Joe Rogan Experience #606 - Randall Carlson

Makes it look like we're on a radio show. Yeah. Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out. The Joe Rogan Experience. Train by day. Joe Rogan podcast by night. All day. Yes, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome back. Randall Carlson. How are you, sir? I'm doing well, Joe. You freaked out the entire podcast population the last time you were here with your stories of cataclysmic disasters and the ramifications of asteroid impacts and just the evidence that you presented was a real mind fuck, as it were. Well, what can I say? I apologize to all the listeners out there that might have had nightmares. No worries. I knew that was going to be the case, though. I knew after the first time I met you, we had that long conversation in Atlanta. I knew once you sat down for three hours on a podcast and opened up about that stuff, it was really going to uncork a lot of people's domes. Well, you know, ironically, there's an upside to the whole thing. Maybe we'll have time to get into that a little bit today. Yeah, definitely. So tell me you just returned from a long excursion with Graham Hancock. If you want to bend that thing like that towards your face, it'll probably work a little. Yeah, there you go. Like this. Yeah, there you go. You just returned from a long excursion with Graham Hancock. You guys were on the road. And what was the nature of your trip? Well, we were I was taking Graham on a tour, showing him some landscapes. I could call him the Landscapes of Catastrophe because he's doing his sequel to Fingerprints of the Gods. And you know, when he came out with that book in 1995, he was theorizing that there had been this lost civilization in prehistoric times. And, you know, the critics, the gist of most of what the critics were attacking him on, and there were considerable attacks on him as a result of some of the things he put forward in that book, was that, well, if there was this, you know, great civilization that had existed in, you know, back in prehistory, where's the evidence of it? Where is the pottery? You know, where are the carvings? Where is the infrastructure that would have existed? And, you know, I don't know if he really had an answer for that, other than the fact that, you know, there had been cataclysmic events that had intervened between then and now. But he wasn't really specific about what the nature of those catastrophes actually were. And a lot of additional research has come out since 1995 that basically opens the window onto those events that basically separates our modern history, which, you know, the recorded history goes back five or six thousand years. You know, when we look at the emergence of modern civilization, we would basically trace it back to nine or ten thousand years ago with the emergence of, you know, agriculture, the dispersion of languages, the first cities, and so forth. When we go beyond that a few thousand years, we're in a completely different world. And, I mean, so completely different that it's almost unrecognizable from our modern world. If we started recreating maps, going backwards, like taking snapshots of the planet, every millennium, going back, what we would see is that going back to seven or eight thousand years ago, the basic configuration of our planet would not change much. Once we get 11, 12, 13 thousand years ago, the changes become profoundly dramatic. We start seeing sea levels going down hundreds of feet. We see massive ice sheets covering North America and Europe and lots of other enormous changes. Beyond that is what I consider to be deep history, because, as we may have talked about in our last interview, you know, we modern humans have been on this planet for 150 to 200 thousand years, at least. If we go back, say, I think the oldest modern human skeleton ever found was named Homo adulte. And he dates to about 180 thousand years, roughly. If we think of a generation of humans as 25 years, that's 7,000 generations of humans. Wow. Now, so the question is, is what were we doing for all those thousands of generations until somebody finally realized, hey, you know what, we can plant crops, we can, you know, we can build cities, we can form communities, you know, we can invent language, etc., etc. Well, my contention is, and I think the evidence that's accumulating supports this interpretation, that what we're really seeing 7, 8, 9,000 years ago is not the origins of civilization, but the rebooting of civilization. You see what I'm saying? And when we go back and we realize that modern history is separated from deep history by this extraordinary series of events that transpired between about 11 and 13 or 14 thousand years ago, once we begin to recognize how extreme these events were in remodeling our planet, totally remodeling our planet, it then becomes obvious to us why there is not a lot of hard evidence for whatever went on prior to these events. And there's been some things that they've found since then that have really sort of made Graham Hancock's theories become more and more palatable to even mainstream scientists. Like Gobekli Tepe. Exactly. Exactly. Gobekli Tepe, Gunang Padang, these are apparently structures that were built at least 11 or 12 thousand years ago. And I'm waiting to find out the most recent ideas on them. I think that probably they go back much older than that. Because from what Graham told me, they're just only in the preliminary stages of being excavated. Yeah, I believe Gobekli Tepe is less than 10 percent excavated, right? Yeah, so this is this enormous ruin that appears to be late Pleistocene ice age in age that apparently was deliberately buried, which is interesting. Brings up a very interesting issue. Why would they deliberately bury it? And they know it's deliberately buried because of the uniformity of the age of the dirt? Is that what it is? I question Graham on that because I wanted to know if it was because the first thing I thought to myself was it could be natural because I have seen so many sedimentary deposits caused by great floods. Graham assured me that it was human, that it was deliberate. Because if it had been buried by floods or water, there should be internal stratification. It would be very obvious. I've been giving it some thought. And you know what occurred to me was this. And I ran this by Graham, but I haven't gotten a response from him on this. But I started thinking, if it was deliberately buried, why would they bury it? Then I began thinking what we talked about last time when we were talking about the Tunguska event in Siberia, when you had this massive aerial detonation, you know, that was about a 15 megaton explosion. Okay, now that's equivalent to our biggest hydrogen bombs that used to be in the American arsenal. And it's just because of an asteroid that blew up in our atmosphere. Yeah, about a 150-foot diameter asteroid, which is not that big, really, relative to the cosmic scale of things. The point, though, is that it was moving really, really fast. You know, it was moving, you know, a rifle bullet, let's say, on average, is about 1,000 feet per second, right? An asteroid coming into the atmosphere is going to be 20 or 30 times that velocity. So it carries an enormous kinetic punch when it hits the atmosphere. It explodes because of the fact that the Earth is not actually absorbing a lot of that energy. It's dispersed widely through the atmosphere. Now, think about this, particularly during the height of the Cold War, in order to protect our missile silos, our super-hardened command and control centers, what did we do with them? Put them on the ground. Put them on the ground. We buried them, exactly. And that, I began to think, perhaps could explain why it was buried, in order to preserve it, against the possibility of some kind of an aerial burst or some kind of a highly energetic event. That seems a weird thing for 12,000 years ago, no? I mean, we have really no evidence whatsoever that anybody's capable of doing anything like that that long ago. Well, I think, on the contrary, I think that what we see at the very beginnings of recorded history is an obsession with the sky. And that's one of the points that Graham brings out in his work, is that humans, our ancestors of 10, 12, 13,000, even much sooner than that, had just an obsessive concern with events in the sky. And all of these ancient structures, whether we're talking about Stonehenge, and I'm sure it's going to be the same case with Gobekli Tepe, when we look at this infrastructure from the Mesolithic period through the Neolithic period from 6, 5, 4,000 years ago, 3,000 years ago, what we see is that there's this concern with astronomy. You know, the astronomical alignments that are built into these structures actually allow some pretty sophisticated observations of events happening in the sky. And we can maybe pull up some stuff here that I've brought today to look at that. But yeah, I think that it's highly plausible that people back then could have, because think about this again, to try to put this in context. How many generations ago was the primary mode of human transportation horseback? Not that many. Four or five generations ago. Pretty crazy. Pretty crazy. Now, think 7,000 generations. Are you going to tell me that in all of that time, all of those generations of humans that have the same, presumably, intelligence as our own, because they've got the same brain size, that they're not going to be able to come up with some kind of a transmitted tradition, some type of, you know, the idea of somehow, of culture, of civilization, of language, of, you know, that's my point is that there was so much that has been lost. And once we understand how dynamic this planet really is, it'll become clear to us why we don't have the hard physical record of things going on 20 or 30,000 years ago. To put it in perspective for people who have never studied ancient Egypt, Cleopatra, the pyramids, if you look at the date of the pyramids, the Cleopatra is closer to us than the pyramids were to Cleopatra. Yeah, which is nuts. It's crazy. You stop and think about that like, wait a minute, what? They were that old back then, and they've found these little tiny airplanes inside the pyramids, these little, little miniature, you know, carved airplanes that look like airplanes. And someone's people have tried to