ, into the synagogue, I think you would find in the scriptorium where all of the sacred scrolls are held, are kept, you would find a manuscript that was reflective, representative of what today we call First Enoch, Ethiopic Enoch.
I would even say, as someone who is totally innocent of the book of Enoch, I've never read it. I have no strong opinions of whether it was some huge mistake not to include it in the canon.
I don't think there are mistakes in the canon. And I'm not arguing that it was, by the way.
Exactly. My view is, I think that the Proto-Evangelium of James, for instance, is an edifying work to read and can inform us.
It's useful. Maybe it's not canon, but it's useful.
And so that seems to be kind of the view that you're taking. Well, I will say this, and that is my view, but I will say this.
I'll add that in the book of Enoch, see, the book of Enoch, first Enoch is very complex. And we're going to get back to what I call the first cause in a minute with Enoch.
But the book of Enoch is very complex. First Enoch, there are three different books of Enoch.
Only one of them, portions of it, were written before Christ. That's the one I'm interested in, first Enoch.
There's second Enoch, which is called the Slavonic Enoch, and third Enoch, which is called the Hebrew Enoch, only one of them, portions of it were written before Christ. That's the one I'm interested

in, first Enoch. There's second Enoch, which is called the Slavonic Enoch, and third Enoch, which is called the Hebrew Enoch.
First Enoch is known as the Ethiopian Enoch because the Ethiopians preserved it. First Enoch, the oldest portions of first Enoch, namely the Book of the Watchers and the Book of Parables, were most certainly written before Christ.
Why is this important? Because some of the most extraordinary, astounding Christological prophecies, prophecies pertaining to the Son of Man, which is the title that Jesus used most often when speaking of himself, are in the parables in 1 Enoch. I mean, absolutely stunningly accurate prophecies pertaining to Jesus of Nazareth, written before Christ.
Is there any dispute over the dating of the first book of Enoch? Most scholars will date, in fact, almost universally, scholars date the earliest portions of Enoch to sometime around 300 BC. Now, it's a complicated document because it's a compilation of texts written by various authors.
I'm most interested in the first two sections of 1 Enoch, which are the Book of the Watchers and the parables, precisely because they're dated to before the birth of Christ. And my whole point in bringing up Enoch was you have that snippet in Genesis.
Well, that story is elaborated in the book of Enoch. In fact, that's where the story comes from, is the book of Enoch.
That little reference in Genesis, if you want to know the full story of what the author is alluding to, you read 1 Enoch, specifically the book of the Watchers, the first section. And it tells you this extraordinary narrative.
I mean, it's what I call the Enochian tale about the sons of God, which are designated as Watchers in 1 Enoch, that they're looking down, they're seeing the daughters of men. And it's basically almost copy-paste into Genesis, the Genesis 6 reference.

And intriguingly enough, in R.H. Charles' translation, it's the same verses, Genesis 6, 1 through whatever it is, 4, I think.
The sons of God. But in the book of Enoch, it's the angels.
And by the way, that's the way the Septuagint renders it as well, Genesis 6. The angels are looking down at the daughters of men,

that they're fair, that they're beautiful, and they lust. Okay, so that's why I told you to back up.

I call that the first cause of the angel's sin in this particular case, the watcher's rebellion.

The first cause is lust. How do you explain lust for spiritual beings who don't have bodies? How do you explain incorporeal beings having sexual impulses? That is a very good question, but just before we get to it, you wouldn't say this is the first sin that the angels committed because the rebellion of the angels, the rebellion of Satan, would have had to predate.
This particular incident, this was the catalyst for what they were about to do. Yeah, so how does an incorporeal being become tumescent, to use a diplomatic word, for fair-looking ladies on the ground? That's right.
And not only do these angels, according to 1 Enoch, again, which is the elaboration of the Genesis 6 reference, not only do they lust after these women, they are determined to take them as their wives and procreate offspring with them. So, they lust.
That's the first cause. Then they descend to the earth, according to 1 Enoch, 200 watchers descend to the earth on the summit of Mount Hermon.
And Mount Hermon is very interesting in the Bible. They descend to the summit of Mount Hermon.
They bind themselves by an oath of mutual imprecations. In other words, all for one, one for all.
We're all in this together. They knew it was a great sin, but they were going to accept the consequences together, whatever befall.
And then they, that's why, by the way, Mount Hermon has been known since time immemorial as the mountain of oath. And then they descended into the plains and they chose each one, one woman, one maiden that they desired to wed, who they ultimately took to wife.
They copulated with these women. These women conceived and gave birth to giants, demigods, the offspring of God and man.
This is the Hebraic cosmological paradigm of the antediluvian world. This is the Hebraic paradigm of the golden age, of Zeptepe.

Because the ancient Mesopotamians

and the ancient Egyptians and the Greeks and the Romans

and all the rest of them,

they believe that the very same thing occurred.

The age of the heroes.

That the gods descended to the earth.

Yeah, yeah.

That they copulated with human women.

I mean, look at Atlantis, the story of Atlantis.

Everybody knows about the city of Atlantis

and the legend of Atlantis.

But very few people pay attention

to what Plato writes in the Timaeus and Critias dialogue,

Thank you. I mean, look at Atlantis, the story of Atlantis.
Everybody knows about the city of Atlantis and the legend of Atlantis, but very few people pay attention to what Plato writes in the Timaeus and Critias dialogue where he talks about Atlantis. He has Solon of Athens traveling to Egypt, and he's being informed by the priests of Saïs about the extraordinary past of the Athenians that he's unaware of.
And part of this past involves this conflict that they had, this epic conflict with Atlantis and the Atlanteans. And they tell him the whole story, right? And everybody's familiar with Atlantis, that Atlantis was this advanced ancient city.
It's a great resort in the Caribbean. Right.
That as well. Yes.
It still exists today. In a slightly degraded form.
Perfectly pleasant. It does.
So that Atlantis was this advanced civilization that was destroyed in a day and a night in cataclysm, right? But Plato has the priests of Saïs telling Solon in the dialogue the full story. And what's the beginning of the story of Atlantis? The beginning of the story of Atlantis is that the gods who descended to the earth are apportioning the earth amongst themselves.
They're creating an empire and they're dividing up their kingdoms. And Poseidon, for his lot, he got the area of Atlantis, the region that would become Atlantis.
So what does he do? He builds Atlantis. He raises up an island out of the sea, which is ultimately going to be the home of this city Atlantis.
But what does he do after this or during this? He becomes enamored of a human woman named Clato. And he takes her as his wife and he copulates with her.
And she gives birth to five sets of twin sons who will become the 10 kings of Atlantis. And these are giants.
Atlas, for example, he's the chief among them. That's the backstory.
So what do we see here? Well, this is a one-to-one match with the book of Enoch in Genesis 6. Is it not? It's the gods descending to the earth, taking human women as their wives, having intercourse with them, and progenerating a race of demigod giants.
This is everywhere. every, just like the megaliths that we were talking about.
This is called the golden age. And I believe that it's literally true, that that literally happened in the time before the great flood.
And I believe in the ubiquitous testimony of our ancient ancestors. And in fact, the Egyptians informed Solon, it was in the midst of the conflict between, because this Atlantean empire became expansionary, they became aggressive and they were going on conquest and they were steamrolling everybody that they encountered until they encountered the Athenians, who were the only faction that was able to resist them.
And they're locked into this epic war, the Atlanteans versus the Athenians, and then cataclysm. Cataclysm destroys Atlantis and everyone else, not just Atlantis.
It's a global cataclysm. And the Egyptians kept record of this, and they told Solon that that wasn't the only cataclysm.
There have been many cataclysms because they believed it was cyclic, that the cataclysm is cyclic, that there's this celestial timepiece, the zodiac, that the primary function of which is to keep track of when the cataclysm is going to occur again. So this is how the ancients viewed.
So if you were to, and I'm not saying, the way that that means that the pyramids were built by giants or anything like that. I don't want people to think that.
I don't know who built the great pyramids. But I do believe that many of these extraordinary megalithic sites around the world, like Baalbek, were built in the age before the flood.
And it had something to do with the knowledge of the gods who descended to the earth. That's what the ancients say.
That's what they all say. All I will contribute to that narrative is one of my most intelligent friends, very well-grounded, extraordinarily educated, very, very high IQ, very serious person, has told me for years now.
He says, yeah, you know, when I think of these ancient structures and there are all these debates over how they were built and, you know, I basically think it's largely demons. And he'll say it with a totally straight face.
He means it. He's not joking around.
And that kind of sounds like what you're saying. Well, I'm going to qualm with the term demons a little bit here.
So, we have a very Western perspective of angels and demons. We have a demonology that comes from Western tradition that is not necessarily concordant with ancient Hebraic cosmology.
Because if you were to ask an ancient Hebrew or the writers of the Old Testament what a demon was, they would have a very different answer than us. Well, if you asked an ancient Greek, the old daimon, like even the phrase for happiness, right? Eudaimonia.
Yeah. It's kind of like spirit.
That's a very good point because the Greeks believed specifically that the daimon was a spirit, a disembodied spirit of a being who had lived in the world before the flood. That's what a daimon was, that they died in the golden age

and that their spirits persisted in the earth after the flood in the form of daimons.

