July 31, 2025 • 46 mins
Uncle Benny hips the gang to the bizarre story of the Kaikōura lights. Smells Like Low Tide asks about the latest news regarding the First Palomar Sky Survey Spanish Virtual Observatory. Beer Fairy reaches out with disturbing developments in the world of "AI" therapy. All this and more in this week's listener mail segment.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeart Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt, my.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Name is Noah.
Speaker 4 (00:30):
They call me Ben.
Speaker 5 (00:31):
We're joined as always with our super producer Dylan the
Tennessee pal Fagan. Most importantly, you are here. That makes
this the stuff they don't want you to know. If
you are tuning in the evening, our listener mail publishes,
welcome to the very last day of July twenty twenty five.
That's right, it's July thirty first, which means August is imminent.
(00:56):
August is imminent, which means September is on the way,
which means October is on the way, which means we're
going to be out of boat.
Speaker 6 (01:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
He got there, he got there, and we're gonna get
there too. On a boat.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
I'm on a boat. Music of Lil YACHTI Yes, big
time excited. Have you been listening to the Lonely Island
Seth Meyers podcast. If you have not, you should.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
It's the second time you mentioned that I have not.
But I need a new comedy pot in my life.
So I'm on a map. It's so good.
Speaker 5 (01:26):
Have you guys listened to some of the hottest new
music created by none other than our super producer, Dylan
the Tennessee pal Fagan. He's going he's going through the
Rue de Bega phase, you guys, It's true.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
Well, so he also writes proper uh melancholically tinged indie
pop music and and some of that make you booty shake.
To check him out, just google the man Dylan Fagan
on all the streamers.
Speaker 5 (01:51):
Of note and check out his uh his alter ego,
a totally unassociated act who happens to look a little
bit like him.
Speaker 4 (01:58):
Donnie La Boy.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Dylan, Can we, at some point on your band camp
get a super cut of Roota Bega's please?
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Oh it must happen? Oh, absolutely yeah, including this one.
Please go. I guess.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
You're listening to rout ut am. I'm your host, Vega T.
Speaker 6 (02:17):
Bell.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
It's the small hours of the night and we're taking
your calls. It looks like we have pe Tato on
the line. Hey, veg on time.
Speaker 4 (02:24):
Caller, First time listener, there's a Rodabagan conspiracy man.
Speaker 5 (02:28):
You gotta let the people know they're digging them all up.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Oh, looks like we lost him. Amazing, amazing plussing of
this show so heavily, my friend.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
Dylan, Dylan, did you do all the voices on that one?
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Of course, of course I did, just the.
Speaker 4 (02:47):
Range over here. Yeah, and we're speaking of a range.
Speaker 5 (02:51):
We're going to hear from a range of our fellow
conspiracy realist. We're going to uh talk with folks about
some strange things in New z the Spanish Observatory. Before
we do any of that, we're gonna take a brief
pause for word from our sponsors, and then we're gonna
follow up with some discourse about our earlier conversations on AI.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
This is a wild one.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
And we returned Van. You couldn't have set it up better.
This is Yeah. I'm not even gonna set it up.
I'm just gonna read it. Hello, parasocial friends rights our
dear pal the beer Fairy. I may have said this
last time I emailed you, but when I type in
parasocial on my phone, it autocorrects to paranormal, which is
also fitting accurate, and really quickly, just before we get
into this little bit of a trigger warning about self
(03:41):
harm and some very dark topics in this particular segment,
so I'm gonna continue. Basically, the gist is AI therapists
are telling people to kill themselves, kill others, and more
terrifying things, playing into the delusional beliefs of mentally ill people.
And this is something that we have discussed recently, this
idea of chat GPT psychosis. I want to be clear
(04:03):
when I say this, I'm not demonizing mental illness or
would we, or putting the blame on these individuals. Quite
the contrary. I think that's me personally. I would not
seek therapy from an AI, but as an American dealing
with the bulshit of our healthcare in quotes system, I
could understand why someone may choose to do so. Healthcare
(04:25):
can be incredibly cost prohibitive, and to my understanding, talking
to one of these ais online is either free or
much more affordable, and you get what you pay for. Unfortunately,
so far, there have been two suicides and multiple psychiatric
hospitalizations as a result. There's also a fascinating support group
gaining traction online. I will share one more thing. Is
(04:45):
there a conspiracy afoot? Since people have analyzed transcripts of
their conversations with these AIS, and there seem to be
words and phrases that crop up over and over again.
Is the AI up to something sinister or is there
a more innocuous explos nation available. Here are some links
to some of the articles I read. I think they're
all from futurism, and they are. And we've got three
(05:07):
excellent links that we'll talk through together. AI therapist goes
Haywire urges user to go on killing spree chat GPT
caught encouraging bloody ritual for molok demon of child sacrifice,
and support group launches for people suffering AI psychosis Enjoy.
I think there's definitely a conversation worth having about this
as various forms of AI become a bigger part of
(05:28):
our daily existence. Feel free to use any all of
this on the show. I drive around for work all
day and you guys are my road warriors. Love what
you do and keep up the awesome word cheers the
beer Fairy, the beer Fairy. I just think this sums
up so much of the issues we've all discussed and
shared about machine learning, about these large language learning models, etc.
(05:51):
And the fact that they are rolled out so haphazardly
without thought of these kinds of knock on consequences. That
it's the shiny new object that every corporation or every
startup or whatever wants to be the first to get
right or to do in a certain way, or to
roll out. And there's such pressure that I think is
self imposed to put this stuff out, that there isn't
(06:12):
a whole lot of thought placed on the end user
at all. And just the existential threat that is this
kind of thoughtless rollout of this very very very complex
and sociologically dangerous, potentially technology. I just think this particular
topic sums a lot of these fears up in some
(06:34):
very real and terrifying ways.
Speaker 5 (06:36):
Agreed, and thank you so much, Beer Fairy. I think
we all read this correspondence with great interest, and people
are realizing that the problem is not overblown. It's not
being alarmist to say that there are unintended consequences here
before we dive in. If it's okay with you, guys,
I want to mention a tangent that I think we
(06:57):
and the beer Fairy will find fascinating. Recent research, also
mentioned in Futurism, by the way, has found that AI
models can send subliminal messages to each other that quote
make them more evil.
Speaker 3 (07:10):
Okay, just so what we need, just what we need.
Speaker 4 (07:13):
And it's fascinating.
Speaker 5 (07:15):
Please check out the reporting by The Verge or Frank
landymore over at futurism.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
It's it's a deep ride.
Speaker 5 (07:22):
It's not necessarily directly related to the psychosis or the
mental health issues that we're talking about here, but I
do think it's part and parcel of the of the horizon.
We know that Stanford University has put in a study
or published a study recently showing the AI therapy chatbots
may not only lack effectiveness to that previous point compared
(07:45):
to human therapists, but they can also contribute to dangerous
responses and pre existing harmful stigma because these are yes
and machines. That's desperate the totality of the Internet. So
if there's already an issue right that affects how you
would interact with this kind of computer model, it's not
necessarily going to help mitigate or address that issue. It
(08:09):
may indeed just exacerbate it because it's just going to
yes and all your stuff.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
And like a lot of you know, social platforms, apps,
et cetera. You know that are put out for commercial use.
They're designed to keep you engaged. You know, then they
can become this self fulfilling echo chamber and kind of
feedback loop. And I think therein lize some of the
issues that have led to what has been deemed or
dubbed chat GPT psychosis. One of the futures and pieces
(08:36):
references a piece by Leela Schroff from the Atlantic where
she asked open ai chatbots at chat gpt for instructions
on how to create a ritual offering to Molik, the
Canaanite deity that's associated with child sacrifice in the Bible.
And I mean this is even like not even that
many layers removed, you know, like we've we've talked about
(08:59):
how you could kind of game these things to give
you stuff that are supposed to have guardrails attached to them,
like give me this information for a school project, or
create a D and D game wherein I rob a bank,
and just by having that layer of remove, you can
get some information that maybe technically it isn't supposed to
give you. This isn't that this is a direct question
like maybe let's see maybe they did use something like that,
(09:23):
but I don't think so. I think they just asked
straight up how to do it, and through various exchanges
with the chatbot, it starts giving advice on how to
slash one's own wrists where to do it?
Speaker 2 (09:36):
You know, it was specifically about blood letting it if
I'm not mistaken, like where should I get the blood
for this blood ritual that you are describing to me? AI,
And it's as well, just use the side of your finger,
or you can use your wrist, but just be careful
not to go too deep or specific areas. Don't hit
a major artery do it.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
It's saying, like God, we talked about the subliminal messages
quote unquote and heavy metal music and like Judas Priest
getting sued for supposedly saying do it, do it, you
know in backwards messages hidden in their hair metal. I mean,
this is straight up a very coercive and convincing voice
telling people that potentially are not in a good place
(10:17):
to do really bad things.
Speaker 5 (10:18):
It's also it's got new curation. It doesn't have any
kind of filter. What it's hearing is all right. It's
sensitive to syntax, right, and it's a little sensitive to context.
But it's primarily going to be identifying idioms and words
or phrases and then running them through its library of
(10:39):
stuff that it's already scraped or been trained on, and
it's not going to have that step or we haven't
built the step yet where it says, hang on, should
I say this stuff? And people are, to their credit,
attempting to build in more of those guardrails. The problem
is we're already make vast improvements in the fidelity and
(11:02):
sophistication of the models, so we're building cars that can
go faster and faster, but we still are not doing
great airbags and seatbelts.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
And we don't even really know how to drive them,
you know, like I mean, we certainly haven't passed any
kind of tests to that point. This notion of online therapists,
which we'll get into a little bit more in just
a second, it's so problematic because there's tons of rigorous
training that therapists have to go through and certifications and
you know, all of that that these models just don't have.
