Consciousness seems to be an access point for what we would call non human intelligence, whatever that is.

They just have their own protocols for dealing with this type of contact.

It's more measurable than I thought it would be, because we can put together sensor systems that can see things, but it's harder figuring out what the data actually means.

Perhaps the nature of a phenomenon is faith that you know, at a certain point, how much do you need to be shown before you can believe what you see.

I went white because I had samples in there, and I was sure that they were going to open the thing down and find this stuff and you know, drag me off to the penitentiary somewhere.

I shocked that Gary and Tyler believed it, because they're so credible and you know, amazingly intelligent.

It was beginning to dawn on me that it was real.

Sorry, joined a phone call from US.

Job sure online.

Yeah, let's hear it.

Chris Lado.

Welcome to Lato files.

Welcome to Lado Files.

I'm Chris Lado.

Diana Posoka's American Cosmic was one of the first UAP books that opened my eyes to the academic side of this field and doctor Gary Nolan has become the go to scientists for UAP biological effects among other things.

So today I have both of them on the channel.

I'm very excited and I had got a lot of audience questions, so we'll be bring up those questions as well.

Thank you guys so much for being here.

What have you learned about the phenomenon in the last two years?

Gary, First, that it's more measurable than I thought it would be, and that would be say through the efforts that I've been involved with a skywatcher and that and some of the materials purely publicly available materials, not secret stuff that people think I have access to, which I don't.

So it's more measurable because we can put together sensor systems that can see things.

But it's harder in that figuring out what the data actually means and coming to the conclusions that people think scientists should be able to come to is more difficult.

So I would say they're both good from a scientific standpoint.

We have access to more materials, we know that we have analysis approaches that can approximate them.

We're beginning to get reproducibility.

But as is the case always in science, the more data you get, often the harder it is to come to conclusions, to create a standardized picture.

Okay, more data, so that's the problem.

That's really interesting.

And what about you, Diana, what have you learned about the phenomenon in the last two years.

Sure, that's a great question.

So I've continued my work in historical documents, looking at in a tradition, looking at what Catholic visionaries had to say about various kinds of aerial phenomena, and that's been really eye opening because the work that I did it obviously with American Cosmic was shocking to me because you know, I saw evidence of aerial phenomena that was it couldn't really be categorized basically in the Western tradition, and so I keep looking into that and the more I look into it, the more I find.

So it just reinforces what I found in American Cosmic.

But again I also have more data, and you know, it looks it looks a lot more different then it's portrayed in you know, media films about it.

So it just it looks different.

There's a a some type of consciousness component which a lot of people aren't aware of.

So and you can see this back in the historical record as well.

Okay, that's great.

You mentioned that there were quite a few questions from the audience on the consciousness connection, so we'll definitely get to that.

But I guess let's address the New Mexico site.

I understand there's been some recent controversy, but what happened and what did you guys find at the New Mexico site.

Quick note for the audience, you're going to hear in this interview from both Gary and Diana how they use AI and everyone they know actually uses AI professionally.

And even with my own part time assistant, I'm constantly swapped.

So one way to stay ahead is actually getting tailored professional advice on how to use AI, even if you don't purchase.

I think you'll be interested in this sponsor.

My good friend Jenner Juice Torrance is a retired F sixteen pilot like me, and now he helps people and small businesses get the most out of AI through Frontier Strategies dot AI.

So they gather your company data, they sit down with you for a focused one hour strategy session, and then they deliver you a tailored roadmap, knowing exactly how AI can solve your specific problems.

They know what actually works because they also do serious custom AI development work.

So you can get their AI Audit Strategy session for just two hundred dollars.

That's sixty percent off the normal five hundred dollars price that's at Frontier Strategies dot Ai.

Make sure to use the code later files at checkout and you get sixty percent off.

This is a great way to just make sure you're not missing out on the AI revolution and the fastest way to get up to speed, and supporting sponsors is a great way to help me directly in the channel, So please check it out, even if you're just curious.

Back to the video, But what happened and what did you guys find at the New Mexico site?

Yeah, so I recorded this in America Cosmic and we, you know, went to this site.

We were both blindfolded and Tyler D who I keep as pseudonymous, went there with us.

Well, he took us there, and so we did find what looked like to me, it looked like kind of like a frog skin type material, and we took that back and Gary analyzed it.

I don't I know that he he thought it was anomalist at first, but I actually don't know what his finding is today.

But that's what from my perspective, we.

Found, well perfect, Well, luckily we have him right here.

What did you find, Gary?

Right?

Well, So there were several different pieces, and you know, it's interesting.

The audience needs to understand that scientists are accustomed when they talk about their data to people, always knowing that this is preliminary until I send it out.

And just like, for instance, with the Auto Kamma, when I first looked at the data with the Auto Kamma mummy, I didn't quite understand what the sequences meant because there was a lot of junk.

And so when I began reporting it to my colleague, he who shall go unnamed it, it was like, well, like ninety percent of it doesn't seem to fit anything.

And so people and you probably actually are hearing a lot about that kind of same kind of conclusion with the NASCAR mummies, where people say, oh, i've it has some genes that we can understand, but a lot of it doesn't seem to fit anything.

Well, it turns out that the a lot of it that doesn't fit anything is frankly because at least, but the genetics.

It was old DNA and it gets It's like a recording that you know, on a tape recorder that gets all muffled and old and scratchy.

DNA gets scratchy, let's say, in the reading of it.

And so it turns out that there are ways to fix it.

And once you fix it, then souddenly everything comes into clarity.

And for us, for me with the a comma, it then became clear by bringing in the necessary experts that oh, well, here's how you fix it.