Well, guess what?

That's the Hebraic view.

That's the view of the, that's concordant with ancient Hebrew cosmology.

So in the cosmology of the Jews, the demons are a very specific thing. So let's address first how we view demons in Western civilization.
And this is, I would say, primarily the product of medieval Christianity. I'd love to, by the way, before you get into this explanation, I love this point you're making, which is more ambitious and audacious probably than many viewers are even noticing.
because there's this idea that we all just accept as a matter of course that our civilization comes from the melding of Greece and Jerusalem. And so there are these totally different ways of viewing the world with these totally different perspectives.
But really, I think it's overly simplistic to suggest that the Greeks had no sense of the Hebraic view and that the Hebrews had no sense of the Greek view. And, you know, come on, guys.
It's pretty close together. You see harmonies and echoes.
And that's what you're saying. No, actually, there is a kind of unified cosmology.
They're all inheriting the same tradition. Now, that tradition is becoming variegated.
It's taking on the idiosyncrasies of these particular cultures as they develop. But there's a source.
The answer is it's because there's a source of a narrative. There's a source to the narrative of the flood.
There's one particular source.

And I would say that source is Noah and his sons.

And then that story gets taken by the ancient Mesopotamians, the ancient Sumerians, who I think are the civilization that grew out ultimately of Noah and his sons.

And then it's changed.

The names are changed.

People speak different languages.

The details get jumbled.

And you get these stories that have similar elements, right? They have these foundational elements, the flood myths, but then they have their idiosyncrasies as well. And that's precisely because all of these stories are founded in the same original narrative.
The true story. Right.
What have we gotten wrong about demons? Okay, so going back to that, so the Western perspective of demons is basically we will view demon as anything that is, well, demonic. Anything that is scary or grotesque, we would call a demon.
Or even basically like an angel that rebels, a bad angel. Or an angel that rebels.
We lump all of that together in this term demon. So in the Western mind, a demon is like, it's like a boogeyman, basically.
It's like anything that's evil and malevolent, supernaturalism, that's all demon. That's a demon.
But in the ancient Hebrew cosmology, they were much more narrow in their defining of the word demon. To them, a demon was something very, very specific.
A demon was the disembodied spirit of a giant, a giant that died in the antediluvian world before the flood. Their spirit, this is in the book of Enoch, by the way, it derives from the book of Enoch, that their spirit, this is judgment.
God judges them that because they're neither holy of their fathers, their angelic fathers, or of their human mothers, that they're going to be cursed when they die to wander the earth as bodiless vagabonds, as disembodied vagabonds. They're going to be hungry.
They're going to be thirsty. Presumably, they're going to have all the desires of the flesh, but no bodies through which to fulfill those desires, to satiate those desires.
That was a curse that was placed on them by God, according to the book of Enoch, according to ancient Hebrew cosmology. This and only this is the origin of a demon and is what a demon is.
And so... But what about like when Lucifer rebels, you know, Satan falls like lightning and leads all the bad angels who rebelled against God and there's a great battle and they lose, spoiler alert, and, you know, St.
Michael, the archangel, wins. God wins.
He always wins. And what about them? That's before the giants.
Well, those are the insubordinate sons of God. These are the defected sons of God, right? These were the angelic beings who were loyal to the king at one time, but who rebelled and became disloyal and were expelled.
And that's what they are, but they're not-

You're saying that's distinct.

They're not technically demons.

So the demon is, again, specifically according to Hebrew cosmology,

a demon is specifically the disembodied spirit of Nephilim.

Now, when God in the book of Enoch, again, this is a judgment on the giants,

on the offspring of the watchers.

They're sentenced to this terrible curse. It's very much like the plot line of the Pirates of the Caribbean, the first one, right? You had Barbossa and his crew.
They had the Mayan gold, the cursed Mayan gold, and they had this curse where they were living forever. They were like eternal, but they couldn't satisfy any of the desires of their flesh.
And this is represented, this is illustrated with Barbossa who wants to bite the apple. But he can't, when he bites it, the moon comes out or something and you see that he's just a skeleton and there's nowhere for the food to go.
He has no tongue. He has no stomach.
And all he wants is to be able to satisfy his hunger, to be able to bite that apple. Well, that perfectly illustrates the nature of a demon according to ancient Hebrew cosmology.
So you have the disembodied spirits of the giants that are going to persist in the world as vagabond wraiths. That's their curse, much like the Barbossa and his crew's curse.
They're going to wander the earth, hungry, thirsty, presumably all of the desires of the flesh, but with no flesh through which to fulfill those desires, to satiate those desires. That's a very torturous existence.
So fast forward to the New Testament, I should say, before I go there. And a part of this curse, God tells them that they'll be in this condition until the end of the age, when the age is wholly consummated and the great judge appears.
And at that time, they will be judged with finality, right? But until that time, they're going to be cursed to wander the earth in this miserable state. So fast forward to the New Testament.
Jesus is walking in Galilee. Jesus is walking all over Judea.
And what is he encountering? He's encountering these things called unclean spirits. And going back to the Enochian reference, part of the judgment was God says, evil spirits or unclean spirits you shall be called.
Fast forward to the New Testament. Jesus is encountering unclean spirits.
And what are these spirits doing? They're inhabiting the bodies of human beings. And when they get inside the body of a human being, it manifests something like epilepsy, that the person is rolling around, foaming from the mouth, throwing themselves into the fire, screaming at the top of their lungs.
And Jesus would cast these demons out. And they were called unclean spirits.
And there's a particular occasion when Jesus is walking on the shores of Gadara, and this is the Gadarene demoniac encounter, where the Gadarene demoniac comes running up to Jesus, and he's full of a legion of demons. I mean, he's full of all kinds of demons, right? Yet his pronouns were the plural pronouns.
It was they them. Modern analogy.
Yeah, exactly. Precisely right.
He was they them.

And he throws himself at the feet of Jesus. He sees him coming and he throws himself at the

feet of Jesus and the demons cry out, what have we to do with you, oh son of God? We know who you are, you son of God. Why have you come to judge us before the appointed time? Right.
so what have here? We have a confirmation of the book of Enoch because the distance bodied spirits of the Nephilim, they have no bodies of their own. So what do they want? They want bodies.
So they're inhabiting the bodies of human beings and through the bodies of the, of, of the people that they possess, they're attempting to satiate these desires that they have, which are otherwise insatiable. And they see who walking on the shore of Gadara, the great judge.
But wait a minute, it's not time yet, according to the book of Enoch. It's not the end of the age yet.
That's why they cry out, what have we to do with you? Why have you come to judge us before the appointed time? The time had not yet come and they knew it. So there's a confirmation of that cosmology that comes from 1 Enoch in this encounter that Jesus has with the Gadarene demoniac, who is a human being being possessed by disembodied spirits.
So that's the very narrow definition of what a demon is. And as I illustrated before, it's the same idea to the Greeks.
As I said, they believe that the daimons, the daimones, or however you pronounce it in Greek, were, are disembodied spirits from people who lived in the world before the flood in the golden age. It's basically the same tradition.
So this is important to me because we have a default, I think, and I had to unlearn this because I grew up in church. My father was a pastor of Protestant church and a very good man, very good pastor.
I had a very good upbringing. But there were things that are traditional, just like we were talking about the conventional historical things, archaeological things that are missing.
There are big gaps in them, right? You have to, at some point, you have to come to terms with these gaps if you're studying megaliths. Well, in the same way, if you're studying the Bible, at some point, there's gaps here that we have to come to terms with.
Information, we don't have all the information. And so we, in the West, we tend to label everything demons.
Everything's a demon. Anything, as I said, grotesque and scary and ugly and menacing is a demon.
And that's fine because we all understand what we mean. But when we get into certain situations, that becomes a little bit unhelpful and unuseful.
Go to goodranchers.com, use code Knolls. Over 140,000 family farms across America have shut down since 2017.
Why? Because grocery chains keep pushing cheap imported meat instead of supporting the folks who live and work right here in the USA. When you visit goodranchers.com, you are not just getting better meat,

you're getting behind a mission that matters.

What makes them different?

For starters, everything they offer

is 100% American sourced.

That means every juicy steak, chicken breast,

and pork chop comes from farms right here in America.

You can taste the difference

because their meat is completely free

from hidden additives.

No antibiotics, no added hormones,

absolutely no seed oils,

just real, honest meat.

Plus, when you choose Good Ranchers, you are helping preserve a way of life.