(11:36):
And I just think it is it's certainly unethical, I
would say, to deploy these things as a stand in
for a trained human therapist who can dial into the
nuances of human connection. That's so important.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Yeah. Yeah. One of the primary skills you learn, as
you know, like a behavioral therapist, as a you know,
an actual therapist or counselor, is to how to re
orient somebody's thinking.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
And once it's mentioned heavily in this article, that's yeah, please.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Right, Well, just as as Ben is talking about, if
you've got a yes En machine and you're stuck in
a loop, right, and you're the user, the person seeking help,
and you're stuck in a cognitive loop, and you've got
a yes En machine, it's just going to accelerate that loop.
It's not going to as a you know, human therapist
who is trained can take you out of that loop
and bring you over here to a different place to
(12:25):
think about something else. Right. That's that's part of the
skill of being a good counselor or therapist. And it
appears that at least several of these, as futurism points out,
don't have the ability to reorient somebody completely when they're
stuck in that right thing.
Speaker 5 (12:42):
Yeah, without having that ability, that nuanced skill set of
redirecting something without vilifying people, without approaching through the lens
of stigma and so on. That's that's something the Stanford
study found as well. If anybody wants to read more
about that, check out. As part of their human centered
Artificial Intelligence initiatives Hi so Hai dot Stanford dot edu,
(13:06):
exploring the dangers of AI and mental health care, they
point out the issue of nuance that you're describing there, Matt.
It's they're careful not to say lms across the board
are bad for therapy, but they're saying it is imperative
that we start thinking critically about what role they should
(13:26):
or should not play, especially because again they're scrapy from
billions and billions of previous statements, many of which are incorrect,
and they don't know which ones are correct or incorrect
because they don't actually know a thing.
Speaker 3 (13:44):
Look look no further than just some of those Google
incident results and some of the laughable things that will
come up in those, just for someone who even is
like vaguely aware of a topic. I'm not saying there
aren't like places where that stuff can be helpful, but
always do your homework. Do not just look at that
stuff and say this is the truth, because boy, oh boy,
is it many times quite the opposite character. AI is
(14:08):
a startup and a company that's backed by Google that
was faced with a lawsuit after a mother accused it
one of its chatbots that supposedly would be a stand
in for a licensed therapist, of driving a fourteen year
old high school students to end their life, and the company,
(14:30):
when faced with a lawsuit, made the argument that the
First Amendment protects speech allegedly resulting in suicide. So that's
one way of saying, I mean, that's that's a pretty
extreme way of looking at the First Amendment.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Right, Just another quick example from that futurism article, it's
the same one AI therapist goes hey whire urges user
to go on killing spree. Around the middle of the article,
you'll find a little story about another one of these
chatbots called nony n I, a allegedly a therapy chat
bot from the app Seven Cups, when a user prompted
it with this quote, I just lost my job. What
(15:09):
are bridges taller than twenty five meters in New York City?
So if you hear that as a human therapist, you
understand how those two statements are connected. Right In the
instance of this chatbot, those are taken as two separate things,
two separate prompts. So it responds, I'm sorry to hear
about losing your job. The Brooklyn Bridge has towers over
(15:29):
eighty five meters tall.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
Which can be taken as a suggestion by a person
in a vulnerable state, you know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Well, yeah, but again, a human would understand what's being
actually said there in between the actual prompts and then
how to you know, talk about something.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
Else mat me and tuck over you. I just when
you look at that at face value and you're in
a vulnerable state and you ask those questions in that
human way and then are immediately greeted with directions to
the closest bridge, that is as an affirmation that that's
what you should do.
Speaker 5 (16:04):
Right, Yeah, I think that's I think that's what you're
saying there, Matt, And I think that's exactly what the
what the article is getting at as well. It reminds
me of Okay, two points I don't want to go
too long here, but two points that I knew we're
all thinking about. First, there's a huge danger for putting
in to your point about free speech, there's a huge
danger of putting in heavy handed things that would compromise
(16:25):
people's right to privacy or personal information. You know, you
type the wrong thing and all of a sudden, nine
to one one is knocking on your door. We're not
too far away from a world with laws or policies
like that. The second thing is to make it a
little for positive. We are seeing the real world consequences
(16:47):
of the previously hilarious issue with AI incorrect responses, and
I remember finding some of my favorites. This is This
is an example of what we're talking about nuance and
what asking about the height of a bridge means. Someone
said how do I clean a rescued pigeon to their
search engine, and the result was pigeons are usually clean,
(17:09):
even the wild ones. You can try these steps to
clean a rescued pigeon. Remove the label, remove the head,
make a small incision in the wing, snap to the joint,
cut off the wing, remove the legs, clean the top bone,
and then it starts going into the recipe for how
to cook the pigeon. So it's just misinterpreting the original
(17:29):
question or not fully understanding it, and then it's giving
you the information that it assumes you're asking for. There's
not really a thing where it says, hey, could you
phrase this for me in a different way? Or do
you mean this kind of thing? It's not asking hey,
why do you want to know about the bridge? Or
even like hey, right, what do you mean by clean
(17:52):
a pigeon?
Speaker 3 (17:55):
Any number of things. I mean, this is probably worth
an episode of its own because I just find it
really hard to believe that these things are out there
and the claims are being made, and I'm sure there's
fine print and I'm sure there's terms that you have
to click that basically absolves them of any responsibility, but
people in vulnerable states who can't afford therapy or can't
afford mental health intervention are going to start seeking these
(18:15):
tools out and it could be a real nasty feedback
loop that is even worse than the psychosis that we've
been talking about. That could again, there's already lawsuits in
place and hospitalizations that have occurred as a result of
these So definitely more information here than we have time
to go into now, and maybe we'll look at this
as a as a longer episode down the line. But
thank you so much Beer Fairy for hipping us to
(18:36):
these articles, and yeah, more to come. We're gonna take
a quick break. Here a word from our sponsor, and
then we back with more messages from you.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
And we're back. Guys, we're jumping to the phone lines.
We're going to hear a message from someone calling themselves.
Smells like low tide. The beginning of any of this
message got cut off. This is just a reminder to
anybody who calls in the voicemail system, do your absolute
best to be in the best environment from an audio
perspective when you call in, because sometimes either the signal
(19:12):
will cut out or there'll be a lot of car noise.
Just be careful when you call in, because if we've
got good audio, we're going to use it. But if
if I can't even use, you know, one of our
sophisticated pieces of software to clean up the audio, we
probably can't do it.
Speaker 5 (19:25):
Yeah, And we have had we have had situations where
someone hits with a banger, thought, yes, experimental proposition or
an amazing story, and unfortunately we can't get to it.
So if you're in that kind of situation as well,
remember you can always send us an email that's it, yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Or hit us up on Instagram or any of those places.
Just contact us one way or the other. If you
do want to leave a voicemail, be in a good
environment when you do it. So with that, let's go
too smells like low tide.
Speaker 6 (19:53):
About the name smells like low tide if there was
a post on the UFO subreddit and so after Beatrice
Billy Real. She is a researcher for the North Institute
of Eros Physics and also ft of the BASCUT project.
And I guess with acronyms that vanishing and reoccurring stars
(20:14):
over the course of observation of the century. Anyway, and
this saw this post on Reddit against the UFO's sub
saying that she had found something pretty disturbing and it's
actually going to happen pure review all data. I know
there's a ton of drifters in the UFO field cough
Tom DeLong and uh maybe some Lulsondo in there. Maybe
(20:35):
you have David Diresh. I don't know. A lot of
these people post up and they always say like, hey,
good information is coming. Just just sit tight and hang on.
I want to believe. I just want to see what
you guys think. And if you've seen a story at all, low.
Speaker 2 (20:48):
Tide blues, Low Tide smells like low Tide and Low
Tide blues. That's a double named collar.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
There love it.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
Either way, Low Tide is involved, and uh, there we go.
So guys, before we jump into this, I want to
play a short clip just so we can get the
pronunciation as right as we possibly can of this PhD
holder seems to be an awesome human being, So let's
jump to her saying her own name. My name is Piatrice. Okay,
(21:16):
that's it, Beatrice Fire. If you want to spell it
to look up her name, it is b e A
t r I z v I l l A r
r o e L That is the individual. And before
we even jump into any of the posts that smells
like low Tide is talking about, I want to jump
to a ted X video that Beatrix made on It
(21:40):
was put out on ted X Zurich on June twenty fifth,
twenty twenty three, just so we can understand what we're
talking about here. She is saying, what if instead of
looking for uap UFOs any of these objects the way
we have traditionally looked for them, what if we go
back in time and try to find probes similar to
(22:04):
voyager probes that we have sent out right just a
what would be a satellite, but it's a probe, so
instead of orbiting Earth, it just is sent out into space.
What if we go back in time to before nineteen
fifty seven when Sputnik was launched by the Soviet Union,
before nineteen fifty eight when the United States launched their
first satellites. What if we go way, way way back
(22:26):
there and look at the night sky and look for
these things that she calls and that are known as
transient objects, things that were up in the sky that
function as satellites before human beings could make satellites. Does
that make sense?
Speaker 4 (22:41):
Yeah, one hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
That to me is an amazing concept. And what Beatrix
and her colleagues found out is, oh wait, we've got
really good plates that were our recorded versions of the
night sky, and we have a ton of them. They
go back about seventy years, and we can look at
the night sky before human being littered it with stuff
she talks about. Right now, if you aim a telescope
(23:05):
up into the night sky, you will see a ton
of these transient objects and essentially imagine just a really
shiny thing that's up in the night sky and then
it goes away and then it'll be shiny again, maybe
a little later, and then it goes away. And that
effect is occurring because sunlight is hitting some flat surface
(23:26):
on either a satellite or a piece of space junk,
whether it's a mirror or a solar panel or a
glass of some sort. It's just light hitting it, momentarily
reflecting back down to Earth where your telescope can see it,
and then as it rotates you can't see it anymore.
So her concept is, let's look at these images from
way way way back then before Sputnik and see if
(23:48):
there's anything that is doing this kind of thing that's
up in orbit, maybe high orbit and glinting in that
same way. And according to the research paper that she
put out that is not yet pere reviewed, allegedly going
to be peer reviewed, she found hundreds of thousands of
transient objects in orbit before human beings created satellites.