Oh fi llah, the image gets clear.

It's a human child, and here are some potential mutations that cause it.

So with the metals and the materials that I recall us bringing back one where the so called what was it the alien honeycomb as it was called at the time, and I mean it definitely looked strange.

There was another which was kind of this silvery black covered metal that was slightly friable.

And then there were a few pieces clear pieces of metal that were looked like aluminum with kind of scratchings and etchings, not etchings as if somebody was writing hieroglyphics, just kind of a pattern with a brown substance on them, and there might have been one or two more that we found.

And in fact, Diana was like a divining rod out there.

Every time she turned around she was finding something.

I was mostly spent my time up on a ridge from where the object was supposed to have come over and supposedly hit before it landed on the other side of the little ravine.

It wasn't such a ravine as a long flat area.

Now mind you, we're all wandering around.

It's cold, but yet we've got rubber boots up to the top of our legs because the area is a little bit mushy, and supposedly there are rattlesnaks all over the place, the place we had just stayed at.

The proprietor told us, well, you got to be careful because we just had somebody here or a few weeks ago who got bit by rattlesnake and had to be sent off to a hospital.

I remember something about that, okay, So that backdrop, the the event of me putting my samples through the metal detector at the airport and the metal detector shutting down absolutely happened, you know, And as Diana knows, I went white because I had samples in there, and I was sure that they were going to open the thing up, find this stuff, and you know, drag me off to the penitentiary somewhere whatever whatever that decade's version of Alligator Alcatraz.

And so that all happened.

So when I got back and did some of the measurements, there looked to be a lot of anomalist isotopes or metals that that I reported to Diana for sure.

And when I looked more closely though, and again, so this is the thing that scientists.

Scientists like to be right, but good scienceists note that very often they're wrong, and when they don't understand something, the best thing to do is actually go find the real expert on metals for instance, or how to use a certain instrument, etc.

And as many have remarked on the internet on Twitter, well Gary's an imminologists, he's not a metologist.

So what right does he have to do anything in this area.

Well, I have the right to ask the question first and then to go find the expert to make sure that what I'm doing is right.

And that's what I do.

And so they said, there's the thing called diatomics, and diatomics in mass spectrometry are the atoms might have been individually separated in the sample, but in the process of activating the sample turning into ions and then it goes into little cloud, those individual atoms might come together during the measurement stick and then when their mass is measured, rather than being individual atom masses, they are the combined atom mass, so they look bigger than what they are.

So if silicon were together with silicon, it could be something like fifty four, which would make it look like chromium I think, etc.

And the only way to discern that is to there's a few settings on the machine that you could set that lowers the chance for a diatomic because it would have a double charge to get there, or you better separate the objects or lower the concentration.

So at first it looked like the samples were not of this earth because they had so many mixtures in there that just didn't seem to be right, Okay, But then when you when you start asking the expert, they say, here's the explanation for why that looks this way.

So I didn't figure that out probably until about three years after the the article was published.

But I wasn't going to ever take the bait that was being put out there in the press as to, you know, try to start some kind of consternation between Diana and I.

Diana reported what I told her, and what she reported was what I thought at the time, and so any mistake was mine.

Yeah, what's your take on this, Diana?

How was the experience out in the in the high boots, walking out in the cold desert.

Yes, So you have to understand that this is the time period was a while ago.

You know, I was writing this book and I still didn't believe in the phenomena at all.

I was shocked that Gary and Tyler believed it, because they're so credible and you know, amazingly intelligent.

It was beginning to dawn on me that it was real.

So as I was out there doing this field work, I recognized that this was, you know, the It's not just that you had people like Gary how put off and you know, physicists and then other people that were well placed in programs like Tyler.

It's not just that they were doing this work.

It's also the fact that I'd spent my entire life looking historically at things that were considered aerial phenomena back in the day, and that it fit the pattern, and so there was a pattern match.

So all of this, and that Tyler predicted that Gary would would get stopped in the airport and that this would happen, and that everything happened exactly as he said.

I was very concerned about Gary, you know, I mean, Tyler was was completely fine.

He knew exactly what was going to happen.

He knew Gary was going to be let off, and there's you know, and he described the process.

So he was sitting there having a cup of water, and I was, you know, had white knubbles.

I also thought something really terrible would happen to Gary, and I thought, wow, I'm glad I gave this stuff to Gary.

It's a lot.

I'm just joking, but I do remember at the time, I thought, I do not want this stuff.

I don't know what it is, but I don't want it because first Gary can figure it out.

But secondly, I just had this feeling that, you know, if it was really what Tyler thought it was, then this would not I just didn't want to have it.

So so there was a bunch of things going on in my head.

To tell the truth, Chris, So yeah, it was uh, It was way out of my comfort zone.

But now looking back, I'm really happy that we did that because you know, there were some colleagues of ours who I asked, and you know, first, you know, thinking that this person would want to do this, because I didn't want to go by myself.

I wanted to take an academic with me, and you know, the colleague was like, Diana, I don't want to do that.

They're so far out of my comfort zone.

So I asked Gary, and Gary was like, I'll do it.

Tomorrow, but I want to add, you know something about the matunials analysis.

So just because it didn't have a mixture of practically every element on the table and things in between, doesn't mean that I figured out what it is.

I mean, the the alien honeycomb.

Larry Lemkey and I and I would say more Larry than me.

Larry looked into the literature and found examples from that era of aerofoil that exactly matched the honeycomb with the Even the knot we found is a knot from the early nineteen hundreds that actually is a fisherman's web, but they had adapted that exact structure to lay over the honeycomb structure.