They partner exclusively with local farmers who've spent generations perfecting their craft and feeding American families just like yours. Also, and this is most important, it's the best meat you're going to get.
So, right now, if you subscribe to Good Ranchers, you'll get to choose free bacon, ground beef, seed oil-free chicken nuggets or salmon in every single order for a full year,

plus an extra 40 bucks off with code Knowles.

You know how much I love Good Ranchers. I'm on the road a lot right now.

So one of the biggest things I miss, other than my wife and kids, it's the Good Ranchers at home.

Make sure you get it.

Goodranchers.com.

Use code Knowles. Goodranchers.com.
Code K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Good Ranchers American Meat.
Delivered. It's interesting to think of it from the Catholic perspective because we think the Catholics rule on every single thing and they have a very precise, detailed explanation of everything.
You know, you can open up St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae.
You can figure out exactly what to have for your mid-afternoon snack on Tuesday, November 8th. It's that kind

of detail. And yet, there are major questions that the church refuses to give a definitive

answer on, like extraterrestrial aliens, which is a possibility, like how to read the age of the

earth. These things are left kind of open.
And I really appreciate that about the Catholics. Well, it's very, because with all of the details, there is a great deal of caution that one must have.
I mean, we really, just as a matter of course, there's this legend about St. Augustine's writing De Trinitate.
And the legend is he's walking on the beach and a kid is like shoveling the ocean into a hole. And he says, what are you doing? He says, I'm going to fit the ocean in the hole.
They say, you can't do that. He goes, that's right.
You can't fit the Trinity in your head, Augustine. And he's transformed and becomes an angel.
It's a legend, obviously. But it's this notion that there are things between heaven and earth.
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy, on, some of my Protestant friends are insistent that there's no such thing as ghosts. Well, a major plot point in Hamlet is whether or not Hamlet sees the ghost of his dad, or is it a demon of some kind? You know, is it a trick? And the Catholic Church doesn't rule that there's no such thing as ghosts.
You know, the Catholic view is kind of

there's more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in our particular philosophy. There's a lot of unknowns.
And it kind of seems like that's the stance that you're taking. Oh, yeah, certainly.
I think there's a lot that we don't know. And I don't expect the Bible to inform me of everything.
I would never have expected the Bible to tell me about the internet or artificial intelligence or robots, right, or automobiles.

I expect the Bible to tell me about the internet or artificial intelligence or robots or automobiles. I expect the Bible to do exactly what it does.
It is a message that conveys the gospel of Christ to mankind. That's the primary function of the Bible.
It is God speaking to a particular people at a particular time, but the message is for all time, to all men. And it's absolutely ingenious.
Cardinal Baronius has this great line around the Galileo affair, which is, the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. I would agree with that.
Yeah. And I think there's tremendous knowledge that is encrypted in the Bible, literally.
I'm talking knowledge about all kinds of things that's encrypted. Astrological knowledge, for example, that's encrypted all over the Bible, the Old Testament.
But as I said, the primary purpose of the Bible is to convey the gospel of Christ. That's why when Jesus came to the earth, I mean, here you have the son of God walking among men.
According to the writers of the New Testament, the universe was created through him and by him and for him and in him all things consist. And that person is walking with his disciples.
He doesn't bother to tell them about electricity. He doesn't tell them about splitting the atom, about nuclear power.
He doesn't tell them about the germ theory of disease. The great podcasts that one day people will be able to listen to.
Precisely right. Yeah.
The advent of cameras and the Michael Knoll show. That's right.
He doesn't tell them about any of these things. He could have.
I mean, the universe was created through him, right? He knows everything, but what does he tell them? The kingdom of heaven is like this. The kingdom of heaven is like a tree.
The kingdom of heaven is like a person, so on and so forth. He's talking to them like they're children through parables.
And he's conveying to them the gospel and he's conveying to them, talking to them like little children, trying to tell them about what the kingdom of heaven is, what it's really like. And so that's what I expect from the Bible.
I expect the Bible to communicate the message of God to mankind and specifically the gospel of Christ, which is the most important information we could possibly conceive of. And so I'm very appreciative.
I love talking to Catholics. I do.
I love talking to Catholics. I talk to Catholics of all stripes.
We've hedged our bets on a lot of questions. Well, they're very open to all kinds of things.
You mentioned aliens and life on other planets. Most Catholics I talk to are totally open to that.
Now, I am personally quite skeptical to the point of outright denying in my limited knowledge that there are aliens. The church has not made any statement on that.
I mean, no sort of definitive teaching on that. And some saints even are reputed to have entertained the notion of extraterrestrial aliens.
Obviously, he's not quite Catholic, but he was high church Anglican. C.S.
Lewis writes a whole series about aliens. Which I've never read.
Everyone tells... I read the Chronicles of Narnia front and back like 10 times.
I've never read the other series that I wrote. Everybody tells me I have to read.
I'm cursed in that I love culture, but I hate reading fiction. And so I haven't read it either, nor have I read Narnia.
But I have a debate in this building, and I'm actually fearful of which sides you're going to come down on. I have a debate with my friend and colleague, Matt Walsh.
I'm very anti-alien. He's very pro-alien.
He might be an alien himself. And if he is, I'm going to call Tom Holman and have him deported.
Are aliens real? Well, this is, for me, this is where I spent a lot of time on this subject. And this is an interesting crossover because I, and I often talk about these two topics in the same setting, the antediluvian world and all of that.
And then usually find my way over to the alien topic because I write a lot and talk about both of these. And the reason why I'm so adamant about understanding the proper definition of a demon is because most Christians that I engage with, and I was in this camp two years ago, most Christians that I engage with believe that aliens are demons.
That's sort of the common trope. Aliens are demons.
I understand. I totally understand the sentiment.
I understand what people who say that mean. So it's not illogical to me, but it's definitionally wrong.
Because they have bodies. They have bodies.
I also believe, by the way, just to make this statement, I also believe angels have bodies. I don't believe angels are disembodied.
I believe angels have bodies like us. In fact, in my book, Birthright, I refer to them as our elder siblings.
I think we're very, very similar. We're not the same, but we're very similar.
They eat and drink. They make music.
They do all the same things that we do, and they did them first. They preexist us.
But getting back over to the aliens topic, here's what we can know about UFOs and aliens. And I'm going to say this definitively because I interface with all kinds of people.
I interface with people in government. I interface with some congressmen.

I'm always very curious about this topic. Well, there's now a major congressional committee investigating UFOs.
That's right. Yes.
And I've talked to a couple of congressmen on that committee, talked to Lou Elizondo, who was the main whistleblower in the last hearing. And I'm very well versed in ufology.
And one thing that is undeniable to me, now people in your audience may not believe this, and that's fine, but to me, because I've done a lot of research and I've made myself very conversant with this material, UFOs of non-human origin have crashed, have been recovered, including the bodies of the pilots. Okay.
So until you said that last part, you could, in principle, say, well, maybe it's the Chinese, or maybe it's some new technology that someone came up with, or maybe it's our own technology and just some part of the government didn't know. But if little green men are being recovered, little gray men, then it's probably not the U.S.
government. When you have exotic technology and you have non-human, as David Grush describes them, biologics, non-human biologics associated with these crash retrievals.
You are not dealing with a human phenomenon and you're not dealing with a supernatural phenomenon. What you're dealing with here is a physical phenomenon.
You're dealing with corporeal beings who are at the helms of functional technology. Technology, by the way, that doesn't just appear out of thin air.
You know, there had to be blueprints for these things. They had to be manufactured.
The raw materials had to be harvested, processed, and refined to create this technology. And the technology I'm referring to is advanced aerospace vehicles.
Okay, so my skeptical read on that, on that very statement, from a whistleblower on UFOs, so we've recovered these vehicles and there were non-human biologics in it. My skeptical, maybe even cynical read is it's our technology.
We're faking out our adversaries and it could remain it. If you find one little dog hair in an otherwise human made or even piloted vehicle, you could say there's a non-human biologic.
There's an ant got into the drone. Now, again, that's a prejudicial read.
I'm not basing that on any scientific or technological finds there. You're saying, no, no, no.
It means what it sounds like he means. It's E.T.

We're going to try and convert you here to Elberino and Walsh's perspective.

All right. I might need something a little stronger than Walsh's perspective.

Well, the problem with that is, first of all, you have crash retrieval events going back to

World War II.

Yep. Cold War era.

And even some predating World War II. Yep.
Okay, so you would have to make the claim then. Assuming that these crash retrievals are real, let's just assume for the moment, for the sake of argument, that they happen.
Yeah, yeah. That we, the United States government, or some other government around the world, including the Nazis, had that kind of technology, but we didn't deploy it during World War II.

No, maybe that we had some kind of airplane or these days some kind of drone or some other kind of vehicle that I can't even really imagine.

And that these things sometimes malfunction and they go down and we make up stories about them.

But we're talking about craft.