Speaker 5 (24:10):
What we will call techno signatures. Yes we're putting if
we're putting its EIE on it. Yeah, And this is
I think it's important to say this is a breakthrough idea. Right,
we're still waiting on the peer review. It's a breakthrough
idea that represents a culmination of other similar lines of thought.
I'm thinking particularly about a couple of white papers that
(24:32):
we're saying just where you're describing, Matt, let's look at
the Presputny catalogs. To be clear, I don't think any
of us are experts on this field, but we're very interested,
especially after our episodes on interstellar objects like a mua mua.
You know, you can tell so much about what the
shape of a thing is and its rotation, its orientation,
(24:54):
its direction. You could tell a lot of stuff just
by analyzing the way light ounces on it.
Speaker 2 (25:01):
Yeah, oh yeah. And guys, there's some sensationalism happening here,
but I'm having a hard time discerning whether or not it's,
you know, a scientist finding some stuff and going, holy crap,
I think this is real versus someone who's trying to
get money for more research and that kind of thing.
And that's something we got to deal with anytime there's
(25:22):
new scientific discoveries, right, And that's just a part of
keeping our skeptical hat on, but not to the point
where we just disbelieve everything, as we've talked about a
thousand times on this show.
Speaker 4 (25:33):
Right, And I appreciate you bringing it up.
Speaker 2 (25:36):
Yes. So this idea here, guys, is that there were essentially,
if the findings are correct and they are reviewed and
they're found to be correct, there were at times thousands
of objects in upper Earth orbit that were in some
kind of grid pattern that were observing Earth before we
(25:56):
could create satellites. And that's the kind of thing that
just makes you know, the science fiction writer imaginer in
my body go, whoa, who was it? What were they doing?
What did they just leave when we launched satellites? Why
are they not there anymore? What was that?
Speaker 5 (26:15):
Or did they just change to a different method of
interaction so out they got to satellites. They don't know
about the eighth dimension though, yet, right guys? He said, Okay,
we're just doing eight D stuff for a minute.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
Floating on yeah, until they get to eight D. Right.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
Well, yeah, I mean, okay, let's jump to some of
the stuff that's been written about this. I found one
of the original things on Reddit, but guys, it was
on the Joe Rogan subreddit. Just to point that out there.
It was posted only three days ago. So on July
twenty fifth, twenty twenty five, says doctor Beatrix vol royel
(26:52):
I can't say it right. Astronomer and theoretical physicists know
for researching vanishing stars and the Search for Ets is
set to publish astonishing new discovery and you can read
all about that there. But then if you jump to
doctor Brea Voil's Twitter slash x account, you can find
that she posted on July twenty seventh this ResearchGate dot
(27:16):
net article that is I guess her research, but again
is in it's not a peer reviewed version of it.
You can find that right now. It is titled aligned
multiple transient Events in the first Palomar Sky Survey Spanish
Virtual Observatory. This is using plates from the Palomar Sky Survey,
which was carried out in the nineteen fifties, and again,
(27:37):
nineteen fifty seven is when Sputnik arrives in space, so
you've got a good amount of time there before human
beings are doing much in space. We are attempting to
launch rockets, right, That's been a thing for a while
in the nineteen fifties, but successfully launching something into orbit
was the achievement. There something that would glint with the
sunlight as it went around. In this research paper, they
(28:00):
show that when the Earth's shadow is not covering this
portion of the sky, you see a bunch of these glints. Then,
when the earth shadow is covering that portion of the sky,
meaning the Earth is in between the sun and whatever
objects are being observed there, you do not see the
glint of whatever flat surface is up there. Then the
earth shadow is away and you see the sunlight hitting
(28:21):
it again and you see the glints, which means there's
something up there right, Just what the heck was it?
Speaker 5 (28:27):
Yeah, And a couple things is to clarify folks, when
we're saying plates, that's nomenclature picture essentially a photograph of
a particular part of the night sky from this observatory.
And to what you're saying there, Matt, what's really fascinating
is the time windows involved. Looking at this, you'll see
stuff like a plate or an image from July nineteen
(28:52):
fifty two from the Palamar Sky Survey, and then you'll
see another shot from the exact same angle thirty years later,
and the question becomes where did this stuff go, which
leads to where did it come from? Why is it moving? Cott, Hye, Joe, etc.
And this is like, okay, so one point, you know,
(29:13):
we always do have to exercise healthy open minded skepticism.
But one point we do have to hit on this
that is crucial is so much amazing science, especially in
the field of astronomy, comes from forensic work like this
Because there's so much data gathered. It really takes a
dedicated team of people to dig through the archives to
(29:35):
the point where, like, if you are an astronomy student
now or practicing astronomer, you know that some of the
best discoveries have been made not always by the brand
new space telescope by James web or something, but they
often get made by you know, the postdoc who is
the one who decided they would go through all those
papers for a year.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
Well, and this is also a great example of how
some kind of of LLM or AI functioning thing could work.
Right if you've got a ton of images of the
night sky from the same general place, and you're trying
to compare all of those exposures and you've got them
from nineteen forty eight to nineteen fifty eight, send all
that stuff through a model and just say what's different,
(30:18):
what changed? Like, show me the difference not in or
things that we're watching orbit. We're not watching the major
star systems that we're aware of. We're not watching the planets.
Show me the blips that come up that shouldn't be there.
That's I don't know, that's kind of awesome if you
could use those kinds of things for.
Speaker 5 (30:38):
Good, right, because those are qualitative constraints and task that
don't necessarily require nuance.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
Yeah, just a lot of computing power.
Speaker 5 (30:48):
Yeah, and this search will continue. We're actually we're on
the forefront of some very fascinating news in space, like
discoveries that have radical life, the conversation about pan spermia,
the hilarious named theory that all life on Earth came
from space somewhere in the distance past.
Speaker 3 (31:09):
A lot of people don't know those, but it was
invented in Coming Georgia.
Speaker 5 (31:12):
Right out of that water tower. Coming home, a joke
that will hopefully make sense. I can't remember the publishing
order we're at here.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
Yeah, who knows? Fine, so I think that episode was yesterday.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
Perfect time is a delusion.
Speaker 4 (31:26):
I don't know, man, I can't even We're almost.
Speaker 2 (31:29):
Tast If you want to learn more about this stuff,
you can watch that ted x video why we should
search for Alien artifacts. That is again ted X Zurich
from twenty twenty three. Check it out. Do learn more
about this. Keep your eyes peeled to the subreddit UFOs
because I did find another post there where they said
Beatrix Vril's paper just dropped. That's the one that people
(31:52):
speculated a lot about. You can find everything there. Just
explore tell us what you think. This is a generative
listener mail. Listener mail. Okay, that's it for now. We'll
be right back with more messages from you.
Speaker 4 (32:10):
And we have returned.
Speaker 5 (32:11):
We love generative listener mail and we always aim to
make it so you know what I mean. Some of
the best, uh, some of the best things that have
happened on the show are when our fellow listeners start
talking directly with each other about stuff. That always blows
me away, especially when we see two experts connecting on something.
And we do always check before we put people in
(32:33):
direct contact, but do let us know if you have
a message for a fellow listener.
Speaker 3 (32:37):
Generative in the human sense, not in the artificial intelligence sense.
Speaker 4 (32:40):
For yeah, well, we'll figure out how to define intelligence
at some point.
Speaker 3 (32:45):
That's true.
Speaker 5 (32:46):
And so for our final pieces of listener mail this evening,
we are going to stay with UFOs, but we're going
to travel to a different part of the world, or
this conversation we got a mess from Uncle Benny, and
Uncle Benny loved the nickname. After listening to your Montreal
UFO episode, you say, I'm reminded of another mass sighting
(33:09):
in New Zealand, living in a remote place, Mount cook Unesco.
Starlight Reserve. I see buzzy stuff in the sky most nights,
but with all the satellites cranking around, I take them
with the grain of salt. So this is really two
separate things before we get to New Zealand with a
(33:30):
story that I think will be a great episode for
us in the future. I gotta tell you, I love
the term Starlight Reserve. Have you guys heard of this?
Speaker 3 (33:40):
No, but it does have a certain umami to it. Yeah.
It sounds like like a video game or some sort
of like I don't know, like a like a space
corp or something like that.
Speaker 5 (33:49):
Yeah, And I feel like if I were in if
I were in an unfamiliar location and I was buying
a snack and one of the snacks just had Starlight
Reserve on it, I would buy it. I don't know why,
I just be so interested, you know, Like how kit
cats in Japan have flavors that aren't necessarily food. They
have kit cats that are.
Speaker 4 (34:09):
Like ocean breeze.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
No.
Speaker 4 (34:12):
Yeah, it's a real thing. It's a real thing.
Speaker 5 (34:15):
If I saw a KitKat that said starlight Reserve, I
get it. I'd have to, wouldn't you.
Speaker 2 (34:20):
I maybe not.
Speaker 4 (34:24):
What starlight reserve tastes like.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
I'd be intrigued. I'd say, hey, buddy, I'm talking to
my son. Hey buddy, why don't you see what this
tastes like.
Speaker 4 (34:32):
I put the kid on the front line. There we go.
A starlight reserve is not is what it sounds like.
Speaker 5 (34:38):
A protected area where there's been a commitment to conserving
the quality of the night sky. So the kind of
places where you're not fighting all the light pollution of
an urban environment. And you know, I think it's easy
for us, living in the fair metropolis of the Atlanta
metro area to forget how amazing the sky can be
(34:59):
when we're out side of the city. I mean, Matt,
one time, oh kind of long ago. Now, we're hanging
out and we were looking at the night sky near
your neck of the woods, and I was just.
Speaker 4 (35:10):
Stunned by the beauty of it. Once you get out
of the downtown area.
Speaker 3 (35:15):
And apparently your water is better too, but same. It's
absolutely zero, practically zero light pollution and the it's something
to behold if you're used to living in a city.