say, well, no, they represent birds. That doesn't look like a bird at all. I mean, they have a rudder and they look like planes. Well, yeah. And, you know, there are traditions, particularly the Vedic traditions that are full of descriptions of flying objects. Yes, the Vimanas. Yeah, exactly. So what is that? You know, I'm not going to proclaim unequivocally it's airplanes, but at the same time, we've got to keep an open mind about it. And the point I'm trying to make is that, yeah, there was so much time to transpire. All kinds of things could have happened that have basically been erased. Right. And hopefully by the end of today's interview, you'll have a better clear idea of specifically what some of those things really were. So we're talking about a potential civilization of maybe tens of thousands of years of growth. And if we're looking at what we have from the beginning of the dawn of civilization, we believe Mesopotamia somewhere around seven thousand years ago. From that till today, we're talking about maybe double or triple that was lost in these gigantic cataclysmic events, maybe fifteen, twenty thousand, thirty thousand years of human beings inventing things, people building upon the inventions of others expanding. And then all of that, boom, wiped out, where rubbing sticks together again to start fires. And then whatever memories are left, people have to rebuild. A generation or two ago, it was easy to dismiss ideas like that as fringe science. Today, as we say here in 2015, it's not nearly so easy to dismiss that anymore, particularly what we now know about the history of this planet and how truly dynamic it has been. And that we have in effect been sort of blessed the last six to ten thousand years with a relatively stable climate. And I want to show you some graphs here that really will blow your mind, that really will underscore how significant some of these changes have been, how profound some of them have been. And once we know that and begin to incorporate that into our thinking, we realize we're going to have to kind of reevaluate our models of prehistory. Okay, well, we have a new set up now. So with the TriCaster, we're going to allow Randall to take control of the situation here. If you're just listening to this, this might be one of those podcasts where if you're one of those people that listens to it on a commute, you might want to go back and check out the Vimeo or YouTube. Those are the ones that you stream is going to give you HD now too, right? Some people don't even know, we do an HD video of this podcast as well. So what is this oxygen isotopes in Greenland? Oxygen isotopes in Greenland. Yeah, what we're looking at here, this goes back to the early 90s when, you know, glaciologists and paleoclimatologists, guys who study ancient climate, extracted these ice cores from the summit of Greenland. And the reason they went to the summit was because they were looking for the most undistorted ice core record that they could find. Previous ice core extractions had been near the perimeter of the ice sheets and there the ice flow is much more dynamic. So there was more distortion in the record. So what they did was they went to the very center. There was a European team and an American team. And without getting into the background, basically the ice sheet there was almost two miles thick. It took them five years to drill through. Two miles thick. Yes. Just think about how far like looking, how far two miles away. It's like what is a plane? A plane's a mile in the air? No, no. Well, a jet's going to be about 30,000 feet. What's a mile? 35,000 feet? A mile? A mile. Now you remember this because it's going to be a number. 5,280 feet. Is a mile. Is a mile. Right. Now the tallest building in downtown LA is probably not over 800 feet, 1,000 feet at the most. No. I'm not sure. I did look it up at one point what the tallest building was. I don't remember what it was. I know the tallest building in Atlanta is 1,060 feet. And you know, two miles, you'd have to think of ten of those stacked on top of each other to get a two mile thick sheet of ice. That's an amazingly huge mass of ice. Right. Right. And that's pretty much the summit of Greenland, right? And what we're looking at on this graph here, if you go down the left side of the graph, this is the surface. And then down here, this 1,500, you see right at the bottom, that's 1,500 meters, right? 1,500 meters, you figure there's about 3.28 feet per meter. So that's going to be 45, it's going to be close to 5,000. So this is 1,500 meters. Probably a mile. Yeah, a little less than a mile. Over here on the right is the time in thousands of years before the present. So as you go down right there, there's a thousand years. You go down, there's 2,000. Down at the bottom, you see ten. So that's 10,000 years ago. Now basically what the oxygen isotopes do, they're a proxy for temperature change adjacent to the surface. They're the ice mass, right? And if you look at this, these are snapshots basically taken like every ten years, right? And what you see here is that the temperature is oscillating back and forth. Back and forth. It's 2 to 4 degrees centigrade. Now to put this into context, the concern, you know, we got into this somewhat last time, the whole issue of global warming. And I know that in some of the feedback we got, some of the most critical comments came from people who didn't like me. Undermining this whole concept of global warming induced catastrophe, right? Right. Well what we see here though is clearly that the climate, this is the 10,000 years that we're talking about here, it's called the Holocene by geologists. It's oscillating back and forth 2 to 4 degrees centigrade every 10, 20, 30 years, right? So we're talking about a degree that has changed basically in the last century to a century and a half. Right? Which really almost wouldn't even show up here, you see. But we're going down, as we go down we'll see, as you go to the right, that means temperature is warming. As you go to the left it means it's cooling. Right? And so as we go back down, this is through the Holocene. We're going through here. And if you look, there's some interesting stuff going on. Right here at about 8,200 years ago, there's a really, there's a spike of cooling right there. And that was very, very significant cooling. I mean, that was probably caused the glaciers worldwide to start growing again for a short, for a couple of centuries after they had basically disappeared at the end of the ice age. So this was a very significant event right here. And then as we get down right here at 10,000, you see it starts deviating to the left, it starts deviating to the cooler. I'm going to go to the next slide where we take this graph and we turn it on its side. And what I've done here is, you see, this is the present right here. And this is basically 10,000 years ago over here on the right side. And I've drawn a level, there's a level green line in here to kind of give you a comparison. And you'll notice something. Here's this 8,200 year ago cold spike. Right? And then as we're going along here, you'll notice something that the general amplitude of these oscillations starts increasing as we get closer to the present. Can you see that? Yeah. Yeah, it gets bigger. And you'll also notice that it's dropping. It's dropping below that green line. And that means it's cooling. So in the last 10,000 years, we went from a period of considerable warmth in the immediate post-glacial era. And then it began to cool off around 6,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago. And as it began to cool off, the temperature oscillations began to increase in magnitude. Which actually contradicts the computer models that are saying the amplitude of the oscillations is going to increase as the climate gets warmer. What we actually see from the Greenland ice cores is the opposite of that. And it's right here in this graph. But what's really significant about this is when we go back beyond 10,000 years ago. Whoa. And we see this. Jesus Christ. Yeah. For folks who are listening, there's a giant change. I mean, we're looking at little tiny, maybe millimeter, left, right, left, right, left, right, up until this point. Now we're looking at huge changes. Huge changes. Wow. Catastrophic changes of temperature. Yeah. And here we're going back. This is, notice this is between 11, right here, roughly 11,600 years ago and about 14,000 years ago. Look at what happened right here. You can see right around 15,000 years ago, the climate is actually, if we took this thing out of here, you can see there's almost a trend upwards that gets interrupted right here. Boom. Instantly. Boom. Overnight. Overnight. Overnight. Yeah. And in fact, what has happened is if you go back through the literature of climate change and you read the estimates of how long it took for the planet to shift modes from full glacier to full glacier. From full glacial to the interglacial like we're in now. 50, 75 years ago, it was a thousand or more years, thousands of years. When radiocarbon dating came along in the 50s, it began to compress. And what happened is that if you look in the 80s, they're talking about perhaps a century, several centuries. Now comes the Greenland ice cores and other ice cores and other proxies, deep sea cores and so forth, and the correlation of all of this evidence. And it goes from centuries to decades. Well, as the ability to perceive these changes with ever greater precision and ever greater resolution has evolved, it's gotten to now where the change, the climate change that took us from glacial to interglacial happened in less than five years. And that's what we're seeing right here in this graph. What? That's what we're seeing. So 2010, glacier, 2015, done. Ice age over. The glacier. Yeah. Bear in mind now that there was a considerable lag between the actual manifestation of the glaciers because the glaciers didn't melt that quick. Because they're so huge. Right. Imagine that we had a big chunk of ice. We had an ice sculpture here. Right. And if the temperature is, you know, 31 degrees, it's not going to melt. If you turn the temperature up to 70 degrees, right, we could turn the temperature up in a matter and it could warm up the room in a matter of hours or minutes. But it's going to take a while for that ice sculpture to melt. There's