We're talking about aerospace vehicles that are capable of making right angle turns at thousands of miles an hour. That's what we're talking about.
That's at least the whistleblowers today are saying, these little tic-tacs that are, you know. It's what has been observed by many, many people and filmed.
I myself have seen one of these craft at close proximity. I um, some years ago, I was, when I was first getting into this research and studying all different aspects of ufology, including alien abduction, I would be, I work out with my brother-in-law in his basement.
We'd be lifting weights in his basement, my brother-in-law, Tony. And many times the topic of our conversation would be this, you know, aliens and alien technology, Bob Lazar, reverse engineering of, of, of exotic technology and so forth.
Often this was the topic of conversation. And one day we're lifting weights in his basement and, and my, my brother-in-law says, Hey, let's go run over to GNC.
I want to grab some supplements. But it was getting late, and the GNC store closed.
I think it closed at 9 o'clock or something. And so we hop in my car, and we drive to – we're in Cleveland, Ohio.
We drive to the suburb over, Brook Park, Ohio, where I grew up. I was born in Brook Park, born and bred in Brook Park, Ohio.
And we drive over to this area I'm very familiar with. It was called the Brookgate Shopping Strip Mall.
And there's a big parking lot and we're approaching, it's probably around eight, eight o'clock, 830 at night. Very cold.
It was in February. Very, very windy.
Very, very frigid, windy day. And we're approaching the intersection.
And on the other side of the intersection is this large parking lot and you've got the strip malls and i remember there was like a hollywood video it used to be a blockbuster here on the corner and we're talking about we're not at this moment we're not talking about ufos we're talking about something else and my brother-in-law says hey what's that and we look and there's an object a bright object hovering above that hollywood video store. For those young people out there, that's where we used to buy VHS tapes.
This was in the 1860s. Exactly.
And our first inclination was, that's a Black Hawk. That's a Chinook.
That's a helicopter because there's a National Guard base close by. Oh, they're running some kind of a drill.
And we thought, it's kind of windy for a helicopter right now. But we instinctively rolled our windows down.
We roll our windows down to listen for the telltale sound of blades whipping through the air. Nothing.
Okay, well, we're not that close yet. So not thinking too much of it.
I drive into the parking lot. There's hardly anybody there because it's almost closing time, right? And I didn't even park in a spot.
I just hit the brakes and threw my car into park because this craft lifted up from its position above Hollywood Video, the store on the corner, lifted up, effortlessly turns in the air, very, very effortlessly, and maneuvers right over my car. It positions itself, not directly above my car, but above and in front.
How big is this? It was the size of like a Chinook troop carrier. It was the size of a small aircraft.
And it begins to descend over my car. And now, keep in mind, my brother-in-law and I, we're often engaging in UFO-related topics and conversation.
We're looking at this thing. It's literally descending.
And it gets to about, we think it was about 40 feet. I could have hit it with a rock, right? About 40 feet above my car.
But in front of us, I see the whole thing through the windshield and our jaws are on the floor. We don't, we don't even know what to say.
We're just staring at this thing because there, there are no propellers. There's no exhaust.
There's no engines. Is it like, is it a flying saucer? There's no wings.
There's no propulsion system to speak of. it has like sort of kind of angular body armor

type yeah it's like a dark it's like a grayish or or or or a dark green it's something like that and it's in in the place of wings it has these little stubby protrusions no wings no tail and And it had a sort of a diamond shape to it, but rounded.

And there was no insignia, nothing, and no sound whatsoever. Now, it is so windy as I'm sitting in my car.
I'm in the driver's seat. Tony's in the passenger seat.
It is so windy that the car is going like this, okay? And you hear a blast of wind against the car and the car is shaking. This craft is totally unmoved by the wind.
It's like it's in its own atmospheric bubble. It is totally unaffected by the wind.
And it has a series of, I think it was green and blue lights around the bottom. And it had triangle, big triangle white lights in the front.
And I remember, I can't remember, I think I remember two, my brother-in-law remembers one or the other way around. But there had big triangle white lights in the front.
And it just hovered there for a good amount of time. I mean, just staring at this, we probably stared at this thing for a minute, maybe two minutes.
That's a long time just to be gaping at something. 40 feet above my car.
And I said, and it was like I was coming out of a daze. And I said, Tony, your phone, your phone.
Because back in those days, this was probably, oh, I don't know, 15 years ago, 12 years ago. I didn't have a smartphone.
I just had a flip phone, but he had a smartphone. And so what I was saying was, get your phone out, take a picture, take a video.
And he's like coming out of a daze and he starts searching his pockets for his phone. He pulls his phone out and drops it.
And he bends over to grab the phone. And while he's bending over to grab the phone, the craft lifts up into the air, just effortlessly lifts up into the air, no sound.
Now it's right above my car. Okay.
There's, there's no hydraulics. There's no gust of wind coming out the bottom of it.
It just lifts up into the air. No sound.
Now it's right above my car. Okay.
There's, there's no hydraulics.

There's no gust of wind coming out the bottom of it. It just lifts up into the air and turns

like this and it starts to move away. Totally silent.
We jumped out of the car and by the time

we got out of the car and he got his phone, it's already going over the horizon. Okay.
So now what

was that? I have no idea. None.
Do I think it was aliens in this particular situation? No, I don't. I got the distinct sense that I was looking at exotic technology that was derived from a crash retrieval, from a non-human crash retrieval.
Why do I think that? Just because of my research background and all of that. So you're saying you're near the guard base and maybe there is a connection here.
Not that it's our technology, but it's some technology that they discovered, but it could be our guys who were flying it. It wasn't ET that was flying it.
Okay. So let's go back to the hearings that you mentioned.
Yeah. Because then the question to me is, okay, you almost had me on it's aliens until you said it's not aliens.
And I say, well, how do you know we didn't, if it's our guys flying it, how do you know they didn't build it? So this is why. You have whistleblowers who've come forward over the years, including one who's never officially come forward, Bob Lazar.
Bob Lazar's testimony is very compelling. I totally believe Bob Lazar.
I think Bob is telling the truth. And that's where we get the Area 51 narrative.
That comes from George Knapp, who was the first one to disclose that story with Bob Lazar. It was a big deal back in the 90s.
But since Bob Lazar, it's kind of been a big gap before you've had other whistleblowers, very credible whistleblowers. You've had some, but I would say until you, it was a big gap between the caliber of whistleblower that Bob Lazar was, in my opinion, and the ones that have recently come out in Congress.
Of course, the first one, where there's a group of them, but the main testimony in that first hearing, that first UAP hearing in Congress, was David Grush. David Grush was in the intelligence community.
He was tasked with studying UFOs. And his testimony under oath was that he came up against a program, which he describes as a legacy program.
He refers to it as the legacy program, this program that goes back decades. It's a retrieval program, a retrieval and reverse engineering program,

a retrieval of what? UFOs, a retrieval of non-human advanced aerospace vehicles. Or at the very least of unidentified flying objects.
Well, he gets very specific because the congressmen and women ask him some very specific questions. I remember Nancy Mace asked him and a couple of other congressmen specifically about the nature of the craft.

Is this ours?

Is this China's?

Is this ours? Is this China's? Is this Russia's? And he definitively said, no. No, this program that I came up against was specifically designed to recover non-human technology, non-human craft.
He called them spacecraft. And in these recoveries, there were non-human biologicals.
And we have since derived our own technology from what we've been able to recover and reverse engineer. And I think we've had limited success in reverse engineer some of the components from these craft.
So we're talking about craft, the origin of which

is not planet earth. And why do I say that? Because you could make the case.
And before I go there, by the way, the other whistleblowers testified to the same. David Fravor, the pilot who chased the Tic Tac UFO, that whole scenario, the Nimitz incident.