That they then poured the resin on and that helped keep everything in place, but there were still there.

I still have the samples.

Just because I can say that they're made of the elements that are supposed to be found in this universe doesn't mean that they didn't come from somewhere else.

What was one hundred percent clear was that the debris field was in the middle of nowhere, filled with old pots and cans vowels, even like I think we found like an old tomato can.

Remember that big old tomato can You still see the writing on the thing crushed and the tomato can was from like the nineteen thirties, So they used it as a dumping field, but also mixed in aerospace material in the middle of nowhere, literally in the middle of nowhere, and so you know, you're open.

It's just like, why would you do this?

So why was I on that rage?

Something that I haven't talked about publicly yet, but I will hear for the first time.

So I think it's interesting.

It's unlikely that I'll have a chance to go back to the site.

So you know, supposedly this thing came down and hit the ridge, broke, spilled stuff, across the debris field and then stopped on the other side.

We've already spoken about the debris field being purposefully apparently contaminated, or the object came down in just the wrong place in the previously debris field that somebody else had precreated.

Across the ridge, there are all there were all would these cypress trees, very old cypress trees, probably several hundred years old, because if you know, the reason why we make wooden fencers out of cypress is because they're filled with resin and fungi and bacteria don't decay them, and that's the reason why they're great, you know, and why there's fewer cypress trees on the planet than there should be, because we humans are busy chopping them all down for the utility.

So there's all these old trees along the ridge.

And then exactly where there should have been based on where the object supposedly crashed and the trajectory, there's a giant cypress tree that was still partly alive, but which had been broken over crushed.

I mean, like obviously some heavy object had hit this thing and knocked it over.

And guess which direction it was knocked over?

In the direction of the trajectory.

Somebody else can go out there, or the CIA can go out there tomorrow and dig the whole thing up and make it look like it wasn't there in the first place, because it was there when I saw it.

There was evidence of a crash right in the in the piece of the of the you know, the cypress tree, which clearly had some stuff starting to grow over it.

But it didn't look like it happened last year.

It could easily happened long ago, and there was still these these pokes of the cypress tree trying to revive itself from that time long ago.

So you know, to me, it all that more than anything else said there was a crash, and then the debris field suggests that somebody was trying to hide something.

Uh, and and that's about it.

Well interesting, Yeah, I was a crash safety investigator and I remember at a base in Spain.

We would walk to lunch every day and there was actually a crash on the base and they had trees like that, and a telephone pole was cut right in half.

Sorry was a light pole, you know, like a steel light pole.

But the trees also were cut and you could see very clearly you can draw it out.

You can just draw the trajectory out of where this would have happened.

And so you don't think it could have been like a transport aircraft or something carrying tomato cans across the country.

Well, yeah, I mean all we have are the the supposed verbal testimonies of the anthropologist, the Harvard anthropologist, who was somewhere off in the distance looking at I guess an alien alien sorry, Indian burial grounds or something, or a cave.

And then the farmer and his son who showed up the day after, and then the sun supposedly came back later to see the soldiers cleaning up the area and then burying some of the pieces that they didn't want to carry back.

Yeah, that's.

History, that's right, that's Those sources are actual sources, and most people aren't accustomed to looking at them, and you know, but those are corroborating sources from people who don't know each other of this.

And what's also interesting is that Tyler had been researching and excavating that site for forty years.

Well he knew the owners, and so you know, I have a subsicion that if the place had been cleaned up, there's still a place where perhaps people didn't think to clean up.

And I'm not going to mention that publicly because maybe someday I will go back that.

Tyler and I talked about trying to buy the site from the original owners, and to that end, that day we had a late afternoon lunch with the owner, who was an old woman.

Oh gosh, how old was that?

How old she was like?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, she came in with her dog.

It was a really you know, just a really local place, you know, with a gas station restaurant that had been there for probably since the forties, maybe even longer.

I don't know, but yeah, so Gary, I was under the impression that was not they were homesteadying it.

Am I wrong?

Or yeah?

Yeah, yeah they Yeah, it's Bureau of Land Management.

They had a lease on it.

There was an opportunity perhaps to acquire it because it was more land than they needed and maybe they would sell it cheap.

But I don't think we ever followed through on the acquisition.

But what was fascinating was she came in to have lunch with us, and so here's Diana.

I and I were sitting there and you know, the three city slickers and the local owner, old woman, and who walks in but the local sheriff.

And I can still see him coming in because we were right by the door.

It was, you know, old place could have been a movie set.

It probably should be someday.

And he looks at her and looks at us, and I forget her name, but he says, are you okay, Maggie?

Is everything okay?

You know these guys are trying to I don't know, guys hustle, you hustle something.

Yeah.

She was like, I'm fine.

I can take care of these three.

Don't worry.

I might be ninety years old, but I rustle castle every day, cattle every day.

I can take care of those three.

And you both mentioned sources having to protect sources.

Diana you had sources for the book, Tyler you kept anonymous, and Gary you mentioned data.

You must have data requirements for academics.

So I had a lot of questions about data, releasing the evidence.

How do you protect sources while still maintaining transparency?

That first from a purely scientific standpoint, because I think it relates to how Diana will think about it as well.

I mean, first of all, sources of confidence, and you know, if you want to remain credible in the field, you keep confidences, whether it's related to a secret clearance or not.

If somebody asks you and you agree to receive information and you say that you're not going to give the information out except under some sort of feeble constrain, then you just don't do it.

And anybody suggesting otherwise to just go take a high, because I don't break conferences and confidences, and I know that Diana doesn't either.