going to be a lag. Right. Although the change that led to that meltdown was virtually instantaneous, you see. Right. So, but in that in that period, in this interim, what we're seeing right here, there was an extraordinary right here. I think if I go to the next slide, I think, you know, let's go to the next one. Yeah. Zoom in here so you can see this. There were two massive warming spikes. One right here. You can see that we're down here in full glacial mode right there. And then boom, right there, there's huge spike of warming. Now, what does that represent when it comes to like temperatures? That could be on the order of, well, that would be about 10 to 12 degrees centigrade, which would be about 18 degrees Fahrenheit average temperature, which is a crazy, crazy, crazy change because we're scared of two degrees. We're scared of two degrees. And here we're looking. We're scared to two degrees centigrade. Here we're looking at five, six times that much in a matter of a couple of years. You see at this point, we don't really have an explanation for this. That's why I get really frustrated when somebody says to me, oh, the debate on climate change is over. No, no, no. We're in the infancy of understanding the climate of this planet. And when we look at stuff like this, you see, it really drives home that point. And you can see here, right here. I think what people are saying when they're saying that the debate on climate change is over, though, is whether or not human beings have had an impact on it in current times. No question. We have had an impact. Right. No question. That is right. Well, if you say that the debate is about have humans had an impact or not, I think that there's no debate. Yeah. Humans have had an impact. What they're looking at, though, in your mind is one aspect of a very multidimensional issue. Yes, yes, exactly. Exactly. And my concern is that we're going to get so focused on carbon change. On carbon change that we're not looking at any of these other factors. Isn't that what people do, though? We concentrate on one aspect of things and it becomes almost like a cultural meme and then it spreads and this is all people talk about. And so many people, I guarantee you, that were upset at what you said have not researched climate change at all. They just have parroted the words of people that they've heard on television that are experts. Well, you got this. Well, 97 percent agree. Well, if you look into the origin of that, it's pretty contrived. It really is. And I know you come up with that. And we could do an hour-long discussion on that. And I don't really think we want to get into that today. But I really feel like I should write an analysis of the source of that 97 percent so-called consensus so that people can really see where it came from. In a nutshell, basically, it goes to three or four pieces of research, some surveys that went out that were slanted right from the beginning, such as do you feel that humans have had an impact on climate? Yes. Nobody disagrees with that. See, you can go through all the whoever these so-called deniers are. I have looked and looked. Who's denying? Is there any climate scientists on any anywhere on the spectrum that denies that the climate changes or that denies that humans have had an influence on the climate? And I haven't found a single one. So in other words, these deniers that you hear about, the climate change deniers, they don't really exist. There are those who criticize the consensus view that the dominant mode of climate change is being induced by humans. And they are being shoved into this camp of climate change deniers. But they're not. They're absolutely not climate change deniers. And when you look at stuff like this, a lot of these guys who had questioned the so-called anthropogenic climate change consensus are guys who've done this work. Now, this work is how old? Well, this goes back to the – this work that I'm showing you here was published in 93. The Greenland Ice Sheet Project and the Greenland Ice Sheet Project and the Greenland – oh, I forget. It was GRIP and GISP. The two – it was a European and an American team. They spent five years drilling. So these are the most accurate proxies we have in hand. And they're pulling tubes of ice? Yes, tubes. Is that what it looks like? A cylinder? Yeah, like cylinders. Picture maybe six inches in diameter. So they have like a circular cutting thing? They have a circular cutting drill that extracts these ice cores. And for the last 20 years, they've been analyzing the ice core. You know, it took five years to get them out. And it's been, you know, 20 years now of analyzing what they're telling us. So before they had all these ice cores, when they were saying that this climate change took thousands of years, was that just guessing? Pretty much. Based – that was based upon actual empirical observations of ice glaciers receding as a result of the modern warming. Because you have to understand, up until about the middle of the 19th century, we were in the middle of what was – has commonly been referred to as the Little Ice Age. And this is another thing that's important to put into context. The Little Ice Age was in two phases. The earliest phase came on in about the mid-1300s. Then it warmed for about a century in the 15, 1600s. And then the second phase came on. During that time, the glaciers worldwide began to grow. And most of the evidence today suggests that during the Little Ice Age, glaciers were bigger than they had been in 10,000 years. So around the middle of the 19th century, around 1850, give or take a decade or two, the climate began to warm out of the Little Ice Age, and glaciers began to recede. Right? Now, if we look at glacier recession that's going on right now, and it's been going on for the last 10 or 20 years, what we see is it's basically a continuation of the recession that's been going on for 160 or 170 years. Right? So it's important to establish what's our baseline. When we're comparing modern recession of glaciers, bear in mind that our baseline is we're starting from the glaciers being bigger than they had been in 10,000 years. Right? So I think then we have to understand that that Little Ice Age, in fact, had some pretty serious consequences for civilization. We can see that there were two period in the last 2000 years, there were two periods of global cooling. One of them occurred in the sixth century. It actually now can be accurately dated to occurring between 536 and 544 AD, which is a very interesting time. This was basically the time that historians have have for decades said this was the onset of the Dark Ages. It's also the time during which all of the Arthurian myths in the Grail quest stories are placed. You know, Arthur's death is traditionally placed at the Battle of Camland or Camlon, which is usually dated at about 540 AD, which basically culminated this quest for the Grail. Right? Now, the Grail stories themselves were set down in writing between about 1180 and 1230 AD in this really interesting time during the Middle Ages. At the same time that the great cathedrals were being built, when the Cathar movement was at its strongest, when the Knights of the Temple were at their strongest, when cobblism schools were flourishing in Spain, when the Troubadours were making their circuits around Europe, spreading news and entertainment, but really probably carrying esoteric information to the initiates that had the key to the secret language that they used. It was a very interesting time, but it was in that 1180 to 1230 that the Grail stories were written down. Now, the Grail stories actually refer back to this period of the Arthurian days, and the quest for the Grail, if you recall, was that the land had succumbed to blight. It had become a wasteland. England had become a wasteland. And the idea of the Grail was, the Grail not only restored the wasteland, it restored the king. Because remember the king, whether it was King Arthur or Bronn or Anfortas or the Fisher King, there were different names and different stories. It was the same deal. He was sick. He was in decline. He was wounded. The wound wouldn't heal. He was debilitated, and the only way to restore him was to find the Grail, bring the Grail back, allow him to drink from the Grail, but the Grail was also the means of restoring the wasteland to fertility and fecundity. Now, here's where it gets interesting, is that the dendrochronologists who study tree rings have been looking at that period, exactly in that period that the tradition places the Grail quest, and have discovered that for about eight or ten years, forest growth in the northern hemisphere almost came to a screeching halt. And this has now been well documented. Mike Bailey has done most of this work, basically showing that there was a serious global cooling that took place during those years. And the historical record of that seems to confirm, because there's multiple descriptions from Irish monks and so on, describing how for weeks at a time the sun is not visible, that it's darkness has come over the land, that there were reports of these mysterious fogs, and then there are multiple collapses of agriculture. So, as a result of these multi-year collapses of agriculture, because of the cold and the dark and the damp, people got malnourished, and then you had famine. As a result of famine, people, their immune systems became weakened, and then in 542 AD, you had the onset of the Justinian plague, which wiped out maybe a third of the population of Europe. Whole villages disappeared as a consequence. Now, these events pretty much followed in sequence. The cold brought about the collapse of agriculture, the collapse of agriculture brought about famine, famine brought about weakness, and as a result, boom, you have plague. Now, it took European civilization nearly three centuries to recover from that. Now, what brought about the recovery was the return of warmth to the world, what is called the medieval warm period. This began really to occur in about 900 AD. The sea ice began to retract back well inside the Arctic Circle, which opened up the sea lanes between northern Europe, Iceland, and Greenland. And so it was this period of time that the Vikings were able to sail to Iceland, and then sail to Greenland, and actually establish colonies on the west coast of Greenland, and farm, where