He said... the pilot who chased the Tic Tac UFO, that whole scenario, the Nimitz incident, he said under oath, there's no way this is us.
We don't have anything like this. This is technology far beyond anything that we have, in his opinion.
And then you have, of course, Lou Elizondo and some of the others who've come out more recently. But the point is that these vehicles of non-human origin, they incorporate exotic matter.
And I'll go back to Lazar's account. I don't know if you're familiar with Bob Lazar.
Not really, no. Bob Lazar came out in the 90s, and he said that his claim was that he had been hired as a physicist to work in a secret facility in the area of Area 51, but not Area 51 exactly.
It was the S4 facility. And he specifically was hired as a physicist to work on the reactor of a particular non-human craft.
And this craft was a saucer. It was a saucer-shaped craft.
And he called it the sports model because it was sleek and it was functioning. And they had other craft there too, some in different conditions.
Some of them were obviously had crashed and were not in functioning condition. But this one, the sports model flew.
And they were trying to figure out how the engine worked, how the reactor worked, because it was operated, the operating system, the engine was a reactor. It turns out it was a matter-antimatter reactor.
And it produced gravity waves. It produced enough energy to harness gravity, to bend gravity, to manipulate gravity.
And that's how these craft fly. Lazar says that the key component to make this reactor work is something called element 115.
And element 115 was a small engineered triangle, precisely engineered triangle, and it was exotic matter. Mind you, Lazar said this in the 90s, and that element 115 had very unusual properties.
For one thing, you could generate antimatter. You could create antimatter, could throw off antimatter, and you could have a matter-antimatter collision inside the reactor that would produce an enormous amount of energy.
Antimatter is a fact. We know it's a We can create very small amounts of it in CERN.
You have matter, antimatter, they always collide. They always annihilate each other.
That's a very powerful force that if you can harness it, many, many times more powerful than an atomic bomb, than a thermonuclear warhead. By the way, China wants to, and I believe is building a collider, like the large hadron collider at cern 10 times bigger than cern and what do you think they want i think they want antimatter i think they want to only for peaceful purposes for peaceful purposes i think they want to make antimatter bombs but because you can if you drop an antimatter bomb you get an explosion that's much more devastating without the fallout so you can bomb bomb an area and then rebuild.
Whereas today, if you nuke a city, it's radioactive for a long time. So antimatter much better than nuclear.
An antimatter bomb is much more useful. That's a little digression there.
So Lazar is working on this reactor. And the only way this reactor functions is with element 115.
Element 115 is exotic. It means it's not on Earth.
It wasn't on our periodic table. But Lazar said it was real.
And it turns out that it is. Years later in Russia, they were able to produce a particular isotope of element 115.
It's on the periodic table. Today, it's called Moscavium.
It wasn't known when Lazar said it. Now it's on our periodic table, Moscavium.
So element 115 exists, but on earth, there are no stable elements. But the element 115 that was incorporated into the antimatter reactor that Lazar worked on was stable, and it was not derived from planet Earth.
And that can be said of some of the other materials that are discovered on these craft, and that we can't reverse engineer them because we don't have the matter. We don't have the raw material to do it.
It's being harvested from somewhere else that's not earth. Now, of course, people can believe that or not.
They can think that this is just all fantasy is suing from my lips right now. Because if it were, it would be a good comic book.
You know, there's this one special element that's not, we don't have it, but you put that magic key in and that's what makes the magic craft. So I'm not saying I don't, I'm actually not saying that I don't believe it, but it does fit a story pretty well.
However, before you explain why it's not just a comic book, I have to let the viewers in on something very odd. So producers have been running back and forth for the past like five minutes.
And it, uh talking, this is so, no one's, I don't even know if people are going to believe me when I say this. When you started talking about the aliens and the antimatter, all the lights went off.
All these lamps, which the lamps had new batteries. We checked, we checked that.
And it wasn't just one lamp or two. They just all went off.

Maybe somebody's signaling to us to shut up. So the producers have told me they have a $4,000 confidence monitor just to see how the shot is.
And it just went out. It didn't turn off.
It like fizzed. The picture got all crazy.
That is not a setting on that monitor. At what point in time did that happen? You're talking about aliens and matter.
Yeah, and matter in it. Maybe the NSA turned up the volume.
That's like the best case scenario is that it was the NSA. That is really, I don't know, not a lot spooks me in these things, but that's crazy.
It is. I don't know if I've mentioned this on this show before.
I interviewed an exorcist. It's the biggest episode we've ever had, Father Rehill.
And we were filming it. And as he was talking, we never have audio issues on the show.
Every 20 minutes or so, we had an audio problem. And this happened, maybe less than 20 minutes, I guess.
It must have been because we had, I don't know, three, four, five times and we had to stop. And then I asked him, I said, wait a second, does this happen to you regularly? He goes, story of my life.
We never had an audio problem again for the rest of the episode. Well, it hasn't been that common in my life.
So that's very interesting. It's weird.
Anyway, sorry to interrupt. You see now I don't even want to say it sounds fanciful because I'm kind of spooked, but you see, it does sound fanciful.
Well, what I'm trying to illustrate here is that there's a lot of credible people who are saying the same thing. These whistleblowers are all saying the same thing.
We have recovered, let's call it, they call it UAP. I like the old terminology better, UFO.
They've recovered UFOs that are of non-human origin. And it wasn't just the whistleblowers who's come forward.
We're talking about guys like Al Puthoff, Eric Davis, the astrophysicist, guys that contract with the government. There's more whistleblowers coming forth right now.
And the congressmen have heard these stories both in front of the public in the context of the hearing, but also behind the scenes and have interfaced with these guys a lot. There was another individual who just came out recently named Jacob Barber.
I don't know if you saw that. News Nation did a report on that.
And he says the same thing. We've been retrieving.
We have been retrieving for decades alien advanced aerospace vehicles. I will concede at least I'm friends with a number of members of Congress.
And since all the congressional UFO investigations kicked off, people that I would never have expected to be open-minded to the idea of ET are. Right.
Because of what they're seeing and hearing behind the scenes in Washington, DC. I mean, most of the guys that I interface with know this to be a fact, that this is, they believe David Grush.
They believe his testimony. They believe David Fravor.
They believe Lou Elizondo. Their facts check out.
Their testimonies are solid, and these are solid individuals. And so the whole point here is if you have technology with non-conventional components, exotic components that cannot be recreated on earth, that by definition must be extraterrestrial, must be, must be.
Now, I am totally open to what's called the crypto-restrial hypothesis. I don't know if you're familiar with the crypto terrestrial hypothesis.
Basically, what the hypothesis posits is that there could very well be inhabiting planet Earth, a faction of some kind, a non-human faction or an ancient human faction that's covert, that we simply don't know about, that is highly advanced, maybe living in underground bases under the ocean, somewhere we'd never think to look. And so the phenomenon, the origin of the phenomenon could be planet Earth.
I'm totally open to that as well. But you can't close the door on the extraterrestrial component because of the exotic matter.
It also, by the way, if it, it's hard for me to imagine where they would be coming from in our solar system or galaxy or whatever.

Just given my limited knowledge and our collective limited knowledge on how these things work, it's hard to imagine how E.T. would get here across vast distances.

It would be at least as weird if E.T. was bubbling out of the ocean.

Like that would not, that wouldn't seem to me like the mundane explanation. No, no, no.
They're just at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. No, that's where the UFOs...
Well, I mean, there are a lot of UFO sightings that happen, even specifically with our Navy, at sea or in the vicinity of a large body of water. And they come out of the water and you know the the old the old idea was that it's impossible for any kind of civilization to travel across the stars because the distances are simply too vast it would take them forever to get here and how would you life support of that mission and so forth you'd run out of resources And that was the old idea.
That's not the way physicists are thinking anymore. Most physicists will acknowledge that you can bend space-time, give it enough energy.
You can bend space-time. I mean, this is certainly feasible within Einstonian physics, within relativity.
Wouldn't that kind of mess up our bodies, though, if we did that? No, not necessarily. No, I mean, there's been papers written by a lot of very eminent scientists like Hal Puthoff who have explained how you could theoretically bend space.
Now, the thing you need, though, is a tremendous amount of energy. You need something like a matter-antimatter reactor to do it.
This is the conclusion that Lou Elizondo and his team came up with when he worked in an official capacity at the Pentagon. This is the conclusion they drew, was that these craft are producing a tremendous amount of energy and they're able to manipulate gravity.
They're able to generate gravity waves. Yeah.
And that you can take two points in space that are distant. You know, this is, this is, you know, if I had a piece of paper, this is what, this is what physicists always do to illustrate this point.
They'll take a piece of paper. They'll say, here's point one and point two, and these are light years away.
But what if you can bend the fabric of space-time, and then they poke the pencil through the two points? You can instantaneously travel from one side of the universe to the next. Every physicist acknowledges that this is possible, theoretically possible.
So the idea that vast distances of space cannot be traversed is old hat.

We've definitely progressed beyond that.

I don't think there's hardly any physicists out there saying that anymore.

I don't know.

Maybe Neil deGrasse Tyson.

I'm not sure.

He says a lot of dumb things.

He may be out there saying that.

I've unfollowed him on Twitter, so I don't even know. But most physicists are going to acknowledge that, yes, this is absolutely theoretically possible.

As I keep saying, the problem is the energy to do it. That's the problem.
And, of course, you have people out there also saying that we have zero-point energy. We've discovered zero-point energy.
Nikola Tesla was developing this. And I don't know about any of that.
But I can say that I am exceedingly persuaded that the United States government, elements of the United States government, that's not a really accurate way to describe it, elements of the United States government, of the military industrial complex, working in coordination primarily with defense contractors, aerospace defense contractors, have been recovering both exotic craft, craft of non-human origin, and biologicals, non-human biologicals, for decades and have had some success, albeit I believe limited, in reverse engineering some of these components and creating what I would describe as hybridized craft of our own, which is what I believe I saw in Brook Park, Ohio, so many years ago. So we have been able to figure out certain components of this technology and incorporate exotic with conventional components to create hybridized craft.
Why don't you think it was an alien? Why are you so convinced that the thing you saw was a hybrid? Why couldn't it have just been an alien?