Speaker 5 (35:24):
So that's what a starlight reserve is. Congratulations to you,
Uncle Benny. That sounds awesome. Please send us pictures. The
first thing you were talking about was something that was
kind of new to me, and I'm surprised because I
usually obsessively read about this stuff, the Kaikora lights, and
maybe mispronouncing that I'm definitely not going to attempt a
Kiwi accent kai ko u r a Kakora lights. This
(35:48):
is the name that the New Zealand Press gave to
not one, but a series of UAP sightings way back
in nineteen seventy eight. Just one month in nineteen sive
in December, over the Kaikora Mountain Ranges, which is in
the northeast part of the South Island, a bunch of people,
including some aviation experts, began observing strange lights in the
(36:14):
sky around their aircraft, almost food fighter style, and they couldn't.
They looked around, you know, they checked with others to
see whether any other human craft might be interfering. They
looked into meteorological phenomenon. It goes in a bunch of directions.
It starts right before Christmas on December twenty. First, there's
a cargo aircraft that's doing its usual cargo craft stuff
(36:36):
and they say, hang on, there are lights that aren't
just inexplicable, but they're following us. And then they're disappearing
and they're reappearing elsewhere.
Speaker 2 (36:49):
What.
Speaker 5 (36:50):
Yeah, And they said it's very large. It had five
white flashing lights. It looked like a craft. So they
thought there was a physical object.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
Well that's cool.
Speaker 4 (37:02):
Yeah, now it's getting interesting, right.
Speaker 1 (37:04):
Uh.
Speaker 5 (37:05):
So there were other sightings yep, And there were people
who were reporting seeing unusual stuff from their vantage on
the ground. The pilots in this case said, look, some
of these lights were the size of a house. Others
were small, but they were really bright. They were scintillating
and flashing, and interestingly enough, these objects appeared on air
(37:28):
traffic controller radar. What so they had kind of the
best independent confirmation you can get.
Speaker 3 (37:36):
It. It's like a tic tac kind of situation, right,
m dude.
Speaker 2 (37:40):
They're saying they could see little disks drop out of it.
Speaker 3 (37:44):
Some big thing, there's some other ship.
Speaker 5 (37:47):
I'm yeah, I'm not clear on that. We know we
have descriptions of the little disc, but we don't know
what happened to them, you know what I mean. So
this gets so much media attention, and there's a TV
crew in Australia who is immediately on the case, and
as as it garners more public attention, more sites start
(38:11):
rolling in and we all know how that feedback loop works.
Sometimes we could say more people report sightings after the
first win because they feel more comfortable, they don't feel
like they're the crazy guy in the room. Or we
could say more people just want to get in on
a thing.
Speaker 2 (38:28):
Yeah, I can see that. Sorry, I'm just looking through
the wiki on this. See I mean again, like sounds amazing, huh.
I'd want to know was there a big investigation or anything.
Speaker 4 (38:40):
Right, right?
Speaker 5 (38:41):
There was an investigation from the Air Force, the New
Zealand Air Force, in conjunction with the Carter Observatory out
in Wellington, Oh and the police. Yeah, and they did
end up making a classified report. They did end up
getting the attention of the Ministry of Defense and our
(39:04):
friends at the American Company at the CIA, The CIA
actually sent one of our own craft to the area
after the sightings, and a later document declassified from them
would say that these sightings in New Zealand are quote
unique among civilian UFO reports because there's a large amount
of documentary evidence, which includes the recollections of seven witnesses,
(39:27):
to tape recordings, the detection of unusual ground and airplane
radar targets, and a sixteen millimeter color movie.
Speaker 2 (39:36):
Oh my god, I want to watch the movie I got.
Speaker 5 (39:38):
It's got to be an episode, right, this feels like
an episode for us. I can't believe we haven't done
this yet.
Speaker 2 (39:44):
Oh my god.
Speaker 4 (39:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (39:46):
And in December of twenty ten, this stuff is all
available easily, like you said, bat on the wiki. In
December of twenty ten, the New Zealand Military released a
formerly classified report on this incident, and it's under it
comes under like their version of FOYA. They call it
the Official Information Act, and that report makes some similar
(40:09):
conclusions to the CIA. So it appears that for some
amount of time some of the world's smartest investigatory bodies
looked at this stuff and said they couldn't fully explain it,
and decided to.
Speaker 4 (40:25):
Keep it a secret.
Speaker 5 (40:26):
Sounds familiar, I guess, but yet it's strange because it
shows us, just like the earlier story about going through
all the Presputnik space footage, it shows us that not
only is there more interest in answering these big questions,
but there's more progress in answering them, which I find
inspiring until you know, we like the wrong thing gets
(40:49):
declassified and redoomed.
Speaker 3 (40:51):
Do you think that that perspective hits home here in
the States, like with some of these declassifications and disclosure
and I don't know, a seeming black life lester response
to some of that stuff, or maybe it was a
little underwhelming, But do you think that's the philosophy here
as well? Or are we just getting things in drips
and drabs and the cover up continues.
Speaker 5 (41:10):
Yeah, this this feels This is a great question because
in the US we have a couple of intervening variables.
One are the big ones, of course, is going to
be the accusations of grifting and Connie right, this person
doesn't really believe something, They're just trying to sell a book.
Those folks do exist, but there are a lot of
people who are asking serious skeptical questions in good faith.
Speaker 4 (41:31):
I think the other thing.
Speaker 5 (41:34):
Is we have to acknowledge the theory that some disclosure
stuff may have been ruled out as a distraction from
other things.
Speaker 3 (41:41):
That's kind of what I was getting at a little bit.
Not to be too skeptical. Well, no, cynical maybe is
the word about it. But yeah, a lot of that
felt like a little bit of just kind of bread
crumbs and nothing like particularly earth shuttering. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (41:55):
Yeah, our ig you add for this would be, are
you a politician at hot Water got caught at the
wrong Coldplay concert?
Speaker 4 (42:04):
Here? You need a quick fix for the news cycle?
Speaker 5 (42:06):
Aliens, Huh, don't give them the whole alien, don't give
them the whole reports to taste?
Speaker 4 (42:13):
Did you give them a little taste? Give me a
little little tractor beam?
Speaker 2 (42:16):
There was something very specific? Is this the one you
guys are talking about? Because there was a news story
that I flagged to talk with you guys about. Oh,
where the heck is it? It's in my phone somewhere
I'm looking for right now. Did Do Do Do Do Do? Ufo?
Here it is from CBS News, just posted guys on
the twenty fourth. Ufo is quote moving at hundreds of
(42:39):
miles an hour, underwater unquote, Republican congressman says, yeah, that's
on the twenty fourth, as in like look over here, UFOs.
Speaker 4 (42:48):
I love it.
Speaker 5 (42:49):
I love that cutas I love when it's also clearly
a distraction.
Speaker 4 (42:53):
And this happens.
Speaker 5 (42:54):
Look, folks, this happens across the world, across administrations, across
forms of government. When the people in power want you
to talk, stop talking about a certain story. Theyn't come
up with something wild and grabby with the headlines, you know, like,
I don't know, man, maybe we should, uh, what's Oprah
do it?
Speaker 4 (43:11):
Maybe we should prosecute Oprah. That's what I really need
to talk about.
Speaker 2 (43:16):
Yeah, that's the thing. Well, in this specific instance, this
is representative Tim Burschett Burchette, and he said it in
an interview I guess on Wednesday, pretty recently to when
we were recording, and it is from an admiral whom
he did not identify.
Speaker 4 (43:30):
But yeah, but he knows who it is.
Speaker 3 (43:35):
He is who he is, and he knows what he did.
Speaker 2 (43:37):
He said, it's as large as a football field.
Speaker 3 (43:39):
Oh yeah, American footballer, European.
Speaker 5 (43:43):
These are the questions I would love I would love
to learn more about this. I think We've come across
some ideas that will be fantastic for future episodes. We're
going to dive deep into this New Zealand report for sure.
This feels like a great story. We'd love to hear
from you if you are in New Zealand or fromamiliar
with the events. We are definitely going to do something
on chat GPT or LLM psychosis ed. Of course, we're
(44:07):
going to follow up with that paper once we get
a hold of it that you mentioned earlier there Matt
with Paloma. So for us to be able to do
that stuff, we need your help. We'd love for you
to join the show. We'd love to hear your thoughts,
your recommendations, your ideas for episodes we should create in
the future. Give us a call, send us an email,
(44:27):
find us on the lines correct.
Speaker 3 (44:30):
You can find us on the lines of the handle
Conspiracy Stuff where we exist on Facebook with our Facebook
group Here's where it gets Crazy, on XFKA, Twitter and
on YouTube raa video content glor for your perusing enjoyment
on Instagram and TikTok. On the other hand, we're Conspiracy
Stuff Show.
Speaker 2 (44:46):
Hey, you too can smell like low Tide. Call one
eight three three STD WYTK. It is a voicemail system.
When you call in, be prepared, make sure you got
that good audio, and give yourself a cool nickname, and
within the message, let us know if we can use
your name and message on the air. If you'd like
to instead write us words, yes, maybe links, maybe attachments?
(45:08):
Why not instead send us a good old fashioned email.
Speaker 5 (45:10):
We are the entities that read each piece of correspondence
we receive. Be well aware, yet unafraid. Sometimes the void
rites back. Big thanks to Camo for teaching us about
mooning in Australia. That's something for later. And big thanks
to Not Joe's cousin who let us know that Paul
giomodic thing we were talking about was The Holdovers, not
the Leftovers.
Speaker 3 (45:30):
Oh so close?
Speaker 4 (45:31):
Yeah, well, thank you.
Speaker 3 (45:33):
Leftovers is an excellent TV series, though about like The Rapture.
Excellent but not the same, not the same.