now the ground is perennially frozen. Perennially frozen, right? So it was clearly a warm period, and what happened was, if you look back now at the studies from that medieval warm period, you see that agriculture rebounded, so many people had lots of food to eat. Actually, studies of skeletons show that the stature of humans during this period of time increased by four or five inches on average, from what it had been during the Dark Ages. And now Europe started becoming wealthy again, because the basis of all wealth, basically, was agriculture, was food, right? Without that, you don't have anything else. Population began to expand enormously. You see other things going on. Lifespans increase, infant mortality decreases. All of this stuff has been well documented in a whole variety of studies. Well, after about a century and a half of this warmth with the concomitant wealth that came along, European society was wealthy enough to undertake this extraordinary cathedral building phase, you see, where you had literally hundreds of thousands of highly trained, highly skilled craftspeople working on these things. Essentially, when you begin to look at the cathedral building phenomenon, it required basically the mobilization of the whole of European society behind this enterprise, because you had to quarry huge amounts of stone, you had to transport these stones, you had to carve the stones, you look at the statuary, the stained glass, which is exceptional in its refractive properties that really have still not been mimicked to this day, the way the stained glass was able to refract light, so that it gives the appearance of not the light coming, shining through the glass, but emanating from within the glass. You could go on and on with this, the carpentry skill, the engineering skill, the astronomy that went into these structures. All of this combined basically shows up basically in a historical instant. What's interesting is the scarcity of evidence showing what preceded this. Who organized this? Who raised the money? Who trained the craftsmen? There are references to this in history, but really there's no explicit detailed discussion where we can go and trace and say, okay, this is how it happened. But it's important to realize that this was a consequence of the expansion of wealth in European society that was able to allow this to happen. And that's as a consequence of the warmth, the warmth of the Earth. And what we see is that the cathedral building era comes to a sudden termination in the early 1300s. And if you go and you travel around the cathedrals, you'll find that there's in many cases, you know, the record suggests that it's almost as if in the middle of their work, the workmen laid down their tools and left in some cases. This is why there were so many cathedrals of the great ones that weren't finished. But what you see is that exactly concurring with the cessation of cathedral building, within a few decades anyway, was the onset to the Little Ice Age. And the return of the cold. In this first phase of the Little Ice Age, again, brought about agricultural collapses, it brought about famine, and then you had the Black Plague that showed up, I think, around, what was it, 1330, 1340, right in there. Again, decimated the civilization of Europe. So you can see, I mean, if we look at the historical record, what we see is the times of global warming have actually been times of advancement in civilization. Now, of course, that would have its limit. I mean, we could get to, you know, at some point where we would get too warm. Right, of course. But so far what we've seen, we're at this point well within the range of natural variability. That's the point. Why is this never brought up by anybody but you? I've never heard anybody else discuss this very controversial subject. It's controversial because everyone's so fixated on global warming being a bad thing. It's there. It's there for anybody who is willing to do their homework. You know, and if somebody goes on my website or whatever and says, what are your sources? I'm glad to provide multiple, multiple sources going back. I've been collecting this data for decades, you know, and it's there. And I have to ask the same question. Why are we ignoring this evidence? You know, why are we? Well, I think we're ignoring it because climate change has become a political agenda rather than a scientific question, you know. And so because there are political factions that are lined up behind it, you know, the intergovernmental panel on climate change is now looked at as being the ultimate source for data on the climate. And bear in mind, they were created by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and given the mandate of go out there and demonstrate that humans are causing climate change. So right from the very start, that was their mission. And they were not told go and look for natural causes of natural climate variability. Study the human. And it's important. I mean, I'm not at all saying it's not important for us to study our own effects on climate, but it's going to be dangerous. I think if we neglect, you know, what we're seeing right here on these graphs, this graph that I'm showing you, because that's clearly not carbon dioxide. See, if we're told and we have been repeatedly told that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere held relatively steady at about 280 parts per million, right, prior to the Industrial Revolution and only subsequent to the Industrial Revolution, did carbon dioxide start going up. Well, if we assume just for the sake of argument that that's correct, we'll look at this graph. What we're saying is that if carbon dioxide held steady at 280 parts per million going back hundreds of thousands of years, as Al Gore has actually stated and as many others have stated, it's not carbon dioxide driving those climate changes, is it? Well, it can't be that. It can't be. No, if that's the case, and that's hard science. This is hard science. Here it is right here. And that's hard science as well. You're you're looking at something really crazy. Some event. Yeah. Yeah, that's my point. Now, the alternative is, okay, are we saying if carbon dioxide is the dominant driver of climate change, and that's what we're seeing here, then what that basically says is that there's some gigantic unknown reservoirs of CO2 that have outgassed into the atmosphere, which again undermines the so-called consensus view, because so far, the carbon dioxide is the dominant driver of climate change. So far, the consensus view states that the CO2 has only increased because of burning fossil fuel. So this graph is the real inconvenient truth. This graph, that's well put, yes, this graph is the real inconvenient truth. And when we look at some of this, I mean, right there, that is a major global warming right there, because this dashed line represents the modern temperature. Like so. The 20th century average is this dashed line. That dashed line, but what year are we looking at right there? Right here, this is between 100 and 150,000 years ago. And that's a giant jump. That's a giant jump. I mean, so what does that represent as far as degrees in temperature? Oh, well, let's see. That's probably going to be, you know, 15 to 18 degrees Fahrenheit. Whoa. Yeah, right there. So that's, you know, again, 15 to 18 times greater than the than the presumed temperature increase of the last century. Is there any mainstream? I shouldn't say mainstream scientific explanation for what that is. No, well, it's called the emian. It's called the emian period. It's an interglacial period. But even within the interglacial period, you see that there are these massive oscillations. Massive cooling. Cooling and warming again. And so there's a variability. If you're saying the warming is between 18 degrees, is that what you said? Up to that. So the cooling, you're talking about almost that much in the other direction. In the other direction. Yes. And you're talking about this over a period of just a few decades? Well, as we get back this far, we don't have the same degree of precision as we do when we're here. Perhaps, yes. But we were not sure. But we do know that these changes that we're looking at here that terminated the last ice age were just in a matter of a few years. Yeah, for sure. And the instantaneous nature of those is what you focus on when you start talking about asteroidal impacts and things along those lines. That is something that we can explain. That's something you can point to. By default, there doesn't seem to be a lot of other things that we can invoke to explain what we're seeing right here. And there's absolute evidence that we have been hit multiple times. We're going to get into that. Yes. Yes. And that's a big part of what Graham's book is going to do. This is amazing. When you look at the ancient history, I mean, it's not even ancient as far as, I mean, there were human beings living sort of like us. Oh, yeah. But how much different the climate was? It was so fucked up. Well, I'm not sure about the West Coast, but I know on the East Coast, there were swarms of icebergs stranding off the coasts of South Carolina, for example. There was no Great Lakes because the Great Lakes were under thousands of feet of ice. New York, Boston, Detroit, Seattle, Portland, or not some of Portland, but Seattle, Twin Cities, Chicago, all of these areas were under thousands of feet of ice. Thousands of feet. And we're not talking millions of years ago. We're talking 12, 13,000 to 25,000 to 30,000 years ago. That's incredible. It is. And sea levels were basically in round numbers, 400 feet lower than now, which essentially exposes the entire most of the continental shelves. And I've got some interesting graphics here to show you what continental coastlines would have looked like. There was an article that I was reading recently about aborigines and aboriginal tales of the lowered sea levels that they're starting to correspond now with actual climate data. And the understanding of what the sea levels actually were at that time. These are stories that are supposedly 10,000 years old, passed through oral traditions. These traditions, to me, are just beyond valuable. You know, up until very recently, they have been considered basically just, you know, interesting in the anthropological or psychological sense, but had no real