It could have been, but for whatever reason, I really don't have any good answer to that, except for my intuition was that this was ours, but it had no insignia. And I'll tell you something very interesting.

So I'm writing my book, Birthright, back in 2020.

And I'm sitting at my desk, and I've got my computer screens here.

And I'm writing, and in Birthright, back in 2020. And I'm sitting at my desk and I got my computer screens here.
And I'm writing, and in Birthright, I tell the story I just told you about the craft that I encountered in Brook Park. It's on my screen.
I'm literally crafting the paragraph, right? And every so often I would take a break and I have a reading chair next to my desk and I'd sit down and read just to take a break from writing. And I go back to writing that I'd sit down and read.
And since I had that experience, I have been asking all of my UFO friends, um, all of the, the, the ufologists that I interface with, have you ever encountered a craft like this? Do you have any stories of this? And all of them across the board have told me, no, this is, this is different. You know, we've never encountered anything like this.
So I've always been baffled by that. Uh, it wasn't a typical sauce or anything like that.
It was, as I described, like a diamond shape and it was reminiscent. I forgot to add this detail.
I told you it had sort of that angular body armor, a little bit of that. And it was, it was reminiscent of the, I believe it is that the F one 17 night Hawk, I think is what it is.
It's the it's the stealth fighter, the body armor.

It was reminiscent of that, but it had no wings and it wasn't that, but it was reminiscent. So here I am writing this account in my book.
I take a break. I'm in the middle of the paragraph.
I take a break and I sit down to open the book I was reading and to continue reading. And the book I was reading was a book called Hunt for the Skinwalker by George Knapp and I believe it's Colm Kelleheller.
And fascinating book, great book. And I happened to be reading the section of the book where, and by the way, the book deals with this strange phenomenon that happens at Skinwalker Ranch.
And I happen to be reading the portion where the ex-owner, and this is a pseudonym, and I think they called him Tom Gorman in the book, a pseudonym, where he is describing an experience that he had on the property, on Skinwalker Ranch. He said that he was on the ranch walking by, I believe, by this particular mesa on the ranch.
And he noticed this craft off in the distance. And he described the craft exactly the way I saw it.
He described literally the craft that I saw that I was writing about. So here's my computer.
I'm writing this story. No one's ever seen, I've never encountered someone who's seen this craft.
I'm taking a break, reading a book, and I'm literally reading the same description that I'm writing. So how do you make sense of that? Is that just a random coincidence? Is that providence? Is that some alien messing around with the pages? I mean, I would like to think it's providential, but I mean, he describes it the same exact way.
There was no sound. It had little stubby nubs in the place of wings.
It was reminiscent of the F-117 Nighthawk, a stealth fighter. All the same details.
This would have been in the early 2000s. This would have been, I don't remember when they owned the ranch, the family that the book is...
My question being, this would have been around the time of the development of the stealth Nighthawk? I'm not sure. I'm not sure when the Nighthawk was developed.
But this was not a Nighthawk. I mean, you know, it was a big deal when we came out with the Harrier jet.
Remember the Harrier jet? They could take off vertically, but the amount of pressure that that jet had to produce, air pressure, would push cars out of the way, right, to lift that. Yeah, yeah.
Now, we've since created, we've since developed that technology, and we have stuff that's much more advanced that uses air pressure that can push an aircraft off of a landing pad, for example, and then it can take off. We have that now.
But back then, the Harrier jet was like the most advanced thing the public knew about in regard to vertical takeoff for an aircraft, for a jet. And, I mean, these things were, the one I saw and the one that was described in Hunt for the Skinwalker Ranch, totally silent, okay? So at the very least, what I saw with my own eyeballs is unconventional, exceedingly advanced technology that somebody has.
Now, you can say that's us, that's Russia, that's China, whatever. But it's pretty wild.
Whatever it is, it's pretty wild. Or you can concede that, yeah, maybe we have recovered and reverse engineered alien technology, exotic technology.
Now, I don't think it's coincidental that the testimonies, the witnesses that are coming forth to Congress at the hearings, that their testimonies conform precisely to what we've known as ufologists in the field of the study of UFOs for a very long time, perfectly conformed to Bob Lazar's testimony that he came out with in the 90s. At some point, a preponderance of anecdotal evidence is evidence, especially when it's given under oath, especially when it implicates the military-industrial complex, especially when it highlights what really amounts to a fraud on the American public.
And this is what the congressmen are really, really upset about. This whole apparatus, this special access program, the special access projects where these things are developed are completely outside of the oversight of the United States government.

They use our tax dollars, but they tell our representatives nothing.

The president of the United States does not have the need to know.

He can't get access to these projects.

And they're primarily housed in, as I said before, they're under the auspices of the aerospace companies, Lockheed Martin and the others. And so you have our money being used to develop something very advanced.
Who knows what it's being used to do? Congress has no oversight. None.
They have totally circumvented Congress and therefore the American people. But they're doing much of it on our dime.
And we wonder where all these trillions of dollars go to that we can't account for. Like the Pentagon, the Defense Department's ever going to pass an audit.
No, because so much of that money is going into these black projects that most of the people in Washington have no clue exists. We kind of know.
To use the phrase of a former Secretary of Defense, it's a known unknown, right? We who do not really know what this is going toward, we all know that these projects exist. We just don't know anything about them.
Right. And this is the primary reason why the congressmen right now are so exercised about this topic is because it is an intentional circumvention of Congress.
Yeah. And they're trying to rein it in and to have oversight over it.
And it's this battle. I mean, I interface with guys who are in the midst of this battle, and it is a battle to get anything out of the government.
Now, why— In regards to disclosure. You're an independent researcher.
You can research whatever you want. How do you go from researching megaliths in Peru and the ancient cataclysms and giants and Nephilim to aliens? Is there a connecting thread here? Is there some unity of the theory? There's a very complex thread.
I'm not trying to shamelessly plug my book here, but it's very complex. That's why in my book Birthright, I start with a, in a pre-Adamic context actually, but I start with the creation of Adam and I work my way all the way to Armageddon.
And within this narrative is everything we've talked about, is the giants and the megaliths and the ancient, the antediluvian world, the golden age. And then I tie in the UFO phenomenon, what I call the alien presence, transhumanism.
All of this is interconnected. It's intertwined.
But for me, the explanation is very theological. There's a theological explanation of how all of this intersects and connects.
And there's nothing, there's no easy answer to that question, right? So, I believe, as I've stated in the beginning, and we've framed this conversation, in the context of the biblical narrative, right? We're both Christians and we're viewing this from a biblical narrative, from a biblical paradigm. And for me,

every... right we're both christians and we're viewing this from a biblical narrative from a biblical paradigm and for me everything that's unfolding right now in regard to not just the the ufos and the alien presence but as i mentioned transhumanism because that's a huge issue right the notion that human beings will transcend not just our gender which we do now not certain technical limitations, but our very humanity.
In the words of Yuval Harari, you know, leftist intellectual, he wrote a book called Homo Deus. That's right.
That Homo sapiens, we are going to, actually C.S. Lewis writes about this in Abolition of Man many decades prior, we, in an attempt at progress, will actually abolish Homo sapiens to become something greater.
That's right. You might have an echo here from the Bible, a phrase from Genesis, you shall be as gods.
You will be like the gods. That's exactly where this is going, all of it.
All of it is going that way because we're going to find out that the gods are real at some point in the future. And by the way, I think that this has to do with us landing on Mars as well.
This is a whole conversation there as well. Meaning the present push from Elon Musk to go to Mars.
To put a man on Mars. Why? Because I think we're going to discover the ruinous remains of a remarkable civilization that existed on Mars, that pre-existed us by many thousands of years.
And from a theological perspective, I believe that this is the narrative surrounding that is going to be very deceptive. Okay? So it's always difficult for me because this is the most common question I get is how do you connect, you know, the megaliths and stuff to the aliens? Well, I wrote a whole book about it.
I mean, it takes a long time to, to, to, to, um, connect all of these threads together, to weave all of these threads together. But you're, you're precisely, that we talk about Homo Deus.
Mankind is in a very dangerous, we're engaging in a very dangerous project right now, directed evolution of the human species. And it's really predicated not on Darwinism.
It's predicated on Nietzscheism. Because, see, Nietzsche believed in the theory of evolution.
He was a proponent of the theory of evolution. But he didn't like the mechanism, Darwin's mechanism of evolution, natural selection.
Random mutations being selected by, yeah. See, Nietzsche believed that evolution had a purpose.
This is very different than Darwinism. Nietzscheism, and this is the driving, the impetus is Nietzscheism, not Darwinism right now.
Evolution has a purpose according to Nietzsche. What is the purpose? To bring forth the overman, the ubermensch, to bring forth the overman.
And that's very different than natural selection that is, as you said, blind and random, and it's not going anywhere. Though in principle, natural selection would improve the race over time, right? Because people who have defective genetic qualities would be weeded out and they wouldn't reproduce.
But the Nietzschean idea that we're basically going to institute a tyranny of the will, a triumph of the will, I guess. The will to power, yeah.
The will to power that would create the Superman. And so we're not just kind of randomly improving, but we know where we want to go.
That's right. We're going to do it to ourselves.
Precisely. And forget about that old man, the under man.
I would say that Nietzsche is in many ways the prophet of transhumanism.