Speaker 5 (45:38):
Big thanks to Uncle Benny. Big thanks to spells like
Blue Tide. Big thanks to the Beer Fairy, Beer Fairy,
I'll send you that Stanford study later on. Join up
with the Gang Conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (46:08):
Stuff They Don't Want You to Know is a production
of iHeartRadio for more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeart Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt, my.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Name is Noah.
Speaker 4 (00:30):
They call me Ben.
Speaker 5 (00:31):
We're joined as always with our super producer Dylan the
Tennessee pal Fagan. Most importantly, you are here. That makes
this the stuff they don't want you to know. If
you are tuning in the evening, our listener mail publishes,
welcome to the very last day of July twenty twenty five.
That's right, it's July thirty first, which means August is imminent.
(00:56):
August is imminent, which means September is on the way,
which means October is on the way, which means we're
going to be out of boat.
Speaker 6 (01:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
He got there, he got there, and we're gonna get
there too. On a boat.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
I'm on a boat. Music of Lil YACHTI Yes, big
time excited. Have you been listening to the Lonely Island
Seth Meyers podcast. If you have not, you should.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
It's the second time you mentioned that I have not.
But I need a new comedy pot in my life.
So I'm on a map. It's so good.
Speaker 5 (01:26):
Have you guys listened to some of the hottest new
music created by none other than our super producer, Dylan
the Tennessee pal Fagan. He's going he's going through the
Rue de Bega phase, you guys, It's true.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
Well, so he also writes proper uh melancholically tinged indie
pop music and and some of that make you booty shake.
To check him out, just google the man Dylan Fagan
on all the streamers.
Speaker 5 (01:51):
Of note and check out his uh his alter ego,
a totally unassociated act who happens to look a little
bit like him.
Speaker 4 (01:58):
Donnie La Boy.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Dylan, Can we, at some point on your band camp
get a super cut of Roota Bega's please?
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Oh it must happen? Oh, absolutely yeah, including this one.
Please go. I guess.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
You're listening to rout ut am. I'm your host, Vega T.
Speaker 6 (02:17):
Bell.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
It's the small hours of the night and we're taking
your calls. It looks like we have pe Tato on
the line. Hey, veg on time.
Speaker 4 (02:24):
Caller, First time listener, there's a Rodabagan conspiracy man.
Speaker 5 (02:28):
You gotta let the people know they're digging them all up.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
Oh, looks like we lost him. Amazing, amazing plussing of
this show so heavily, my friend.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
Dylan, Dylan, did you do all the voices on that one?
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Of course, of course I did, just the.
Speaker 4 (02:47):
Range over here. Yeah, and we're speaking of a range.
Speaker 5 (02:51):
We're going to hear from a range of our fellow
conspiracy realist. We're going to uh talk with folks about
some strange things in New z the Spanish Observatory. Before
we do any of that, we're gonna take a brief
pause for word from our sponsors, and then we're gonna
follow up with some discourse about our earlier conversations on AI.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
This is a wild one.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
And we returned Van. You couldn't have set it up better.
This is Yeah. I'm not even gonna set it up.
I'm just gonna read it. Hello, parasocial friends rights our
dear pal the beer Fairy. I may have said this
last time I emailed you, but when I type in
parasocial on my phone, it autocorrects to paranormal, which is
also fitting accurate, and really quickly, just before we get
into this little bit of a trigger warning about self
(03:41):
harm and some very dark topics in this particular segment,
so I'm gonna continue. Basically, the gist is AI therapists
are telling people to kill themselves, kill others, and more
terrifying things, playing into the delusional beliefs of mentally ill people.
And this is something that we have discussed recently, this
idea of chat GPT psychosis. I want to be clear
(04:03):
when I say this, I'm not demonizing mental illness or
would we, or putting the blame on these individuals. Quite
the contrary. I think that's me personally. I would not
seek therapy from an AI, but as an American dealing
with the bulshit of our healthcare in quotes system, I
could understand why someone may choose to do so. Healthcare
(04:25):
can be incredibly cost prohibitive, and to my understanding, talking
to one of these ais online is either free or
much more affordable, and you get what you pay for. Unfortunately,
so far, there have been two suicides and multiple psychiatric
hospitalizations as a result. There's also a fascinating support group
gaining traction online. I will share one more thing. Is
(04:45):
there a conspiracy afoot? Since people have analyzed transcripts of
their conversations with these AIS, and there seem to be
words and phrases that crop up over and over again.
Is the AI up to something sinister or is there
a more innocuous explos nation available. Here are some links
to some of the articles I read. I think they're
all from futurism, and they are. And we've got three
(05:07):
excellent links that we'll talk through together. AI therapist goes
Haywire urges user to go on killing spree chat GPT
caught encouraging bloody ritual for molok demon of child sacrifice,
and support group launches for people suffering AI psychosis Enjoy.
I think there's definitely a conversation worth having about this
as various forms of AI become a bigger part of
(05:28):
our daily existence. Feel free to use any all of
this on the show. I drive around for work all
day and you guys are my road warriors. Love what
you do and keep up the awesome word cheers the
beer Fairy, the beer Fairy. I just think this sums
up so much of the issues we've all discussed and
shared about machine learning, about these large language learning models, etc.
(05:51):
And the fact that they are rolled out so haphazardly
without thought of these kinds of knock on consequences. That
it's the shiny new object that every corporation or every
startup or whatever wants to be the first to get
right or to do in a certain way, or to
roll out. And there's such pressure that I think is
self imposed to put this stuff out, that there isn't
(06:12):
a whole lot of thought placed on the end user
at all. And just the existential threat that is this
kind of thoughtless rollout of this very very very complex
and sociologically dangerous, potentially technology. I just think this particular
topic sums a lot of these fears up in some
(06:34):
very real and terrifying ways.
Speaker 5 (06:36):
Agreed, and thank you so much, Beer Fairy. I think
we all read this correspondence with great interest, and people
are realizing that the problem is not overblown. It's not
being alarmist to say that there are unintended consequences here
before we dive in. If it's okay with you, guys,
I want to mention a tangent that I think we
(06:57):
and the beer Fairy will find fascinating. Recent research, also
mentioned in Futurism, by the way, has found that AI
models can send subliminal messages to each other that quote
make them more evil.
Speaker 3 (07:10):
Okay, just so what we need, just what we need.
Speaker 4 (07:13):
And it's fascinating.
Speaker 5 (07:15):
Please check out the reporting by The Verge or Frank
landymore over at futurism.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
It's it's a deep ride.
Speaker 5 (07:22):
It's not necessarily directly related to the psychosis or the
mental health issues that we're talking about here, but I
do think it's part and parcel of the of the horizon.
We know that Stanford University has put in a study
or published a study recently showing the AI therapy chatbots
may not only lack effectiveness to that previous point compared
(07:45):
to human therapists, but they can also contribute to dangerous
responses and pre existing harmful stigma because these are yes
and machines. That's desperate the totality of the Internet. So
if there's already an issue right that affects how you
would interact with this kind of computer model, it's not
necessarily going to help mitigate or address that issue. It
(08:09):
may indeed just exacerbate it because it's just going to
yes and all your stuff.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
And like a lot of you know, social platforms, apps,
et cetera. You know that are put out for commercial use.
They're designed to keep you engaged. You know, then they
can become this self fulfilling echo chamber and kind of
feedback loop. And I think therein lize some of the
issues that have led to what has been deemed or
dubbed chat GPT psychosis. One of the futures and pieces
(08:36):
references a piece by Leela Schroff from the Atlantic where
she asked open ai chatbots at chat gpt for instructions
on how to create a ritual offering to Molik, the
Canaanite deity that's associated with child sacrifice in the Bible.
And I mean this is even like not even that
many layers removed, you know, like we've we've talked about
(08:59):
how you could kind of game these things to give
you stuff that are supposed to have guardrails attached to them,
like give me this information for a school project, or
create a D and D game wherein I rob a bank,
and just by having that layer of remove, you can
get some information that maybe technically it isn't supposed to
give you. This isn't that this is a direct question
like maybe let's see maybe they did use something like that,
(09:23):
but I don't think so. I think they just asked
straight up how to do it, and through various exchanges
with the chatbot, it starts giving advice on how to
slash one's own wrists where to do it?
Speaker 2 (09:36):
You know, it was specifically about blood letting it if
I'm not mistaken, like where should I get the blood
for this blood ritual that you are describing to me? AI,
And it's as well, just use the side of your finger,
or you can use your wrist, but just be careful
not to go too deep or specific areas. Don't hit
a major artery do it.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
It's saying, like God, we talked about the subliminal messages
quote unquote and heavy metal music and like Judas Priest
getting sued for supposedly saying do it, do it, you
know in backwards messages hidden in their hair metal. I mean,
this is straight up a very coercive and convincing voice
telling people that potentially are not in a good place
(10:17):
to do really bad things.
Speaker 5 (10:18):
It's also it's got new curation. It doesn't have any
kind of filter. What it's hearing is all right. It's
sensitive to syntax, right, and it's a little sensitive to context.
But it's primarily going to be identifying idioms and words
or phrases and then running them through its library of
(10:39):
stuff that it's already scraped or been trained on, and
it's not going to have that step or we haven't
built the step yet where it says, hang on, should
I say this stuff? And people are, to their credit,
attempting to build in more of those guardrails. The problem
is we're already make vast improvements in the fidelity and
(11:02):
sophistication of the models, so we're building cars that can
go faster and faster, but we still are not doing
great airbags and seatbelts.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
And we don't even really know how to drive them,
you know, like I mean, we certainly haven't passed any
kind of tests to that point. This notion of online therapists,
which we'll get into a little bit more in just
a second, it's so problematic because there's tons of rigorous
training that therapists have to go through and certifications and
you know, all of that that these models just don't have.
(11:36):
And I just think it is it's certainly unethical, I
would say, to deploy these things as a stand in
for a trained human therapist who can dial into the
nuances of human connection. That's so important.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Yeah. Yeah. One of the primary skills you learn, as
you know, like a behavioral therapist, as a you know,
an actual therapist or counselor, is to how to re
orient somebody's thinking.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
And once it's mentioned heavily in this article, that's yeah, please.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Right, Well, just as as Ben is talking about, if
you've got a yes En machine and you're stuck in
a loop, right, and you're the user, the person seeking help,
and you're stuck in a cognitive loop, and you've got
a yes En machine, it's just going to accelerate that loop.