hard scientific credibility to them. Now I think we're beginning to reevaluate them. There's an archaeologist by the name of Bruce Massey, who's been doing some very interesting work for the last 20 years analyzing many of these ancient myths and realizing and putting out there the argument that these myths and these legends and these epic tales encode really hard scientific information that we can extract from them. And talking about global changes and astronomical events and so forth. And I've been a believer in that for a long time. And this is one of the premises of Graham's work, is that the myths and the legends actually have a great deal to teach us beyond just the psychological orientation of our ignorant pre-scientific ancestors. But yeah, a good point you make there. When we look at this graph, basically what we're seeing here is that coming out of the ice age, you can kind of see that we're coming up here. And then we have this first massive spike of warming. And then it seesaws back down into this full glacial cold. This is called this period between these two green arrows. It's called the Younger Dryas, which is named after a polar wildflower that had disappeared in northern Europe and then suddenly came back again. It only grows in polar environments, Dryas octopitalla. So the Younger Dryas compared, because there was an older Dryas too, but it lasted now. The dates are placing it from roughly 12,900 years ago, give or take a few decades, to 11,600 years ago. So this spike of warming right here is 11,600 years. Now if we look at the next one here, this graph basically goes to a different realm of evidence. And what this shows is the rate of sea level rise, you see. Now oceanographers and marine geologists have been studying. There's a number of different ways they can correlate this information. They can look at actual evidence of submerged shorelines, right? They can look at changes in the flora and the fauna that have lived in the oceans. They can look at coral reefs. There's a lot of different things that they can pull together to see how rapidly sea levels rose at the end of the last ice age. And again, a generation or two ago, the assumption was that there was a smooth continuum of rise that took tens of thousands of years, right? To get us from minus 400 feet up to what we are now at the present level. What this graph shows is that there were two massive spikes of meltwater introduced into the oceans, into the global oceans at the end of the last ice age. And you can see the first spike called meltwater pulse 1A is the biggest, followed by another one, meltwater pulse 1B. If we go back to this graph right here, those two spikes of glacial meltwater and sea level rise coincide with this warming spike and that warming spike. And you can see how this warming spike seems to be the most intense, followed by this one. And we see that meltwater pulse 1A is the biggest. So what this is showing is that the rise in sea level was not as smooth. It was like, whomp, and then whomp again. So there was something that caused all those glaciers to melt within just a very short amount of time, relatively speaking. Yes, a geological instant. Exactly. What's further interesting is when we look at this graph, this is the Lake Pleistocene mortality graph. And each square represents a fossil specimen of an extinct mammal. You know, could be a woolly mammoth, could be a giant ground sloth, could be a saber-toothed cat, could be the giant cave bear. Roughly 120 species of mega mammals that lived during the Ice Age went extinct, right, at the end of the Ice Age. And basically, what this graph is showing us here is that you probably can't read this here, so I'll interpret it for you. If you go back to here, the left side represents 50,000 years ago. And here where the cursor is, that's 40,000 years, 30,000, 20,000. And you see that as we're going along here, each one of these squares represents the finding of a fossil of an extinct mammal in the fossil record. What we see from this graph is that when we get to between 11 and 13,000 years ago, there's a massive spike of mortality. Shoots through the roof. This demise of these animals directly coincides with this right here, directly. Now, what we're dealing with is that for 50 years, the dominant theory is called Overkill or Blitzkrieg. And this theory basically states that bands of Paleo-Indian hunters came across the Bering Land Bridge, slaughtering every animal that they encountered along the way, and somehow within less than a thousand years swept from Siberia down to Tierra del Fuego and killed off every woolly, every mammoth in the world. And presumably, every other of the extinct mammals, and that has been the dominant theory that humans caused this mass extinction. And personally, I think that's just absurd. Because for one thing, based upon anthropological studies, there were possibly more woolly mammoths in the world than there were people for a while. You have to assume that the Blitzkrieg was so instantaneous and so all-encompassing that there was no time even for the mammoths to reproduce. Of course, the Overkill hypothesis basically addresses itself only to woolly mammoths. Woolly mammoths were one species of four different species of mammoths. But what about the other, roughly 120 species? What about the giant armadillos and the giant beavers and the American Pleistocene lion that was as big as a horse? The list goes on and on and on and on. And these animals all basically disappeared during this spike that you see right here. And that spike falls exactly between these two warming spikes and between the two sea level rises. So all the data all points the same time period? Yes. And so what I'm saying, and this is basically consistent with what Graham's saying in his book, is that this, what we're seeing here, this episode basically represents a curtain that has come down and obscured 150,000 or more years of deep human history. And basically has lost that history to modern perception. But now, once we understand that, yeah, you know what? The uniformitarians were wrong to reject all ideas of catastrophism. You know, because in the original, in the early days of geology, the founding fathers of geology were catastrophists. They went out in the field unencumbered, unencumbered, unencumbered by dogmas and doctrines and so forth. They looked at the evidence in the field and concluded that there had been catastrophic episodes. And this is, you know, Baron von Cuvier, Sedgwick, Murchison. If you'd go back and you all of these guys who basically are considered the godfathers of modern geology, they were to a man, catastrophists. James Hutton, Lyle and Playfair came along and basically proposed the idea of uniformitarianism. The present is the key to the past. Very powerful working idea is that we can look at stuff that's going on today, extrapolate backwards and try to figure out things that happened in the past when we don't have an eyewitness account, right? Very powerful. But what happened was it became so entrenched as dogma that anybody who invoked catastrophes was considered basically fringe. Because in the early days, some of these guys like Sedgwick, for example, he was a theologian. He was a traveling minister who went around and in his travels to convert the people to Christianity, he would see the stuff and he would place it within the context, perhaps, of being Noah's flood, right? And they would place it in a, some of them, not all of them, some of them would place it in a biblical context, right? So when they were attacked, basically the substance of the attack was, well, you guys are trying to bring us back to the days of biblical literalism and science has moved beyond that. We're not here, we don't want to talk about catastrophes or great floods, deluges, we're through talking about all of that. That's all been discredited. And what you see is between the early 1800s, with the beginning of geology, earth science, to about the 19th century, what you see is a steady decline. You know, some of the older guys die off, they're replaced by the new guys who have now basically taken control of the university curriculums and they've been indoctrinated into this idea of a strict gradualism. And that any deviation from that strict gradualism is heresy, basically. So by the time we get to the 20th century, you had this reigning uniformity, reigning gradualist dogma that had been imposed upon all earth science. And anybody who deviated from that was immediately kicked out of the club. And this is why when J. Harlan Brets came along in the 1920s and proposed that there had been these gigantic floods in the Pacific Northwest, you know, the geological community basically said, ah, get out of here, we don't want to hear about it. We know that that couldn't have been just because we know J. Harlan Brets continued to document, exhaustively document from the field that these floods were very real. His critics said, well, you can't provide a source for these floods, therefore they didn't happen. Now bear in mind that all of his critics, his most vocal critics, had never even gone out to actually look, right? And Graham is going to, he has got a great section in his new upcoming book describing the ordeal that Brets was put through. He finally prevailed, ultimately. Most of his critics died off. He lived to be, I think, 98. So I think when he was 96, he was given the Penrose Medal, which is the highest honor of geology. He said he was very grateful, but the only thing he was unhappy about was the fact that all of his critics had died off so he didn't get to gloat over them. So what happened was you had the younger geologists come in who were more open to that. And what you see is between the 1950s and 1960s, you have a transition going on where they're beginning to accept that these great floods had happened. But what they did was they took a modern example, which is glacial outburst floods, which we witnessed dozens and dozens, probably hundreds of such cases in Iceland, particularly Alaska, British Columbia, the Himalayas, where you have, particularly going back to the little ice age when the glaciers began to recede in the mid-19th century, you had a lot of what are called pro-glacial lakes formed, or lakes, bodies of water held in by the melting ice. And then eventually the ice gave way and the water