But second, you know, the mistake of releasing unfiltered are on, let's say, unstudied data where you don't pre define and pre find the mistakes that can be made, gives open opportunity and open field for amateurs to make egregious mistakes and find things that aren't in the data.

But once they start an internet storm on Twitter, you can't get the truth out no matter what you do, because they're too busy laughing about the obvious mistake that this moron from Stanford made.

Well, no, the more on from Stanford didn't make a mistake, and more on from Stanford me just isn't going to release data until he knows that he's cleaned it up and found the obvious consistencies and explain them away before I dare make any speculations about what the data means.

So that's just how science works.

So part of this, and I think, you know, hopefully people will watch this or it will filter to a few individuals, is that there's a method to science and the way that you do it.

I mean, just like Diana does with her translations of old works, that she has to filter it, double check it, make sure that the providence is right and her assumptions are right.

And you know, Diana, let you talk to you.

But that's at least how a scientist work.

And I don't think that's frankly, any different than how a historian operates.

Yeah, that's right.

So we have a coded ethics in my field when we do what's called ethnography, where we learn from people and learn about their stories and so forth.

So when I, you know, when I started American Cosmic, I went through this internal review board, which is the review board at my university that make protects human subjects basically from bad researchers.

And so I'm obligated, but also it goes beyond a professional obligation.

I wouldn't if somebody, you know, asks me to keep there whatever it is, you know, in confidence.

I wouldn't break that.

And even prior to the release, even prior to the publication of American Cosmic, when it was impressed, I had people from all over the world, but especially journalists here in the United States, from very well known I guess you'd call it news sources, basically asking me to reveal Gary's name.

I like, get Gary revealed his own name and you know other people and you know where the site was and things like that.

First I didn't know where the cycle is.

But secondly I wasn't going to do that.

And I still have that pressure.

I had it publicly just a month ago or so when I was speaking to a journalist who said, you know, tell us who this is and not not of American Cosmic.

But you know now, I've continued my research with those people who are the physicists and scientists who Gary knows, you know, the invisible college people.

And yeah, so that's you know, on an ethics level, on a moral level, I wouldn't do that.

But also we are bound by professional ethics, and it is true when we do translations, we have to first do literal translations, but then we do a lot of excavation, like what you know, was this term used in this time period in other places?

What did it mean then?

And then we do we you know, scholars don't work alone.

They actually have friends who are experts at the same thing that they are, and so they call them in and they say, what do you think this is?

And so it's done like that.

It's called peer review research, and it's basically a slow way to do the creation of knowledge.

But at least when you get that knowledge, you know that it's the best conclusion at the time.

That doesn't mean it's not going to change.

It's just the best conclusion according to what we know now.

And that's exactly I mean, that's beautifully said.

You know the you know, I've been sort of summarizing it with scientists are right today, but they're right tomorrow, and you know, we we we expect to be wrong tomorrow looking back at what we thought we thought yesterday.

If that wasn't the case, then progress would stop in anything.

I think that this will all this will be helpful with Diana's work in the future.

I mean, for me, artificial intelligence is enabling my day job as well as my work in in this area uapology or whatever we want to call it today, because now suddenly I have access to larger data sets than I ever could through the Internet and through analysis of the Internet and all of the data that's there that AI enables.

I mean, of course, yeah, there's the hallucination problem, et cetera, but I think that's being fixed.

But I think the counter to that is some of my best students hallucinate and often for me, because hallucination in a way is a form of creativity.

Well, Diana, you mentioned you'll bounce ideas off other experts, and that's actually how I use AI, to be honest, I use three different AIS.

I'll get a result from one, and I'll feed all the data into another one, and I will pair the two results against each other.

So I think you can do the same with AI.

Absolutely.

I don't know any of the best scholars in my field who are not doing using AI right now.

We're all using it and various types and in super interesting ways.

And you mentioned that you're working on a book.

I don't know if you're ready to publicly declare it based on AI.

Yeah.

Yeah, So it's a book that discusses AI but also discusses it connections to UAP, and of course my own work, which is Catholic visionary literature and it's called super Terrestrial.

Interesting.

So do you both think AI could push us to understand what the phenomena is?

Well, I know a couple of researchers who so let's take a step back, people like our good friend Neil de Grasse Tyson, I've had interesting things to say about over the years, says there's no evidence.

Well, I mean, that's just a misunderstanding, frankly of the science process.

There's, as we all know, enormous amounts of data, rooms full of it, zetabytes of it, plenty of it.

Data is meaningless in the absence of context.

Scientists bring a hypothesis to the data and try to contextualize it.

Does the data match some hypothesis at a certain point.

There's a statistical regime that you can bring in that says even a thousand anecdotes might not be enough, but ten thousand anecdotes reach is a credibility factor that you can't ignore.

And so I think what as I was explaining to you at the beginning of the thing before Diana came on, I've reduced the size of my lab from thirty to ten because we were in the process of over a decade producing enormous amounts of data.

But data is not meaning And so suddenly, having backed myself into this corner, AI pops up, which now enables me to look at all of this data with truly superhuman capability and contextualize the data.

Fly So I actually now have on my shoulder both the Devil and the Angel of AI that can whisper in my ear and help me understand what the data means.

But they are the same as colleague extra colleagues, YT Institute Z or Alpha, who I have to listen to what they are telling me and I try to put it all together into a picture that makes sense.

But now I don't have to make those phone calls or be friends with that person on the other side of the planet who's the expert in this, because the expert now is the AI.

And it's just getting better.

We fast that last year I wouldn't even imagine what it is I'm able to do today.

And we've had a few questions.