A lot of people don't think of it this way.

A lot of people have a very laudatory perception of Friedrich Nietzsche.

Yeah, yeah.

I don't have a very laudatory perception of Friedrich Nietzsche.

Yeah.

And I believe that he gave transhumanists the roadmap because, as you rightly say, the impetus of Darwinism, of evolution by natural selection, is natural selection, right? That's the, of evolution by natural selection is natural selection. It's this blind process.
The impetus of Nietzschean evolution is the will to power. Right.
Even just eugenics. I mean, you know, everyone compares everything to Hitler, but this was going on throughout the West, Margaret Sanger.
Hitler was an aficionado of Nietzsche. Yes.
So was Aleister Crowley, who told his acolytes, read Nietzsche. He said, I regard Nietzsche as a prophet.
He lets us do whatever we want. Exactly.
The will to power, God is dead. But all to say, it's one thing, you know, certain parrots on a random island die out and certain parrots go on and their beaks kind of change because of natural forces.
It's rather different than Margaret Sanger in America in the early 20th century saying, we're going to kill off these defectives. We're going to kill off this race.
We don't like these people. You know, that kind of conscious eugenics oriented selection.
I guess one of the big differences is if you're a proponent of nature kind of doing the pruning, then things will just kind of plot along and we're not going to be responsible. But if you're the one who says, no, I know exactly what the human race should look like and I'm going to exterminate you and I'm going to get rid of you and I'm going to put us in, with our limited stock of reason, we might make some terrible mistakes.
certainly. I mean, this is the project of directed evolution.

So we have a goal in mind, even though we don't articulate it.

And that goal is what you mentioned, Homo Deus.

We intend to become the gods that we read about in mythology. We intend to become the gods ourselves.

And I'm attempting to try and connect the dots here to answer the question you asked me a while ago. And I believe that we're being guided.
It's not aimless, the direction we're going in. We're going in a very particular direction.
And it's precisely what you said. the story is going full circle back to the

beginning you shall be like the gods so my the way that i see this playing out in regard to the the alien question i believe that we are going to realize we are going to learn at some point in the future that the gods exist.

And we will endeavor to become like them. And we will use all of our technological tools in this enterprise.
But by doing so, we will lose our humanity. Lewis says in Abolition of Man, every step forward we find is a step backward.
You know, we want to increase our autonomy by creating this new genetically perfect future generation of humans. We're doing it now.
We're doing it now through things like IVF and various reproductive technologies. And we can soon select for other traits without question.
But he says, but every step forward is a step back because we are exerting this autonomy, but every successive generation of human beings will have been fundamentally transformed without any choice of their own, without any, they'll have lost their autonomy. What are the consequences of this? What are the consequences of us evolving ourselves out of the human species? Well, to the atheist, to the evolutionary atheist, who cares? Like the human being is what? What is it? It's just transitory.
This was Nietzsche, by the way. He viewed man as a transitionary species.
Mankind is a transitionary species. He's not the end.
He's a bridge to an end. That's part of the quote.
He's the quote is, the great thing about man is he's not an end but a bridge to an end, something like that. So that's Nietzschean philosophy, that there's no reason to preserve our humanity.
See, one of the questions that I think is most important today, one of the most critical questions that we should be asking ourselves is what does it mean to be a human being? And is our humanity worth preserving? I mean, no other generation had to ask that question. Think about it.
Our parents didn't have to ask that question. That's a great point.
That is something unique in our generation, or at least we have a unique technological power. You know, there are all sorts of wackos in past ages, maybe will turn out to be wackos, who thought that they could radically change human nature, cure death, whatever.
They didn't have the tools. They didn't have the tools.
Perhaps we do have much more substantial tools, but you bring up a good point here, which is to the modern, secular, atheist, lib, whatever, yeah, great. Human beings, we have all these frailties.
So if we could cure the frailties, if we could so transform ourselves that we're not even recognizably human anymore, and it's for the better, well, great. That's awesome.
I don't want to be some limited human being. I want to be an unlimited new creature.
Life extension. Yeah.
But if you're a Christian, God is a man. Precisely.
God becomes man. Precisely.
And is fully God and fully man. So what does that mean? He's a kinsman redeemer.
Yes. What does that mean if we cease to be men? That means we forfeit our candidacy for salvation in the cross of Christ.
Because he became a man to redeem mankind. So there's a lot at stake here.
I mean, if you're a Christian, there's a lot at stake here. Obviously, atheists, whatever, this theological stuff means nothing to them.
But if you're a Christian, you need to pay close attention because the gospel of Christ is precisely about the Son of God humbling himself to become one of us in order to redeem us as a kinsman redeemer. So there's only one qualification for salvation on the cross of Christ.
Only one. You must be human.
That's it. You can be forgiven of any sin.
The thief on the cross. I mean, you can be forgiven at the last moment of any sin.
The grace of God is so large that it extends to everyone at all times, but there is no grace for those who are no longer the sons and daughters of Adam. That is unique right now in our time.

And it's unfolding.

Again, this is a question that we have to answer.

And it's a theological question.

It's a philosophical question.

What does it mean to be a human being?

And is our humanity worth preserving?

And that's why I think that the prelude to transhumanism is transgenderism.

Yes, certainly, without question. We're watching, this is, these are the first steps in that direction.
When we begin to abandon the definitions, when we begin to abandon those ontological understandings that are, that have been traditional, that have rooted civilization, we open the path, we clear the road for the wholesale biological transformation of Homo sapien. To an earlier point you made, the premise, the anthropological premise of transgenderism is that our true identities don't really have anything to do with our bodies, that actually our true identities are potentially disembodied spirits.
That's right. So I can, you know, I got the body of a man, but my true identity is a woman.
What does that mean? The traditional understanding is that, you know, I'm a man, I'm my body, but I'm also my soul, and my soul is the substantial form of my body, and my soul actually makes sense of the matter of my body. The transgender idea is a fundamentally different idea.
And I don't know, with everything you've been saying about disembodied spirits, I don't think I would want that to be my true identity. No, no.
I mean, the stakes are much higher than people realize in the game that's afoot right now. See, there was a suite of technologies that have been under development for decades now, especially the last couple of decades.
We are right now, and we are in what is known as the hybrid age, what futurists and technologists refer to as the hybrid age. The reason why they call it the hybrid age is because there are many different technologies from different streams, but there are four primary technologies that we can identify.
These are called the GRIN technologies, genetics, robotics, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology. There are many more, but these are like the four pillars of the current technological advancement.
And they call this the hybrid age because these technologies, these four and others, are like individual streams. They've all been developing as individual streams, but now they're converging into a rushing river.
For example, we're developing robotics over here. We're developing artificial intelligence over here.
What happens when we put the two together? That's a very interesting question, and it's happening. Well, we see the artificial intelligence.
We see the robotics, but the same pace is afoot in regard to the biological transformation of the human species. It's not as evident in the public, but the genetic revolution is coming.
It is coming. We are going to be able to incorporate technology into our bodies.
We're going to become in the future cybernetic beings. And ultimately, we're going to be able to modify the human genome in radical ways not we

can already do it in modest ways in modest ways we can we can use crisper technology to make little snips but you know in 2010 darpa was what had a project called human artificial chromosomes hacks human artificial chromosomes i can't remember the exact long title of the project But that was basically it, human artificial chromosomes.

And what they wanted to do was to create, and this was like 10 years ago, 12 years ago, they wanted to create a platform, not make little snips with, with, with CRISPR-Cas5, like we've been doing, right? No, they said, forget about these little tiny modifications. Let's create a platform, an artificial chromosome that we can use to basically upgrade the human species continuously through this.
Because if you have an artificial chromosome, you can load it up with all kinds of genetic information and have that be integrated into your genome. That was the idea.
That's what the paper said. And it specified this is for human beings.
Now, why would DARPA be interested in that? Super soldiers. Remember that Vladimir Putin some years ago when they were asking him about nuclear warheads and nuclear war, remember what he said? There was a group of college kids asking him questions.
He said, yeah, that's concerning, but I'm worried about something else that nobody's talking about. Super soldiers.
That caught my attention. In fact, I put it in my book.
That caught my attention. Vladimir Putin's more worried about super soldiers than nuclear warheads.
Well, he must know something we don't. He must understand the pace at which this technological arm race is moving right now, namely the development of genetically and cybernetically enhanced super soldiers.
Well, that technology, we all know that technology that's developed under the purview of the military industrial complex eventually, in many cases, makes its way to the commercial sector. The, yeah.
You know, the military-industrial complex is always going to stay apace of what's in the commercial sector, but we're going to get it eventually. So everybody is consumed with artificial intelligence right now, and rightly so, because it is accelerating.
And it's pretty impressive. It's extremely impressive.
And like I said, when they combine that with the robots, which they're already doing, we're going to have robots policing our streets instead of human beings.