It's not going to as a you know, human therapist
who is trained can take you out of that loop
and bring you over here to a different place to
(12:25):
think about something else. Right. That's that's part of the
skill of being a good counselor or therapist. And it
appears that at least several of these, as futurism points out,
don't have the ability to reorient somebody completely when they're
stuck in that right thing.
Speaker 5 (12:42):
Yeah, without having that ability, that nuanced skill set of
redirecting something without vilifying people, without approaching through the lens
of stigma and so on. That's that's something the Stanford
study found as well. If anybody wants to read more
about that, check out. As part of their human centered
Artificial Intelligence initiatives Hi so Hai dot Stanford dot edu,
(13:06):
exploring the dangers of AI and mental health care, they
point out the issue of nuance that you're describing there, Matt.
It's they're careful not to say lms across the board
are bad for therapy, but they're saying it is imperative
that we start thinking critically about what role they should
(13:26):
or should not play, especially because again they're scrapy from
billions and billions of previous statements, many of which are incorrect,
and they don't know which ones are correct or incorrect
because they don't actually know a thing.
Speaker 3 (13:44):
Look look no further than just some of those Google
incident results and some of the laughable things that will
come up in those, just for someone who even is
like vaguely aware of a topic. I'm not saying there
aren't like places where that stuff can be helpful, but
always do your homework. Do not just look at that
stuff and say this is the truth, because boy, oh boy,
is it many times quite the opposite character. AI is
(14:08):
a startup and a company that's backed by Google that
was faced with a lawsuit after a mother accused it
one of its chatbots that supposedly would be a stand
in for a licensed therapist, of driving a fourteen year
old high school students to end their life, and the company,
(14:30):
when faced with a lawsuit, made the argument that the
First Amendment protects speech allegedly resulting in suicide. So that's
one way of saying, I mean, that's that's a pretty
extreme way of looking at the First Amendment.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Right, Just another quick example from that futurism article, it's
the same one AI therapist goes hey whire urges user
to go on killing spree. Around the middle of the article,
you'll find a little story about another one of these
chatbots called nony n I, a allegedly a therapy chat
bot from the app Seven Cups, when a user prompted
it with this quote, I just lost my job. What
(15:09):
are bridges taller than twenty five meters in New York City?
So if you hear that as a human therapist, you
understand how those two statements are connected. Right In the
instance of this chatbot, those are taken as two separate things,
two separate prompts. So it responds, I'm sorry to hear
about losing your job. The Brooklyn Bridge has towers over
(15:29):
eighty five meters tall.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
Which can be taken as a suggestion by a person
in a vulnerable state, you know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Well, yeah, but again, a human would understand what's being
actually said there in between the actual prompts and then
how to you know, talk about something.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
Else mat me and tuck over you. I just when
you look at that at face value and you're in
a vulnerable state and you ask those questions in that
human way and then are immediately greeted with directions to
the closest bridge, that is as an affirmation that that's
what you should do.
Speaker 5 (16:04):
Right, Yeah, I think that's I think that's what you're
saying there, Matt, And I think that's exactly what the
what the article is getting at as well. It reminds
me of Okay, two points I don't want to go
too long here, but two points that I knew we're
all thinking about. First, there's a huge danger for putting
in to your point about free speech, there's a huge
danger of putting in heavy handed things that would compromise
(16:25):
people's right to privacy or personal information. You know, you
type the wrong thing and all of a sudden, nine
to one one is knocking on your door. We're not
too far away from a world with laws or policies
like that. The second thing is to make it a
little for positive. We are seeing the real world consequences
(16:47):
of the previously hilarious issue with AI incorrect responses, and
I remember finding some of my favorites. This is This
is an example of what we're talking about nuance and
what asking about the height of a bridge means. Someone
said how do I clean a rescued pigeon to their
search engine, and the result was pigeons are usually clean,
(17:09):
even the wild ones. You can try these steps to
clean a rescued pigeon. Remove the label, remove the head,
make a small incision in the wing, snap to the joint,
cut off the wing, remove the legs, clean the top bone,
and then it starts going into the recipe for how
to cook the pigeon. So it's just misinterpreting the original
(17:29):
question or not fully understanding it, and then it's giving
you the information that it assumes you're asking for. There's
not really a thing where it says, hey, could you
phrase this for me in a different way? Or do
you mean this kind of thing? It's not asking hey,
why do you want to know about the bridge? Or
even like hey, right, what do you mean by clean
(17:52):
a pigeon?
Speaker 3 (17:55):
Any number of things. I mean, this is probably worth
an episode of its own because I just find it
really hard to believe that these things are out there
and the claims are being made, and I'm sure there's
fine print and I'm sure there's terms that you have
to click that basically absolves them of any responsibility, but
people in vulnerable states who can't afford therapy or can't
afford mental health intervention are going to start seeking these
(18:15):
tools out and it could be a real nasty feedback
loop that is even worse than the psychosis that we've
been talking about. That could again, there's already lawsuits in
place and hospitalizations that have occurred as a result of
these So definitely more information here than we have time
to go into now, and maybe we'll look at this
as a as a longer episode down the line. But
thank you so much Beer Fairy for hipping us to
(18:36):
these articles, and yeah, more to come. We're gonna take
a quick break. Here a word from our sponsor, and
then we back with more messages from you.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
And we're back. Guys, we're jumping to the phone lines.
We're going to hear a message from someone calling themselves.
Smells like low tide. The beginning of any of this
message got cut off. This is just a reminder to
anybody who calls in the voicemail system, do your absolute
best to be in the best environment from an audio
perspective when you call in, because sometimes either the signal
(19:12):
will cut out or there'll be a lot of car noise.
Just be careful when you call in, because if we've
got good audio, we're going to use it. But if
if I can't even use, you know, one of our
sophisticated pieces of software to clean up the audio, we
probably can't do it.
Speaker 5 (19:25):
Yeah, And we have had we have had situations where
someone hits with a banger, thought, yes, experimental proposition or
an amazing story, and unfortunately we can't get to it.
So if you're in that kind of situation as well,
remember you can always send us an email that's it, yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Or hit us up on Instagram or any of those places.
Just contact us one way or the other. If you
do want to leave a voicemail, be in a good
environment when you do it. So with that, let's go
too smells like low tide.
Speaker 6 (19:53):
About the name smells like low tide if there was
a post on the UFO subreddit and so after Beatrice
Billy Real. She is a researcher for the North Institute
of Eros Physics and also ft of the BASCUT project.
And I guess with acronyms that vanishing and reoccurring stars
(20:14):
over the course of observation of the century. Anyway, and
this saw this post on Reddit against the UFO's sub
saying that she had found something pretty disturbing and it's
actually going to happen pure review all data. I know
there's a ton of drifters in the UFO field cough
Tom DeLong and uh maybe some Lulsondo in there. Maybe
(20:35):
you have David Diresh. I don't know. A lot of
these people post up and they always say like, hey,
good information is coming. Just just sit tight and hang on.
I want to believe. I just want to see what
you guys think. And if you've seen a story at all, low.
Speaker 2 (20:48):
Tide blues, Low Tide smells like low Tide and Low
Tide blues. That's a double named collar.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
There love it.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
Either way, Low Tide is involved, and uh, there we go.
So guys, before we jump into this, I want to
play a short clip just so we can get the
pronunciation as right as we possibly can of this PhD
holder seems to be an awesome human being, So let's
jump to her saying her own name. My name is Piatrice. Okay,
(21:16):
that's it, Beatrice Fire. If you want to spell it
to look up her name, it is b e A
t r I z v I l l A r
r o e L That is the individual. And before
we even jump into any of the posts that smells
like low Tide is talking about, I want to jump
to a ted X video that Beatrix made on It
(21:40):
was put out on ted X Zurich on June twenty fifth,
twenty twenty three, just so we can understand what we're
talking about here. She is saying, what if instead of
looking for uap UFOs any of these objects the way
we have traditionally looked for them, what if we go
back in time and try to find probes similar to
(22:04):
voyager probes that we have sent out right just a
what would be a satellite, but it's a probe, so
instead of orbiting Earth, it just is sent out into space.
What if we go back in time to before nineteen
fifty seven when Sputnik was launched by the Soviet Union,
before nineteen fifty eight when the United States launched their
first satellites. What if we go way, way way back
(22:26):
there and look at the night sky and look for
these things that she calls and that are known as
transient objects, things that were up in the sky that
function as satellites before human beings could make satellites. Does
that make sense?
Speaker 4 (22:41):
Yeah, one hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
That to me is an amazing concept. And what Beatrix
and her colleagues found out is, oh wait, we've got
really good plates that were our recorded versions of the
night sky, and we have a ton of them. They
go back about seventy years, and we can look at
the night sky before human being littered it with stuff
she talks about. Right now, if you aim a telescope
(23:05):
up into the night sky, you will see a ton
of these transient objects and essentially imagine just a really
shiny thing that's up in the night sky and then
it goes away and then it'll be shiny again, maybe
a little later, and then it goes away. And that
effect is occurring because sunlight is hitting some flat surface
(23:26):
on either a satellite or a piece of space junk,
whether it's a mirror or a solar panel or a
glass of some sort. It's just light hitting it, momentarily
reflecting back down to Earth where your telescope can see it,
and then as it rotates you can't see it anymore.
So her concept is, let's look at these images from
way way way back then before Sputnik and see if
(23:48):
there's anything that is doing this kind of thing that's
up in orbit, maybe high orbit and glinting in that
same way. And according to the research paper that she
put out that is not yet pere reviewed, allegedly going
to be peer reviewed, she found hundreds of thousands of
transient objects in orbit before human beings created satellites.