Gary, We'm asked, what is the best data that you've come across, What is the best evidence for NHI that you've come across.

So well, the certainty claim has been misunderstood, but it didn't stop it from going worldwide.

You know, Stanford scientist is one hundred percent sure of this x Y ORZI, which I hadn't actually said that.

If you if you look back at what I said, it was basically, what do you think the chance that it is here?

I said, if I were to make a bet, it would be one hundred percent.

Yeah, you know, it's kind of at the end of the day when placing a bet on the table on Rolett, you're going to place it somewhere and one hundred percent certain it's going to be that when you do it, or you go home having lost all your money.

So, oh, there's a beautiful I mean, but right it's up and they're looking at me.

So the best evidence, I would say, some of well, I mean there's a lot of the best evidence, but stuff that I've been involved with with Skywatcher, where we make this supposed call and then things show up within a timeframe posted and then I've got pictures of things like right next to the helicopter that showed up, or just coincidence of this on one of our separate events when objects were seen, and we have pictures of the stuff flying by rapidly.

I mean, because this movie is so gosh down fast that all you see is it across perhaps two or three frames of a rapid camera moving and it's not a bug.

So I don't care if anybody says so.

It's those kinds of things that convince me further that at least not being the government, we can collect that data.

But otherwise, the best fallback I have is that the ten thousand or so or one hundred thousand anecdotes put together.

I'm actually trying to work with some statisticians to say, how do I use this to make a scientific claim of some veracity?

And what's the percentage chance I can assign to that short of one hundred percent?

You know, maybe beyond a certain point you make a decision about your life.

I'm pretty sure that this is how I should go.

And evolution does that every day, and the winners or who we see around us today in the natural world, and so the same thing has to be with this.

And perhaps perhaps the nature and this is more to Diana's point or Diana's realm, perhaps the nature of a phenomenon is faith that you know at a certain point, how much do you need to be shown before you can believe what you see?

It was actually eight months ago I finished Diana's most recent book, Encounters, and that focused on exactly that.

If I'm not mistaken on the interactions with the people and the phenomenon, I was amazed by the similarities.

What's your take on that, Diana.

Do you think it can be used for science, these witness accounts.

Yes, so witness accounts.

A colleague of ours did a presentation at the conference that we were at in April, the Archives of the Impossible Conference, and he was identifying the history of the credibility of meteors.

And you'd think, you know, now, it's a no brainer.

There are meteors, they fall to Earth, we know what they are, we study them.

But like in the seventeen hundreds and the eighteen hundreds, if you saw a meteor and reported it, you were considered a loon, You're considered crazy, and you were still So what happened was that there became a scientists wouldn't study them at all.

But what happened was there were enough observer reports to get this critical mass, which is what Gary's talking about, where it's improbable that all of these people, very credible people are reporting these hot rocks coming down and landing on earth and fiery, right, and so meteors became a thing that people started to study.

And now, of course we have a whole discipline focused on studying meteors.

Right, Okay, so this, I think the same thing can be applied here to UAP.

We absolutely have all the reports that we need in order to you know, what we have.

And this is what convinced me partially, well, I'm very convinced, but let's just say this.

This convinced me on a personal level that when there were so many people who had these experiences, said I had an experience of a UFO, it contacted me.

I was afraid.

But then, you know, the air base would have something on radar which wasn't theirs, right, and they didn't know what it was, so there would be corroborations, you know, that of this thing on radar, of these people having these experiences, and there were so many of them.

My own father who had a story that he told us he's passed away, but a story that I used to tell us he was in the Coastcard and he was a radar man and he was on this ship and they were out looking for submarines.

This was in the sixties or no, I'm sorry, this was in the fifties.

They were out looking for submarines.

And what happened was they came across this giant thing underwater that stopped their boat and took all the electricities, stopped it in the ship.

And this is something that he would talk about when I was a child, and I always thought that it happened.

Of course, because my father was an attorney, he was a scientist.

You know, he was like a very rational man, had.

A few words.

So for him to talk about this, and then for then meeting Tim Galadett and you know, hearing his stories and all the people that have come out and talked about being at sea and seeing these things and so forth, you know, this just reinforces that that these are real and people see them.

People like Gary are now studying them openly, and that's great.

And that's what's nice.

And I'm sure dianasies it the same way in her field.

Is that the last five years especially and perhaps because of the proliferation of places like Soul or you know, the several groups, scu et cetera.

I'm suddenly finding scientists who wouldn't otherwise even be interested in it, stepping forward and saying can I help you know?

And that as of three years ago, I knew nothing about it, but then I found his paper and then can you send me any more information on simple more information?

They go, oh, no, I didn't really, I didn't know this, And so there's an ease of being able to talk about this even this year that I didn't see last year or two years ago.

And I just look what's happening on Capitol Hill.

I mean you literally had Telca Gabbard come out and say, I think there's there might be aliens.

I mean, just in the last week on the news, you have Marco Rubio from a good ten to fifteen minutes in Dan Farraw's show, Should he ever get it out there?

I was at the premiere, I mean, waxing eloquently about the matter and not negatively.

So you know, I think there's a there's a sea change.

You know, these things come and go.

Evan flow, will we get distracted and bore because we're a clickbait based culture, and you know, I'm sure, Diana gets us too.

A part of your first question was you know, where's the transparency?

Give us the data?

Now?

Well, no, you know, maybe you should do your own work.

I'm not I'm not your servant.

I would perhaps use a different word in a bar to me, But you know, I don't answer to you.

I answer to me and I answer to truth.

And how truth is is revealed is a matter of data scrubbing and not data hiding.