We're going to have robots fighting wars, not just drones.

I mean, it's going to be crazy.

And that's evident.

That's happening in the public space.

But what's happening privately is the potential, the development of the tools to literally remake our own biology. And this gets, as we've been saying, exceedingly theological.
Again, what does it mean to be a human being? And is our humanity worth preserving? Well, from a biblical perspective, the answer is we were created in the image of God. And if we lose our humanity, we're going to lose something very important, something that is directly related to the image of God.
And that is, I would contend, and I do in my book, dominion of the earth. Because I believe that dominion of planet earth is the birthright of Adam and his offspring.
In fact, this is what the Bible says, that God gave Adam dominion over the earth and over all life on earth. And that dominion, the seal of that dominion is the image that we bear, the image of God.
And I believe there's an effort underway, and you can call it a demonic effort, a satanic effort to steal our birthright.

And it's the Jacob and Esau story.

It's to get us to sell our birthright for a bowl of stew.

To give away our humanity for what?

Life extension.

Yeah.

The Neuralink.

Interfacing with the internet at the speed of-

It's a great way to put it.

I could live another few decades or I could do this.

Well, what are you going to do

when everyone's...

It's a bowl of porridge

you're selling your birthright for.

That's right.

You're selling your humanity

for this.

And what are you going to do?

What are your kids going to do?

I have five boys.

What are my kids going to do

when all of their colleagues

15 years down the road

are interfacing with the internet

at the speed of thought

because they have

technological implants?

Yeah.

Thank you. down the road are interfacing with the internet at the speed of thought because they have technological implants.
Yeah. See, it's going to get real, really fast for our kids.
Because it's one thing, think of it as just a more advanced way of saying, well, look, they're going to develop this thing. You and I are hanging out.
It's the 1980s. They say, you know, in about 20 years, 25 years, they're going to create this phone that can do like everything.
You know, you can watch any show, read any book. You can, you can message people.
There's going to be this thing called social media. Yeah.
You can access your social media. There's also going to be this thing called social media.
You can do all that. And it's going to be really bad actually.
And it's mostly just going to be temptation and consumerism and porn. And it's going to really mess up your...
You can do some cool things on it, but it's going to be really dangerous for you. And you would say, well, even if I will use that as an adult, I would never let my kids use that.
But then every other kid's using it and you kind of need it to call your kid if he's at school or if he's on... You need it to make transactions.
You need needed to book airline tickets. Imagine trying to live in a world without a phone.
It's virtually impossible. It's virtually impossible.
Or some kind of computer. It's virtually impossible.
It's going to be like that. That's homo deus, okay? So guess what? If you have homo deus and you have everybody self-evolving into homo deus, what happens to the people who choose not to? Right, right.
That's why I describe the Homo Deus, this faction, I call them the neo-humans that are coming, the new humans. And who are we, these old-fashioned humans who refuse to evolve? We're the neo-humans.
We're the Neanderthalic humans. We refuse to evolve.
We're the refuse the refuse of humanity i mean that gap right now between those who wield technology and those who don't there's almost no gap everybody is using technology because it's not that invasive yet it's dangerous you know but it's not that invasive yet but that gap is going to open as we move forward because that technology that you hold in your hand is going into your brain. Yeah, yeah.
It's going into the brain. There is no, just as assuredly as Elon Musk is going to put a man on Mars, Neuralink is going in the brains of millions of people or something equivalent to that.
Because interfacing with the internet at the speed of thought, you could instantly speak another language. Right.
It's going to give human beings godlike powers. And that's just one aspect.
That's just the artificial intelligence aspect in cybernetics. Now add in the genetics, the genetic revolution that's coming.
We're going to be able to upgrade our genome artificially. I don't have any problem with gene therapy where if I have a broken gene in my genome, it's a human gene that's malfunctioned.
So they go and they grab a gene that's got the correct code. It's a human gene.
And then they correct my code. Well, this is, by the way, the traditional Christian understanding of how to make sense of these technologies is if we are repairing an injury, if we are taking a defect and repairing it, we have every right, and in some cases, obligation, to help to heal people.
But that's not what, this is going beyond humanity. This isn't repairing something that has been broken in this fallen world.
This is making something new. That's a totally different moral calculation.
Completely different, because in the process, you lose your humanity. Right.
You lose your humanity. Now, I have to ask you before I let you go.
I want to do another three hours here. I do too.
With another cigar. That's right.
By the way, let me say that, sir, is a fantastic cigar. Come on.
Get out of here. I'm glad you hear it.
This is a fantastic cigar. Listen, I could tell.
You were the kind of guy who smoked it. Well, thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
What is next for you? Which is to say, I guess, what's going to be the topic of our next conversation when you come back? What are you doing now? There's a lot more to say about the alien question. I love to talk about alien abduction.
That's a deep, dark hole. That's a whole separate conversation, but there's a lot we could talk about.
Well, what are you doing next? Where do you go from here? I am in, next week I'll be in Peru. I'm heading to Peru.
I'm going on an expedition. I'm also involved in a film project, but I'm going to be going to explore, to investigate these potential new megaliths that have been discovered in Peru.
I don't know yet if they're artificial or naturally occurring. If they're artificial, in other words, if they're man-made, then it could be one of the most amazing, important discoveries in a century in regard to archaeological discoveries in Peru.
Now, I didn't discover them. Somebody else, it's in a village.
It's on the outskirts of a village. The villagers have known about it.
It's just come to light and has been brought to my attention. So I'm going to go down there and investigate the situation.
To bring all the threads together, when you're down there, can you look into that thing that went viral on social media a few years ago down in Latin America where they had a little, it looked like a paper mache ET and they said it was an alien. That's precisely what I was about to say.
So after I- Are you really going to look into that? After I investigate the megaliths, I'm actually going over to Ica. Really? And I'm going to go to the University of Ica and I'm going to be meeting with one of the curators of the museum there.
And they have in their possession three, what they call tridactyl being mummies and the reason why they call them tridactyl beings is most people are familiar with the little the little mummies that um haime masan popularized was it last year or the year before that's the thing that looks like a paper machine that's right and i didn't buy it i don't know so So I believe that those, the little alien mummies, I think they are legitimate artifacts, but they're not, they were never living beings. Okay.
Okay. So I think that they're ancient dolls of some kind created with composite of different animals.
So I think they're ancient and they're very interesting artifacts. It's not just hopes.
I could be wrong about that. It's not just hopes.
I could be wrong about that, but I don't believe that they were living, breathing beings.

Could be wrong about that.

That's just my assessment.

I did live in Peru for 10 years, so I have an idea of how things go down there with regard to fake artifacts.

However, however, there are these other mummies, and they're not little.

They're large.

They're 5'9", 6' tall, but they're in the fetal position. They've been featured on Gaia TV and other places.
And I've been sort of sitting back in the background, waiting for definitive data that you can determine one way or the other, if these are actually living, breathing beings. And the data looks really strong.
Now, do I believe that they were living, breathing, real beings? I don't know. I'm on the fence.
I'm 50-50, hence my desire to go and get up close to these things and investigate them. However, if they are or were at one time living biological beings, that rewrites history.

They have three fingers, three long fingers and toes. As I said, they're in the fetal position.
They're mummified. They're exquisitely preserved.
They have slightly elongated skulls, overly large eye sockets, very, very small noses. They look alien in every sense of the word.
And there are more than three of them. And I've been corresponding with one of the gentlemen, if not the only gentleman who discovered them, who's a French explorer.
I'm fascinated. I'm not convinced, but I am highly intrigued.
So I'm going to be looking at the megaliths and then I'm going to be flying over to the desert to take a look at these mummies. And, you know, there's some other things we're doing there as well.
But those are the two primary projects in this upcoming trip. All right.
I'm not saying you've convinced me on aliens or anything like that. You have convinced me.
You have to come back and tell me. I will come back.
The alien abductions and about the three-fingered,

long-headed things that you're about to go see in Peru.

We'll have to get Matt Walsh

sitting here.

No, I'm not letting him

come anywhere near this

and brag to try to get me

to be a pro-alien guy.

But I at least want to hear about it.

Timothy Albarino.

The book is birthright.

Go get the book.

Thank you.

I want to do 10 more hours right.

I know we can't.

I'll look forward to the next one.

Definitely.