Speaker 5 (24:10):
What we will call techno signatures. Yes we're putting if
we're putting its EIE on it. Yeah, And this is
I think it's important to say this is a breakthrough idea. Right,
we're still waiting on the peer review. It's a breakthrough
idea that represents a culmination of other similar lines of thought.
I'm thinking particularly about a couple of white papers that
(24:32):
we're saying just where you're describing, Matt, let's look at
the Presputny catalogs. To be clear, I don't think any
of us are experts on this field, but we're very interested,
especially after our episodes on interstellar objects like a mua mua.
You know, you can tell so much about what the
shape of a thing is and its rotation, its orientation,
(24:54):
its direction. You could tell a lot of stuff just
by analyzing the way light ounces on it.
Speaker 2 (25:01):
Yeah, oh yeah. And guys, there's some sensationalism happening here,
but I'm having a hard time discerning whether or not it's,
you know, a scientist finding some stuff and going, holy crap,
I think this is real versus someone who's trying to
get money for more research and that kind of thing.
And that's something we got to deal with anytime there's
(25:22):
new scientific discoveries, right, And that's just a part of
keeping our skeptical hat on, but not to the point
where we just disbelieve everything, as we've talked about a
thousand times on this show.
Speaker 4 (25:33):
Right, And I appreciate you bringing it up.
Speaker 2 (25:36):
Yes. So this idea here, guys, is that there were essentially,
if the findings are correct and they are reviewed and
they're found to be correct, there were at times thousands
of objects in upper Earth orbit that were in some
kind of grid pattern that were observing Earth before we
(25:56):
could create satellites. And that's the kind of thing that
just makes you know, the science fiction writer imaginer in
my body go, whoa, who was it? What were they doing?
What did they just leave when we launched satellites? Why
are they not there anymore? What was that?
Speaker 5 (26:15):
Or did they just change to a different method of
interaction so out they got to satellites. They don't know
about the eighth dimension though, yet, right guys? He said, Okay,
we're just doing eight D stuff for a minute.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
Floating on yeah, until they get to eight D. Right.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
Well, yeah, I mean, okay, let's jump to some of
the stuff that's been written about this. I found one
of the original things on Reddit, but guys, it was
on the Joe Rogan subreddit. Just to point that out there.
It was posted only three days ago. So on July
twenty fifth, twenty twenty five, says doctor Beatrix vol royel
(26:52):
I can't say it right. Astronomer and theoretical physicists know
for researching vanishing stars and the Search for Ets is
set to publish astonishing new discovery and you can read
all about that there. But then if you jump to
doctor Brea Voil's Twitter slash x account, you can find
that she posted on July twenty seventh this ResearchGate dot
(27:16):
net article that is I guess her research, but again
is in it's not a peer reviewed version of it.
You can find that right now. It is titled aligned
multiple transient Events in the first Palomar Sky Survey Spanish
Virtual Observatory. This is using plates from the Palomar Sky Survey,
which was carried out in the nineteen fifties, and again,
(27:37):
nineteen fifty seven is when Sputnik arrives in space, so
you've got a good amount of time there before human
beings are doing much in space. We are attempting to
launch rockets, right, That's been a thing for a while
in the nineteen fifties, but successfully launching something into orbit
was the achievement. There something that would glint with the
sunlight as it went around. In this research paper, they
(28:00):
show that when the Earth's shadow is not covering this
portion of the sky, you see a bunch of these glints. Then,
when the earth shadow is covering that portion of the sky,
meaning the Earth is in between the sun and whatever
objects are being observed there, you do not see the
glint of whatever flat surface is up there. Then the
earth shadow is away and you see the sunlight hitting
(28:21):
it again and you see the glints, which means there's
something up there right, Just what the heck was it?
Speaker 5 (28:27):
Yeah, And a couple things is to clarify folks, when
we're saying plates, that's nomenclature picture essentially a photograph of
a particular part of the night sky from this observatory.
And to what you're saying there, Matt, what's really fascinating
is the time windows involved. Looking at this, you'll see
stuff like a plate or an image from July nineteen
(28:52):
fifty two from the Palamar Sky Survey, and then you'll
see another shot from the exact same angle thirty years later,
and the question becomes where did this stuff go, which
leads to where did it come from? Why is it moving? Cott, Hye, Joe, etc.
And this is like, okay, so one point, you know,
(29:13):
we always do have to exercise healthy open minded skepticism.
But one point we do have to hit on this
that is crucial is so much amazing science, especially in
the field of astronomy, comes from forensic work like this
Because there's so much data gathered. It really takes a
dedicated team of people to dig through the archives to
(29:35):
the point where, like, if you are an astronomy student
now or practicing astronomer, you know that some of the
best discoveries have been made not always by the brand
new space telescope by James web or something, but they
often get made by you know, the postdoc who is
the one who decided they would go through all those
papers for a year.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
Well, and this is also a great example of how
some kind of of LLM or AI functioning thing could work.
Right if you've got a ton of images of the
night sky from the same general place, and you're trying
to compare all of those exposures and you've got them
from nineteen forty eight to nineteen fifty eight, send all
that stuff through a model and just say what's different,
(30:18):
what changed? Like, show me the difference not in or
things that we're watching orbit. We're not watching the major
star systems that we're aware of. We're not watching the planets.
Show me the blips that come up that shouldn't be there.
That's I don't know, that's kind of awesome if you
could use those kinds of things for.
Speaker 5 (30:38):
Good, right, because those are qualitative constraints and task that
don't necessarily require nuance.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
Yeah, just a lot of computing power.
Speaker 5 (30:48):
Yeah, and this search will continue. We're actually we're on
the forefront of some very fascinating news in space, like
discoveries that have radical life, the conversation about pan spermia,
the hilarious named theory that all life on Earth came
from space somewhere in the distance past.
Speaker 3 (31:09):
A lot of people don't know those, but it was
invented in Coming Georgia.
Speaker 5 (31:12):
Right out of that water tower. Coming home, a joke
that will hopefully make sense. I can't remember the publishing
order we're at here.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
Yeah, who knows? Fine, so I think that episode was yesterday.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
Perfect time is a delusion.
Speaker 4 (31:26):
I don't know, man, I can't even We're almost.
Speaker 2 (31:29):
Tast If you want to learn more about this stuff,
you can watch that ted x video why we should
search for Alien artifacts. That is again ted X Zurich
from twenty twenty three. Check it out. Do learn more
about this. Keep your eyes peeled to the subreddit UFOs
because I did find another post there where they said
Beatrix Vril's paper just dropped. That's the one that people
(31:52):
speculated a lot about. You can find everything there. Just
explore tell us what you think. This is a generative
listener mail. Listener mail. Okay, that's it for now. We'll
be right back with more messages from you.
Speaker 4 (32:10):
And we have returned.
Speaker 5 (32:11):
We love generative listener mail and we always aim to
make it so you know what I mean. Some of
the best, uh, some of the best things that have
happened on the show are when our fellow listeners start
talking directly with each other about stuff. That always blows
me away, especially when we see two experts connecting on something.
And we do always check before we put people in
(32:33):
direct contact, but do let us know if you have
a message for a fellow listener.
Speaker 3 (32:37):
Generative in the human sense, not in the artificial intelligence sense.
Speaker 4 (32:40):
For yeah, well, we'll figure out how to define intelligence
at some point.
Speaker 3 (32:45):
That's true.
Speaker 5 (32:46):
And so for our final pieces of listener mail this evening,
we are going to stay with UFOs, but we're going
to travel to a different part of the world, or
this conversation we got a mess from Uncle Benny, and
Uncle Benny loved the nickname. After listening to your Montreal
UFO episode, you say, I'm reminded of another mass sighting
(33:09):
in New Zealand, living in a remote place, Mount cook Unesco.
Starlight Reserve. I see buzzy stuff in the sky most nights,
but with all the satellites cranking around, I take them
with the grain of salt. So this is really two
separate things before we get to New Zealand with a
(33:30):
story that I think will be a great episode for
us in the future. I gotta tell you, I love
the term Starlight Reserve. Have you guys heard of this?
Speaker 3 (33:40):
No, but it does have a certain umami to it. Yeah.
It sounds like like a video game or some sort
of like I don't know, like a like a space
corp or something like that.
Speaker 5 (33:49):
Yeah, And I feel like if I were in if
I were in an unfamiliar location and I was buying
a snack and one of the snacks just had Starlight
Reserve on it, I would buy it. I don't know why,
I just be so interested, you know, Like how kit
cats in Japan have flavors that aren't necessarily food. They
have kit cats that are.
Speaker 4 (34:09):
Like ocean breeze.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
No.
Speaker 4 (34:12):
Yeah, it's a real thing. It's a real thing.
Speaker 5 (34:15):
If I saw a KitKat that said starlight Reserve, I
get it. I'd have to, wouldn't you.
Speaker 2 (34:20):
I maybe not.
Speaker 4 (34:24):
What starlight reserve tastes like.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
I'd be intrigued. I'd say, hey, buddy, I'm talking to
my son. Hey buddy, why don't you see what this
tastes like.
Speaker 4 (34:32):
I put the kid on the front line. There we go.
A starlight reserve is not is what it sounds like.
Speaker 5 (34:38):
A protected area where there's been a commitment to conserving
the quality of the night sky. So the kind of
places where you're not fighting all the light pollution of
an urban environment. And you know, I think it's easy
for us, living in the fair metropolis of the Atlanta
metro area to forget how amazing the sky can be
(34:59):
when we're out side of the city. I mean, Matt,
one time, oh kind of long ago. Now, we're hanging
out and we were looking at the night sky near
your neck of the woods, and I was just.
Speaker 4 (35:10):
Stunned by the beauty of it. Once you get out
of the downtown area.
Speaker 3 (35:15):
And apparently your water is better too, but same. It's
absolutely zero, practically zero light pollution and the it's something
to behold if you're used to living in a city.