But you know, checking and double checking yourself before you allow other people to make the claim or put the words in your mouth that they want to hear.

And Diana, you've also been to the Vatican.

Speaking of data banks, you are one of the few people that's gone down into one of the oldest data banks in the world.

What surprised you most about Nhi in that data bank?

Yeah?

So, actually I took Tyler with me to go because I've at that point I had figured that if we were going to look it through a lot of these old documents and manuscripts, I would describe what I saw to him and see what he thought, right, because at that point I knew that he was probably one of the most informed persons that I would ever meet about this topic, and so it was an incredible experience.

So we looked at a lot of manuscripts that had to do with levitating Saints Joseph of Copertino, Maria of Agrida.

And we also went to the Vatican Observatory, which has their own archive on space.

So that's an archive that the Vatican owns that's just dead kidd to space and space research.

When we went there, the European Space Agency group was there.

There were about forty young scientists and brother Guy Consolomanio is the director, and you'd call him a colleague of mine.

He likes to stay away from this topic, and I understand why, but but he introduced us to the group and they knew who Tayler was, and and that really further, you know, that that made me understand that the United States doesn't know a lot about our space program or our space research or what we do, and and but they do, you know, European Space Agency was knowledgeable about it.

So yeah, so what did I find?

I found a lot very interesting, you know, I would say that we found geographical areas around the Earth that could be hot spots.

And so after that, I spoke with a few people from Galileo Project and obviously worked with you know, Gary, can you know, uh, but but those kinds of things, you know, are are things that people are doing research on.

Now you know that that type of thing maybe there are places that where a lot of this activity happens.

It's great you brought up consciousness at the beginning and for both of you, do you think that consciousness could be the key to the phenomenon?

Yeah, so this is really interesting.

So both with my work ethnographic work for American Cosmic and my historical work, it appears that there is a consciousness like consciousness seems to be an access point for what we would call and you know, non human intelligence, whatever that is.

It seems that consciousness is is a place where it interfaces with humans.

And this has been something that you can see in the writings of the various different religions.

The religions have their own protocols for dealing with this type of contact, and generally they're you know, they vary obviously per religious tradition, but a lot of times the protocols suggest it has to be a very controlled interface.

And so I know Tyler also understood that this was a consciousness based interface as well, which were then that has I haven't followed up with him about that, but that has a lot of repercussions.

And I think that Gary's work here with the psionics is you know, looking into that as well.

I don't know quite I know about it with respect to the historical protocols in place to deal with this, but I'm not doing any kind of work in contemporary interfaces or protocols.

But Garius, I believe.

Yeah, I think you know.

And these follow on what Diana said about religious traditions.

The majority of the receiver aspects of human interaction with these whatever they are alleged joy imagined entities involve meditative states or frankly, psychedelic drugs that change how your brain functions.

And you know, the skeptic, the real skeptic, not the ones that tweet NonStop, would say, oh, that's because they're hallucinating their own drugs, or the scientists would say, it allows you to access alternative states of consciousness.

Now, alternative states of consciousness doesn't mean magic, you know, but it's now well understood that one half of your brain talks to the other half of your brain via the alpha data alphabata, gamma delta waves.

You know, the frequency that goes on over here is actually heard by what's going on over here, and it has nothing to do with the neurons in between.

So there's transmitters and receivers on both sides of your brain, and they are coordinating across the brain via what would otherwise be thought of as psychic power.

And that's from a recent study, if I'm not mistaken, right, where the brain was actually not connected physically, but it could communicate.

Right, was cut and yet there's still connection.

So but now you can start to get into other let's say, more fringe, but I mean that in a negative way, because fringe fringe is where progress happens, to be honest.

And so now you have the likes of the orc O r uh.

You know studies of hammer Off and Penrose, where you know, they believe that consciousness might actually be let's say, partially localized in the tubulent interfaces uh and the tire scene boundaries in the subunits, and then that's where consciousness is computed.

So you know, we also know about non locality, which is is pure physics and it drives the physicists absolutely baddy because they're used to a world where a leaks needs to be and you have this magic world where a behind the scenes somehow is connected to be through things like you know, quantum interactions.

So it doesn't surprise me that a technology might exist or a capability of using your own brain might exist that creates a connection elsewhere, right, because we simply don't understand enough.

And if we think we do, then to say that we think we fully understand what is is the most purely ignorant statement one scientist could make to another and shows that person's lack of understanding of what science is really for.

Do you think that the materialist paradigm that has driven our science for the last several decades could be failing us?

But I think it fails us only in so far as believing that what you know now is not what you will know tomorrow.

You know, materialist works.

You want to reduce it to a material understanding, right, even if it's just an equation.

I mean, all the equations that we have that explain how the universe operates are just equations.

There's somebody's abstract understanding.

They are not necessarily reality.

A nice math that seems to explain how object AY can move to object B to place.

Be, and it seems like it always changes.

If we look back into history, our paradigms always changed.

Like Diana said, we didn't understand what meteors were, and we didn't understand how the brain works, and we still don't.

You can see we have different brain states that directly correspond to our brain waves, right if you're a sleeper awake.

Well, and the drugs that the shamans or religious practices use to enter these altered states actually all seem to be interestingly centered on something called the default mode network, which is just a made up term, but it really means there's sort of a central controller, which is the who you think you are, that once you turn off who you think you are, his ability to control the rest of the brain, certainly all these other kid abilities or functions arise.

And so you know, the evolution of the default mode network was important to drive let's say, progress and focus.

But that doesn't mean that the other functions that existed before that collineator evolved weren't doing something important in the first place.