rushed out in the form of a flood. The Icelanders called it a yokelops. Okay, so we have a modern example. So what they did was in the 60s and 70s was they said, okay, guess what? We've got now evidence that there was a huge body of water, a huge lake in western Montana. And it was held in by an ice dam. That ice dam gave way. All of this water gushed out over Idaho and southeastern Washington, down the Columbia Gorge to the Pacific Ocean, and caused all of this amazing erosion and sedimentation that Harlan Brettz was documenting. Never mind that we have to extrapolate up three orders of magnitude from modern examples, right? Never mind that the modern examples are utterly minuscule compared to what Brettz was looking at. That has become the dogma to explain these floods. And it's still the entrenched dogma as we speak now. I am trying to demolish that dogma. I want to show that these floods were something much grander than they have even imagined. And that the source of them was not actually a big glacial lake, but was what Brettz originally theorized was that there was something that caused a rapid melting of the ice. But then his critic said, well, there's nothing that could melt the ice as fast as you're requiring for your floods. So again, your floods didn't happen. But his floods did happen. And they were on an enormous, inconceivably vast scale. And this is what I was taking Graham out to see firsthand. Because I felt like for him to really have a handle on this information and this insight into the catastrophes that basically would have turned out. And that's what terminated his mother's civilization, as he called it, that he should see this stuff in the field for himself. Because as they say, a picture's worth a thousand words. Well, going out in the field and experiencing this directly is worth a thousand pictures. And so he's going to incorporate that into his book. And I would like to say about that book that based upon what I know and what he's shown me a bit of what's going into the book, I'll proclaim without any equivocation that I think it's probably going to be the most important book that's come out in the 21st century. Because it's opening a window onto this story like no other single source of information, credible information. Wow. That's a big statement. This whole thing is so mind-blowing. And as mind-blowing as your first appearance, this chart especially is really freaking me out. Like looking at the mortality, all the animals, the mass extinction event that must have taken place. One of the things that always bothered me about that idea that human beings killed off the woolly mammoths is that they found these vast fields of uneaten mammoths where there was thousands of them that had died almost instantaneously. Which is just, that doesn't make any sense. Like what did they do? They went on a mass killing orgy of slaughter and then just decided not to eat any of them? Well, you know, the field evidence itself is inconsistent with that idea. Right here, this is an example, this is one of the many mammoth cemeteries. And what happens is that you can see here that, you can see from the shoreline, see that there was a flood. The river rose up to this level and then when it rose down it left this in its wake. And what you see here, like this is bone counting at the Barelik Mammoth Cemetery in northern Yakutia, Siberia. Identical deposits are found throughout the Tamar Peninsula. And what we see here is these massive bone deposits that have been showing up for the last couple of hundred years. Every time that there's, you know, a thawing or a flood or these things are washed up on the shore of the Arctic Ocean, you know, what we see is that there were huge, huge herds of woolly mammoths. Grazing, where now the plant material is only two inches high. So clearly it was a completely different climate there. You know, what's interesting is that you had in Siberia able to support herds of woolly mammoths at the same time that half of North America is buried under two miles or more of ice. How is that possible? Just a totally different atmosphere. I'm still puzzling over that. I have some ideas, but you know, until I can test these ideas a little further, I'm... So without ice core samples, is it impossible to figure out what the temperature was in Siberia at that time? No, no. They can figure out basically based upon fossil plant remains. And you can see that in some cases the tree line was hundreds of miles further north than it is now. And that's clearly if you've got trees, forests growing now where, you know, 13 or 14 or 15,000 years ago, it was permafrost, you know, it was warmer, clearly. So there's still... Whoa, what is that? 19th century scene showing ivory floor of the London docks covered by thousands of mammoth tusks from Siberia. This is a drawing, obviously. Yeah, yeah. This is pre-dates photographs. Yeah. For hundreds of years, thousands of mammoths in tombed mammoths and mammoth tusks were being exhumed from the Siberian permafrost. Thousands and thousands and thousands of these. And basically, to me, you look at this, this is just in your face evidence that this was not humans doing this. You know, it was not humans that were slaughtering these mammoths and burying their remains. Well, the instantaneous nature would almost be like people had figured out some new thing. Like they figured out some, like a doom gun, you know, they shot the whole... The doom gun. Well, look at the near extinction of American bison. What brought that about? Trains and high-powered rifles, right? It was a technological, major technological advancement that was able to bring about the near extermination of the American bison. There's actually a guy that I'm going to bring on the podcast soon to discuss that. His name is Dan Flores, who spent... A big chunk of his intellectual career studying this. And what he believes is that the bison had a massive population jump that was directly correlating to smallpox epidemic on the Native American people. And that when the United States, when we look at the United States history, the big stacks of woolly mammoths, excuse me, the big stacks of bison skulls we always look to, like that was a very unusual population of bison that existed because the Plains Indians had experienced this massive extinction event. And then when they had incorporated the horse, like the horse and the apparently the American Indians, Native Americans rather, were on their way to extrapating the bison even before we came along. But then they died off in this massive death scenario with smallpox and all the different diseases that the Europeans had brought over here. And then the mammoth population, or excuse me, the bison population had grown almost unnaturally. It had been much larger than it had ever been in the past. And that's when the United States was established and that's when all the Western European immigrants had come along and started killing off all these bisons. It's really a very interesting subject. It's an interesting idea and it's plausible. I haven't looked into that. I assumed, and maybe wrongfully, but I had assumed that the bison population had been relatively stable. I am not convinced, though, that there was this massive die-off of the Native American population yet. I'm not convinced. Well, because I haven't looked into it yet. But one of the things I have seen is that the assumption there is predicated upon that the Europeans arrived and brought the diseases that Native Americans had no defenses for. But the thing is that there's so much evidence now showing that there were lots of explorers and immigrants to the New World prior to the arrival of the Europeans. You know, with the Chinese, the Phoenicians, and I'm not necessarily saying that's credible. None of it's been proven. But there's some interesting data out there that suggests, and there are a number of books written that, again, I haven't accessed it. So I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I'm an authority on that because I'm not. But if some of that turns out to be credible, it would suggest that there was a lot more interaction between the Native American population and other groups around the world. Which, if true, to me kind of somewhat undermines this idea that they were completely susceptible to the introduction of these foreign diseases. But again, I've got an open mind. I'll wait and see. I'd like to see what he says. I'd like to hear his ideas. Fran, when interested, he has a paper in the Journal of American History. It's called Bison Ecology and Bison Diplomacy, the Southern Plains from 1800 to 1850. I just looked for it online. There's a preview that's available, but to download the entire paper or book, I'm not sure which one it is, it's $19. And what journal is it in? The Journal of American History from September of 1991. And like I said, he's working on a new book right now, and I'm trying to get him to come in, but it's just very difficult while he's in the middle of... You said September 1991? Yeah, I can probably access. Dan Flores is his name. Well, just the information that I got about it was pretty mind-blowing. Sounds interesting. I want to know more. Thank you for that, Joe. Yeah, please. Now, let's go back to that photo that you have on your desktop that you were going to explain to me, but we decided not to talk about it before the podcast because it's so incredible that you said all this incredible change that we're looking at, the geological structure, all that took place within the world. Just a week. Yeah. Let's go to this. We'll come... I've got that. We'll come to that. This is a satellite photograph taken from about 500 miles up. And what you see here, this is in southeastern Washington. And what you're looking at here is part of what's called the Columbia Basalt Plateau. This is part of the terrain that we crossed when I was with Graham. What you see here is that you have an area of... If you look here, you can see the... Oh, differentiate between the pixels and the actual squares that... Like you see this red area down here is area that's actually being farmed. And it's an... This is an infrared photograph. And so what happens is that the areas that are being cultivated will show up warmer than the surrounding areas. This is... This whole plateau is covered in this stuff called LUS. L-O-E-S-S. And