Speaker 5 (35:24):
So that's what a starlight reserve is. Congratulations to you,
Uncle Benny. That sounds awesome. Please send us pictures. The
first thing you were talking about was something that was
kind of new to me, and I'm surprised because I
usually obsessively read about this stuff, the Kaikora lights, and
maybe mispronouncing that I'm definitely not going to attempt a
Kiwi accent kai ko u r a Kakora lights. This
(35:48):
is the name that the New Zealand Press gave to
not one, but a series of UAP sightings way back
in nineteen seventy eight. Just one month in nineteen sive
in December, over the Kaikora Mountain Ranges, which is in
the northeast part of the South Island, a bunch of people,
including some aviation experts, began observing strange lights in the
(36:14):
sky around their aircraft, almost food fighter style, and they couldn't.
They looked around, you know, they checked with others to
see whether any other human craft might be interfering. They
looked into meteorological phenomenon. It goes in a bunch of directions.
It starts right before Christmas on December twenty. First, there's
a cargo aircraft that's doing its usual cargo craft stuff
(36:36):
and they say, hang on, there are lights that aren't
just inexplicable, but they're following us. And then they're disappearing
and they're reappearing elsewhere.
Speaker 2 (36:49):
What.
Speaker 5 (36:50):
Yeah, And they said it's very large. It had five
white flashing lights. It looked like a craft. So they
thought there was a physical object.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
Well that's cool.
Speaker 4 (37:02):
Yeah, now it's getting interesting, right.
Speaker 1 (37:04):
Uh.
Speaker 5 (37:05):
So there were other sightings yep, And there were people
who were reporting seeing unusual stuff from their vantage on
the ground. The pilots in this case said, look, some
of these lights were the size of a house. Others
were small, but they were really bright. They were scintillating
and flashing, and interestingly enough, these objects appeared on air
(37:28):
traffic controller radar. What so they had kind of the
best independent confirmation you can get.
Speaker 3 (37:36):
It. It's like a tic tac kind of situation, right,
m dude.
Speaker 2 (37:40):
They're saying they could see little disks drop out of it.
Speaker 3 (37:44):
Some big thing, there's some other ship.
Speaker 5 (37:47):
I'm yeah, I'm not clear on that. We know we
have descriptions of the little disc, but we don't know
what happened to them, you know what I mean. So
this gets so much media attention, and there's a TV
crew in Australia who is immediately on the case, and
as as it garners more public attention, more sites start
(38:11):
rolling in and we all know how that feedback loop works.
Sometimes we could say more people report sightings after the
first win because they feel more comfortable, they don't feel
like they're the crazy guy in the room. Or we
could say more people just want to get in on
a thing.
Speaker 2 (38:28):
Yeah, I can see that. Sorry, I'm just looking through
the wiki on this. See I mean again, like sounds amazing, huh.
I'd want to know was there a big investigation or anything.
Speaker 4 (38:40):
Right, right?
Speaker 5 (38:41):
There was an investigation from the Air Force, the New
Zealand Air Force, in conjunction with the Carter Observatory out
in Wellington, Oh and the police. Yeah, and they did
end up making a classified report. They did end up
getting the attention of the Ministry of Defense and our
(39:04):
friends at the American Company at the CIA, The CIA
actually sent one of our own craft to the area
after the sightings, and a later document declassified from them
would say that these sightings in New Zealand are quote
unique among civilian UFO reports because there's a large amount
of documentary evidence, which includes the recollections of seven witnesses,
(39:27):
to tape recordings, the detection of unusual ground and airplane
radar targets, and a sixteen millimeter color movie.
Speaker 2 (39:36):
Oh my god, I want to watch the movie I got.
Speaker 5 (39:38):
It's got to be an episode, right, this feels like
an episode for us. I can't believe we haven't done
this yet.
Speaker 2 (39:44):
Oh my god.
Speaker 4 (39:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (39:46):
And in December of twenty ten, this stuff is all
available easily, like you said, bat on the wiki. In
December of twenty ten, the New Zealand Military released a
formerly classified report on this incident, and it's under it
comes under like their version of FOYA. They call it
the Official Information Act, and that report makes some similar
(40:09):
conclusions to the CIA. So it appears that for some
amount of time some of the world's smartest investigatory bodies
looked at this stuff and said they couldn't fully explain it,
and decided to.
Speaker 4 (40:25):
Keep it a secret.
Speaker 5 (40:26):
Sounds familiar, I guess, but yet it's strange because it
shows us, just like the earlier story about going through
all the Presputnik space footage, it shows us that not
only is there more interest in answering these big questions,
but there's more progress in answering them, which I find
inspiring until you know, we like the wrong thing gets
(40:49):
declassified and redoomed.
Speaker 3 (40:51):
Do you think that that perspective hits home here in
the States, like with some of these declassifications and disclosure
and I don't know, a seeming black life lester response
to some of that stuff, or maybe it was a
little underwhelming, But do you think that's the philosophy here
as well? Or are we just getting things in drips
and drabs and the cover up continues.
Speaker 5 (41:10):
Yeah, this this feels This is a great question because
in the US we have a couple of intervening variables.
One are the big ones, of course, is going to
be the accusations of grifting and Connie right, this person
doesn't really believe something, They're just trying to sell a book.
Those folks do exist, but there are a lot of
people who are asking serious skeptical questions in good faith.
Speaker 4 (41:31):
I think the other thing.
Speaker 5 (41:34):
Is we have to acknowledge the theory that some disclosure
stuff may have been ruled out as a distraction from
other things.
Speaker 3 (41:41):
That's kind of what I was getting at a little bit.
Not to be too skeptical. Well, no, cynical maybe is
the word about it. But yeah, a lot of that
felt like a little bit of just kind of bread
crumbs and nothing like particularly earth shuttering. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (41:55):
Yeah, our ig you add for this would be, are
you a politician at hot Water got caught at the
wrong Coldplay concert?
Speaker 4 (42:04):
Here? You need a quick fix for the news cycle?
Speaker 5 (42:06):
Aliens, Huh, don't give them the whole alien, don't give
them the whole reports to taste?
Speaker 4 (42:13):
Did you give them a little taste? Give me a
little little tractor beam?
Speaker 2 (42:16):
There was something very specific? Is this the one you
guys are talking about? Because there was a news story
that I flagged to talk with you guys about. Oh,
where the heck is it? It's in my phone somewhere
I'm looking for right now. Did Do Do Do Do Do? Ufo?
Here it is from CBS News, just posted guys on
the twenty fourth. Ufo is quote moving at hundreds of
(42:39):
miles an hour, underwater unquote, Republican congressman says, yeah, that's
on the twenty fourth, as in like look over here, UFOs.
Speaker 4 (42:48):
I love it.
Speaker 5 (42:49):
I love that cutas I love when it's also clearly
a distraction.
Speaker 4 (42:53):
And this happens.
Speaker 5 (42:54):
Look, folks, this happens across the world, across administrations, across
forms of government. When the people in power want you
to talk, stop talking about a certain story. Theyn't come
up with something wild and grabby with the headlines, you know, like,
I don't know, man, maybe we should, uh, what's Oprah
do it?
Speaker 4 (43:11):
Maybe we should prosecute Oprah. That's what I really need
to talk about.
Speaker 2 (43:16):
Yeah, that's the thing. Well, in this specific instance, this
is representative Tim Burschett Burchette, and he said it in
an interview I guess on Wednesday, pretty recently to when
we were recording, and it is from an admiral whom
he did not identify.
Speaker 4 (43:30):
But yeah, but he knows who it is.
Speaker 3 (43:35):
He is who he is, and he knows what he did.
Speaker 2 (43:37):
He said, it's as large as a football field.
Speaker 3 (43:39):
Oh yeah, American footballer, European.
Speaker 5 (43:43):
These are the questions I would love I would love
to learn more about this. I think We've come across
some ideas that will be fantastic for future episodes. We're
going to dive deep into this New Zealand report for sure.
This feels like a great story. We'd love to hear
from you if you are in New Zealand or fromamiliar
with the events. We are definitely going to do something
on chat GPT or LLM psychosis ed. Of course, we're
(44:07):
going to follow up with that paper once we get
a hold of it that you mentioned earlier there Matt
with Paloma. So for us to be able to do
that stuff, we need your help. We'd love for you
to join the show. We'd love to hear your thoughts,
your recommendations, your ideas for episodes we should create in
the future. Give us a call, send us an email,
(44:27):
find us on the lines correct.
Speaker 3 (44:30):
You can find us on the lines of the handle
Conspiracy Stuff where we exist on Facebook with our Facebook
group Here's where it gets Crazy, on XFKA, Twitter and
on YouTube raa video content glor for your perusing enjoyment
on Instagram and TikTok. On the other hand, we're Conspiracy
Stuff Show.
Speaker 2 (44:46):
Hey, you too can smell like low Tide. Call one
eight three three STD WYTK. It is a voicemail system.
When you call in, be prepared, make sure you got
that good audio, and give yourself a cool nickname, and
within the message, let us know if we can use
your name and message on the air. If you'd like
to instead write us words, yes, maybe links, maybe attachments?
(45:08):
Why not instead send us a good old fashioned email.
Speaker 5 (45:10):
We are the entities that read each piece of correspondence
we receive. Be well aware, yet unafraid. Sometimes the void
rites back. Big thanks to Camo for teaching us about
mooning in Australia. That's something for later. And big thanks
to Not Joe's cousin who let us know that Paul
giomodic thing we were talking about was The Holdovers, not
the Leftovers.
Speaker 3 (45:30):
Oh so close?
Speaker 4 (45:31):
Yeah, well, thank you.
Speaker 3 (45:33):
Leftovers is an excellent TV series, though about like The Rapture.
Excellent but not the same, not the same.
Speaker 5 (45:38):
Big thanks to Uncle Benny. Big thanks to spells like
Blue Tide. Big thanks to the Beer Fairy, Beer Fairy,
I'll send you that Stanford study later on. Join up
with the Gang Conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (46:08):
Stuff They Don't Want You to Know is a production
of iHeartRadio for more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.