What we call our subconscious I mean ninety nine percent of who we are is our subconscious the one percent of who we think we are is only because it's a it's a it's it's observed.

It's a Really it's the most extreme form of observer bias.

The observer sees who they think they are, but they don't realize who's behind them, which is all your subconscious processes.

I thought, Bernardo Castro, I don't know if you've if you've heard of him or follow him, is a researcher.

I thought it was very interesting when he talked about consciousness.

He looks into this as well, that these psychoactive compounds drugs actually limit your brain activity, you know, to where it rather than increased brain activity like we thought in the past.

You know, this is your brain on drugs, you know, and I guess frying it was actually the reverse where the drugs were limiting activity.

So did you have you seen, Diana in all your religious studies?

Is that a common use to do most religions use some sort of psychoactive drug.

I wouldn't say so.

I would say that you know, some do.

But you could achieve these brain states naturally, but you have to have a certain lifestyle in order to do that, which a lot of people don't want so, you know, drugs are like the fast way to do that.

But you know, people that are geniuses in the past, like remonog On, the mathematician self taught mathematical genius who you know, grew up in an early twentieth century or even before that, grows up in you know, this whole town in India, and then Beco goes to Cambridge, you know, becomes like this, this person who has math, understands math at a level that we still can't understand.

There's a journal dedicated to his mathematical equations.

He believed that Lakshmia goddess, the local goddess, would whisper these equations in his ear, and he he didn't take credit for any of it, which I think is interesting because I started to do this type of study in the creativity because of Tyler.

I thought, how does he get these ideas?

You know, he says they just pop into his head.

And actually the philosopher Plato talks about that also, that you know, once you believe that you don't know anything or what you know, once you get to that understanding that you know nothing, that's when knowledge starts.

And so that's why Plato was thought to be the smartest man in the world the time was because he didn't I mean, I'm sorry, Socrates, he thought he didn't know anything.

Looking at geniuses in history shows us that when they get into these states, which often are states associated with religious protocols, what happens is that they identify an external agent as being responsible for their genius idea.

They don't take credit for it, but it came through them.

Okay, So that part of the brain.

So people today who study creativity identify that that part of the brain, the frontal cortext is, is shut down.

It's quiet, and that's the brain that Gary said, you know, we think we are.

But when that's quiet, that's when the genius happens.

That's when these creative ideas happen.

And because we feel like it didn't originate with us, we generally identify, Okay, it had to be an alien, or it had to be a goddess, or it had to be God, or it had to be an angel or you know, something like that.

So we have all these names for this process, which actually could just be the creative process of human beings.

It could come when I used to go around to you know, schools and giving talks, and i'd be you know, I asked to go sit and have lunch with the graduate students and post as.

Often the question comes up is you know, how are you so creative?

And you know, I say, well, I sort of imagine I have a bunch of little l's running around in my subconscious that are doing all the work for me.

To basically Diana's point, but it is always in that moment of quiet when and I think she just hit on something that I hadn't thought of of.

When I'm in that quiet moment where I turn off my ego.

That's and that ego is the who you are, who you think you are.

Suddenly answers come.

You know, if you if you say it's Diana just did that, I don't know nothing, so tell me.

Suddenly answers come, and I'm I had those kinds of downloads that just come out of nowhere.

Yeah, I'd love to say it was the Angels.

And you know, Father Delaney from my Catholic school way back would love me to say that, you know, or Syster Mary Carmeline, she was my math teacher.

I remember them all.

They'd love it if I said it was God.

I don't.

But these weird ideas come from somewhere.

Often I can't trace.

I can't trace the one plus one plus one path to how even my subconscious could have gotten to the idea.

And like the come and saying sleep on it.

A lot of times I'll wake up and I'll have so much clarity on a subject.

It's like you're working while you're asleep or something.

Well, actually, it's often like what I think Hal put Off and others during the Stargate project called the overlay of remote viewing.

That it's the instantane understanding and view that you get in the remote viewing event, and you need to write that down as soon as possible and not overlay your personal bias and contexts, which is interpretation.

That's right.

There's a lot of angst in the community over disclosure.

You know, it was overly optimistic in the past.

I have video saying disclosure is right around the corner, it'll be here any day, and then it continues to drag on what do you both think about the disclosure timeline?

And a lot of people asked how should they prepare?

Okay?

So as so, I have a position that has always been parallel to the government's understanding promotion suppression of the topic, and it appears that this is an ongoing venture.

To me, I think that it's been disclosed.

Right.

So we've got a lot of people in the government, incredibly good people, basically saying there's zero doubt, like to quote one of them, that there's a presence.

We don't know quite a lot about it, but we do know that it's real.

Okay.

So there's that that's the government disclosing.

And then you have another section of the government that's basically saying that that's not true, okay.

And so my position is, as a professor of religious studies doing this type of work, my job is not to propose or advocate for disclosure.

My position is to write about what I know with the data that I know, and present that to the audience as best I can, as honestly as I can, and as transparently as I can.

With respect to the government, that's the government's business.

In my opinion.

My opinion is is that it looks since twenty one, it looks like it's disclosed.

Well, I think the other way to look at it, Chris, is to say it previously was the government's proprietary capability to do the measurements.

But as science advances and capabilities censor and other things better cameras, et cetera proliferate, that proprietary advantage starts to the road.

And that's what I know is personally happening from the various groups that I work with, and they're publicly open group Skywatchers, Scalileo Project, the Tedesco Brothers, Beatrice's recent beautiful paper where you know, using data and data analysis techniques shows that hey, we're are approaching kind of an apogy of capabilities where we can do our own analysis and disclosure.

I mean, look, if Biden had come out in the last administration has said it's real, half the country would have called it fake news.

If Trump is the disclosure president, and I think frankly, we're closer with Trump than we are with any of the prior administrations.

You know, a whole bunch of them would say, oh, it's just because he's trying to distract us from some other scandal.

So you're always going to have the human need to dismiss or agree with the position they want to have.

And I think, just like religion, it's as much a personal thing of can you look at the data yourself and use your supposed intelligence and not rely on the opinions of others.

You have to have that kind of confidence or you know.

I mean, look, there's still people who think that worth is flat.

So what am I supposed to do about that?

You know?

So I really don't care about some impatient individuals sitting in a row waiting for somebody else to do their dirty work for them.

I'm sorry, Get out there and do it yourself, you know, or go outside in garden your avault road network and maybe allow a download or two.

And then final question I asked most guests.

This is from UAP societies, Justin and Ali.

I'm really curious on your answer to this question because Gary, you have so much knowledge and experience on the human system, and then Diana you have such a deep understanding of the religious nature of humanity.

So the question is what do you see as the future hope of humanity?

What does it mean to be human in your eyes?

Wow, that's a huge question outside of my purview, but I'll answer me.

So, my hope is that people will use their basically think critically about things and have hope and treat others nicely.

I think that would go a long way if we just did that, that would go a long way in making you know, this experience here better for everyone.

And looking back on the religious practices, you know, I grew up atheist, as a hardcore atheist until I got into this topic.

And now I'm not one hundred percent sure, but I seem fairly convinced that there is an afterlife and there's more to life than just bill your balls hitting other protons, et cetera.

Do you see a common thread through the religious practices.

Yeah, So we're at a point now in globalization where we can look at the religious traditions of the past and we can, you know, look at them all together and say, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Let's like what was good here in these religious traditions and what will keep us safe?

And so part of what I've learned is that, you know, part of the psionics of what we're looking at now, you know, the psionics suggests that we have a some senses that we don't know about.

So we have these spiritual senses or whatever you want to call them, and most religious traditions are aware of that they've done a pretty bad job of passing that information down to their parishioners, but they're aware of it.

At least if you go back like five hundred years ago, they're talking about the interior life and how to cultivate it and what is good about it.

And there are a lot of what we enjoy about life comes from the cultivation of people in the past, cultivating their spiritual interior lives.

And so each of the religious traditions, the major lens I'm talking about, have ways of doing that, and I think, you know, and science is now here to tell us why that's important.

So Harvard does studies of nuns who pray and monks who meditate, you know, Buddhist monks who meditate, and they're basically saying it's increasing their brain matter in waves that make them smarter and nicer, and you know, just upgrades their life in so many ways.

So we're utilizing science to basically look back at these religious traditions and say, wow, they had some wisdom.

Maybe we should keep that and progress forward.

So we're at a really interesting point in time in the field of religious studies in that sense.

Sorry, do you want a phone call from us child.

S sure online, Yeah, let's hear it.

Oh that's nobody, nobody there.

Maybe they're letting me know something was that was weird.

So I sort of see three paths.

Uh, you know.

One, we continue along the path we are, which is essentially stone age.

We're barely out of the Stone Age, and we don't do any attempt to upgrade our thinking processes, and we just you know, meander along and probably go off a cliff, apocalyptic or otherwise.

And so, you know, I think that would be the bad path.

I think that that's that's the that's the path of of just continuing bad things.

But humans have an amazing ability to not imagine too far into the future, but to not fully appreciate how far we've come, even though it's been three thousand years.

For let's say, five thousand years.

I was just in Pompeii a few couple of weeks ago, and it was remarkable how two thousand years ago they were still It could have looked like a small city somewhere that we would think of today, and we weren't that different.

But things are going so fast that human capability is not a human emotional maturity is not keeping up with what it is that the technology is enabling us for.

So then there's the likes of Elon Musk and others who come in with perhaps interfaces to allow us to let's say more seamlessly interact where they are because they plunged directly into our brains, and that, you know, there's all kinds of problems there.

But then there's the third path I think that Diana just outlined, which is taking stock of where we are, taking stock of what human capabilities are, and seeing if we can, like you know, going to the gym, train our brains or train people to use their brains in the most effective way, so that from the earliest you learn what the full potential might be.

But then on top of that, you know, fourteen billion years has already happened to get us to the point of where we are, there's still another ten hundred thousand years in front of us of evolution that might take us along the path of a form of enlightenment or capability that we can't even imagine today.

So you know, it's I think we have to get over ourselves and that we're some sort of you know, again use the word apogee of creation.

There's a lot more to go, and you know, maybe Elon Musk's idea of getting off the planet and getting out of this environment and this ecology and this niche will allow us to expand the capabilities that we couldn't before because we're hemmed in where we are.

To say, and fantastic.

I knew you guys would deliver.

That was so interesting.

Thank you so much for all the work you do and that you've done all.

The link to both of your work is in the description, so audience members please check it out.

So thanks again for your time and have a great rest of your day.

Yeah, thanks to you.

Thanks Diana, It's always good seeing you.

Yeah.

I hope you enjoyed that amazing discussion with Dina Posoka and Gary Nolan.

They are true professionals and absolute experts in their field.

They bring such varied knowledge and experience to this topic.

I'm so happy and blessed that I got a chance to interview them.

I hope you enjoyed it as well.

Please hit the like button if you did like this video and share it and subscribe.

It really helps the channel.

If you want to support further, then go to Patreon dot com.

Forward slash Chris Lado or become a YouTube member here.

It really helps and I can't do it without your support, so thanks again, have a great rest of your day, peace,