it's a type of very fertile soil that has a rather mysterious and controversial origin. We won't get into that right now. But in some places, this LUS layer is hundreds of feet thick over a dark basalt bedrock that is a result of these massive outflows of basaltic lava that came out... That extruded between about 6 million and 16 million years ago. Right? The hotspot that was the ultimate origin of this basalt is now where Yellowstone is. Which so you can make that connection here. The Yellowstone... Supervolcano. Supervolcano, yeah. Yeah. And what you have here is that you have the lighter areas is where this LUS topsoil still exists. And the darker areas is where the underlying dark basalt has been... Is showing through because the LUS was washed away. So what this is, is your typical... The geological term is anastomosing. And basically that means a branching flow pattern of the water. And you can see that very clearly here that the water came off of this river, which is the Columbia River up here, and flowed over the landscape. And washed away the basalt and left these gigantic channels in its wake. And there's more over here to the east, there's more over here to the west. And if we look at... Actually this... Let me go to a different program here. I think it will actually have some... That actually I think has the picture in it that you are seeing. Now what we're looking at here is what's been called the Missoula Flood. Right? Named after the town of Missoula, Montana. Missoula is in a basin that was part of this hypothesized giant lake that presumably caused this flood. Right? And again there was an ice dam. There was this ice dam, the ice dam broke, and as soon as this thing comes up I will be able to show you some slide. Here we go. Let's see. Here we go. It should be coming up right here. While that's coming up, we'll look at this slide right here because this will kind of give you a picture of the earth as it was during the height of the ice age. So wow, that's pretty deep. The sheets of ice go pretty far down. That's amazing. Canada didn't exist. Canada didn't exist. Wow. Poor Canadians. Well, yeah. And you know, the ice, part of it is, you know, a lot of it in the Midwest now, the farming belt of America is basically growing out of the fertile soil that the ice scraped off of Canada and dumped down in Minnesota and Iowa and Wisconsin and so on. So someday they may want that back. But we're not going to let them have it. It's fascinating when you look at that, that there was this big ice cap, but then the areas around it, no ice. And why was that? Well, that's one of the mysteries. Again, like over here in Siberia, you can see over here, this is where all the woolly mammoths were giant herds of woolly mammoths. And it appears like it may have been warmer than now during the ice age, which is very odd. There's some ice up there? Is that what we're seeing? Yeah, there's some ice up there, sporadic glaciers, but nothing like what we see in northwestern Europe over here. This was called the Fenno-Scandian ice sheet. And the ice sheet over North America actually consisted of two ice sheets, the Laurentide, which was centered over Hudson Bay, and the Cordilleran, which was centered over the Canadian Rockies. And in this particular slide, you can see here, this was the Cordilleran over here, over the Canadian Rockies, and the Laurentide was much bigger. And then there was an area between the two, right here, which has been theorized as, at one point, having been a corridor called the Ice Free Corridor, and migrants from, paleo-Indian migrants from Siberia, would have come across Alaska and down through this corridor here to the lower United States, and ultimately down here to South America. And it was that group, these groups of bands of paleo-Indian hunters that, according to the Overkill or Blitzkrieg hypothesis, wiped out the mega mammals as they passed by. Let's see, okay, there we go. Okay, so here, this kind of will show the coastlines of the world during the ice age. And let me just escape out of this, so that we can zoom in a little bit and look at it closer. Okay, so here would be, as we see now, and this is modern coastline. This is modern coastlines. And now I'm going to jump to, this is actually only 300 feet lower than now. And quite a bit different. Let's just look at the United States, North America. That's amazing. There's a lot more United States. Yeah, now check this out. Okay, now here, here's North America as it is now. And you see up here, this is what's called, this is the Bering Strait right here between Alaska and Siberia, right? During the ice age, this whole area was exposed because of the lowered sea level. And we'll go one slide further and you will see, take a look now, watch what happens up there in Beringia. Boom. Wow, so it's all land. It's all land. And it's connecting North America to Siberia. And that's all drowned. Wow, I didn't understand that. See, I always thought that the Bering Strait was an ice mass. I thought it was during the ice age that there was some sort of, that it was ice, but it's not. It's land. It's land. And it's not glaciated. And it was home to these extraordinary herds of mega mammals that ranged over these thousands and thousands of square miles. I mean, the drowned area is bigger than modern Alaska. So how long goes this? Well, this is, you know, right at the end, up till the end of the ice age, you know, between like 14, 15,000 years ago. 14, 50,000 years ago, no glaciers in this area. This is all just land and there's animals living in it and people are walking back and forth. I mean, essentially, it was a continent. I mean, it was connected. It was all one continent. It was all one. It was all one continent. Wow, that's amazing. And not the coastlines of the world. Look at Florida. Here. See, it's double the width of the modern peninsula. Yeah, it's enormous. And it's so close to Mexico, too. It's almost like a little boat ride. Now, here is Indonesia. And, you know, where stories, which I don't know how credible they are, but you know, there are stories like Lemuria in the Pacific and all of them. Again, I don't know how credible those are. I think the Atlantis story actually has a little more credibility. We talked about that last time somewhat. But here's the modern. And you can see the light blue is the is the coastal shelf area. Right now, let's go back. Drop. We're going to drop sea level 300 feet. And then you'll see here the enormous change. Whoa. So, again, enormous areas of land were drowned by the rising sea levels. Remember this. Now, when we look at the rise of modern cities and modern civilizations, where did they first show up? We're on the coast. On the coast. Right. At the mouths of rivers on the coastlines. And during the ice age, where would have been the most obvious prime habitable real estate, you know, down close to sea level. Right. So if there were cities built, you know, if there were thriving communities during the ice age, they're now 400 feet under the water. It's so amazing that all of these stories of floods, the epic of Gilgamesh, Noah's Ark, that all of these stories seem to really correlate with all this data. I mean, they all seem to coincide. That's exactly the point. It's so weird. I get me. You know, most people would think about the story of Noah's Ark. Oh, it's just some crazy old horse shit, but it's most likely this. They're basing it on something that happened very rapidly in their area. Yeah. Now, of course, we were most familiar with the story of Noah's Ark, you know, because of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but there are hundreds, literally hundreds of stories from all over the world that parallel the story of Noah and the decalion. Zesethris, Utnapishtim, Manu. The list goes on and on of these culture heroes that somehow had foreknowledge of this impending disaster and were able to take steps to preserve themselves, their family, some diverse cross-section of species. And they all have this, you know, similarity. They all parallel. Now, my way of looking at it is this. Okay. We now know from the hard geological record that massive floods have taken place on the surface of the earth. Massive floods, right? Beyond anything that we have even imagined, right? Up until a decade or a few decades ago. They're real. Okay. On the other hand, we have stories and myths and legends repeatedly. It's probably the most ubiquitous of all the stories that we've inherited from the past is the story of this gigantic world destroying flood that occurred, right? Now, on the one hand, we have the geological, hard geological record, which shows there were giant floods. Then we have these epic tales and myths from all over the world about giant floods. Do we now dismiss those floods, those stories out of hand and say, oh, that's just superstitious, preliterate, you know, pseudoscientific nonsense? I think we'd be making a big mistake to do that. Now, if we accept that those flood stories, and maybe they have been altered through the time and through the telling, represent something real. What about the other elements of the story? The fact that in so many cases, there was somebody that had foreknowledge. Do we dismiss that out of hand as well? You know, or where does that come from? That there was one group of people, small group of people that saw this thing coming and prepared for it and others who basically paid no attention. Maybe they were just preppers. Maybe there's the preppers of 10,000 years ago. The preppers of 10,000 years ago. I think that explains it right there. One last slide quick here. Here's Europe and look at the British Isles. Right now we'll drop sea level. No British Isles. That's incredible. See, that's what I was saying earlier when we started talking. The world of 15,000 years ago was so dramatically different than our modern world that, you know, it's almost difficult to conceive until you start looking at things like this. And this is all during the Ice Age. Yes. And so the melting of the glaciers just changed everything as we know it. And this is while human beings were absolutely alive. Absolutely. Absolutely. No question. Human beings were alive. Yes. Okay. So we'll start looking at some of these pictures here. This is from Western Montana. You know, it says in Genesis 719, the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth and all the high hills were covered. I want you to take a look as you can see many mountains in Western United States, if you know what you're looking at, that have this on them. You know what those are? Those horizontal lines? They look like where the shore. They're shorelines. Exactly. They're shorelines. That's absolutely what they are. That's absolutely what they are. They're shorelines reaching right up to the very tops of the hills, you see. And basically what you had was you had this enormous gush of water filling these mountain valleys almost to the mountain peaks and then draining away. And as it drained away, it left the succession of shorelines etched into the hillside. Wow. And all along the pathway of the floods, we're going to see stuff like this. This was our first stop with Graham. This is Lottorell Falls. This is that basalt I was talking about. Look at this stuff. There's layers of this basalt. Well, that's you guys underneath it? I don't think in this picture. I think I took this picture about 10 years ago. But yeah, I have pictures of me and Graham under there. You're so tiny. That's so crazy. It's so big. Right. Now, here's what you've got a picture, Joe. Picture you've got this nice, gentle valley with a nice river, very pastoral scene, you know, trees and stuff, probably, you know, mammoths and herds of these animals grazing along the side of this peaceful river with gentle valley slopes. Here comes this massive flood and we're talking about perhaps a flood wave 800 to 1000 feet high coming through as it comes through. It's ripping up everything in its path. And what it does is it now changes the profile of this valley from this gentle profile to down cutting 800, 1000, 1200 feet or more into the bedrock. So now prior to the passage of this giant flood, you had streams and nice little rivers flowing into the main river, which in this case was the Columbia. What happens is after the passage of this flood wave, it sheared off the sides of the channel. So now, rather than a gentle slope, you've got sheer cliffs 4, 5, 600 feet high. These pre-flood streams and rivers come up and they're now waterfalls. And that's what we're looking at right here in this picture, if that makes sense to you. And you notice how you've got this undercutting here. That undercutting only occurs when you have enormous, intense turbulence in the water doing this. You see, the water doing this will undercut. See, this modern waterfall here had nothing to do with the creation of this cliff. This cliff was cut, again, probably in a matter of days to weeks by the passage of these giant floods. And there's dozens of these waterfalls that are left. And these are called hanging valleys. They can be produced by glaciers, but they can also be produced by enormous, intense flood waves. This is your typical, not typical, this is called, this is a bar, a gravel bar, but in this case it's a boulder bar. Now, if you've ever done any walking along a river or a creek or along the beach and you've seen ripples in the sand, and they're typically, you know, if you've got water that's a foot or two feet deep, you don't have ripples that are maybe an inch or two high. What we're looking at here is a flood bar that's three miles long. It's up to 250 feet above the modern river. And the ripples that you can see here are up to 50 feet in height and 350 feet in wavelength. This was produced, again, by gigantic flood flows. And if we look right over here, that's a three-story building you see right there for scale. Oh, wow. So this gives you an idea. It's features like this that are just unequivocal in terms of realizing that this is not pseudoscience. This really happened. And there's this date back to a very specific time? Yes, to this 13,000 year. So it's everywhere. Everywhere. You're seeing this. You've seen it geologically. You've seen an ice cores. You've seen it in fossils. You've seen it. Yes. This is evidence of the big meltdown. Has anybody ever tried to debate you on this stuff? I would certainly welcome debate. I don't claim to have the final, final word on this. But you know, here's the thing. I've interacted with a lot of geologists that are studying this, professional geologists that are studying this. What I can tell you is that in most cases, the geologists that are studying this, it's not something, it's basically something they're doing in their spare time. Most of them are engaged, you know, either, you know, in the energy industry or working for government for other purposes. What you actually will see here, though, when you begin to look at the trend in the evidence is that I think that the geological community is moving much closer to a scenario like I'm describing. And right now there's actually a controversy because, you know, some of the the older guard is wanting to defend this idea of the Yokelops, this, this giant lake draining out. There are a group of Canadian geologists, though, who are challenging that under a leadership of a man who may now be retired named John Shaw, who goes back to the 1980s and begin a reinterpretation of a very ubiquitous glacial feature called drumlins. And that were, I can show you some pictures of them here after a bit. They're very interesting. They look like inverted boat hulls. And it was assumed, and they're always associated with the locations of the glaciers in the ice sheets. So it was therefore assumed that they were somehow created by the glaciers themselves. But glaciers tend to grind things that they're moving over and level things off and scratch them and leave striations and all of this abrasion. These drumlins are smooth, streamlined features. What Shaw first proposed back in the late 80s was that they had actually been produced by water flowing massive amounts of water flowing under the glaciers. And there's a very similar the critic said, well, where did this water come from? And he said, well, I don't know. It must have been enormous sub glacial lake sub glacial reservoirs. The critic said, well, there's no way that that a reservoir is huge as your floods would require could have existed under the ice. Therefore, your sub glacial floods didn't exist. And that was the to me the fatal weakness in his theory was to explain where the water came from. But I think now we can't explain where it came from. And you believe it's an asteroid impact. Again, by default, I there's we have we look at all the possible the cross section of possible explanations within the realm of nature. We can go through and we can eliminate this one, this one, this one, this one, this one. And what we're left with is one that of itself would be fully capable of doing it. Fully capable and makes sense that it would happen instantaneously. It would make sense it would happen instantaneously. Any other sort of thing? Yes. So is there an impact crater that corresponds to this timeline? Well, that's what I'm working on. Trying to find it. Yeah. And I think I've I think I've got a pretty good idea, but it's going to take some field research and next summer I'm planning to do some some more field research. Is there an idea where it hit? Yeah, I have several ideas. You don't want to talk about it? Keep it mum. At this point, when when when it's when it's time to reveal it. Okay, let's do it here. Oh, I'd love that. I would love that. Well, you you've shown several impact craters. You showed a bunch last time you were here. The one in Australia. That was I believe you said 5000 years ago. Yeah. Yeah. And of course, every hypothetically, it hasn't been proven yet because again, some of these more recent craters of the last 10,000 years. Some of these that have been hypothesized are actually on the bottom of the ocean. The Birkel crater that I think we talked about in the bottom of the Indian Ocean. It's under two miles of seawater. So until we can actually get back there and do more in depth sampling and examination, it'll be impossible to prove it. But I think that the the evidence is strongly supportive of that possibility that maybe 5000 years ago, there was a significant impact into the Indian Ocean that could have caused a lot of damage to the ocean. And that's one of the things that I was saying was enormous tsunami waves. Now, I actually posted one of the somebody, you know, called into question some of the things I had said in the last interview about tsunamis and that that the things I was saying weren't really tsunami. So I actually wrote an elaborate response to that, which is posted on the sacred geometry website where I've gone into great detail. And I think that's the important part of the idea that that there had been enormous tsunamis, possibly hundreds of feet high, sweeping over the coastlines of the Indian Ocean, probably around 5000 years ago, that could have been the origin of some of the flood myths. Timeline where this mass extinction event occurred, where the massive warming occurred, all that also coincides with the discovery of this nuclear glass all over Asian Europe, which is somewhere in the when they do the core samples of around the same area, right around 12,000 plus years ago. Yes, what we can see here. We'll go through a second. This is some of the research. You can see this is this is very typical. The mysterious onset of the younger dry is now, this is this has been the kind of the consensus view is that okay, we don't have an explanation, the younger dry us remembers that that interval between those two spikes, right, where you had the warming, then the snap back to glacial cold, and then the warming and so that interval in between is the younger dry us. So here they're saying the mysterious onset of the younger dry us the 1300 year long younger dry us cold reversal and you notice the dates 12,900 to 11,600. That means calendar years before present. So what they've done is they've calibrated this from radio carbon dating to, which is not necessarily going to be the same as the actual calendar years. So, those dates are very interesting. 11,600 years ago, you may recall from our last interview is the date given by Plato for the subsidence of Atlantis 11,000 I mean he says that Atlantis subsided in you can anybody can read this if they want to pick up to me as and Kati us the two dialogues that he describes Atlantis in he gives that date 9000 years before this exile of so long in Egypt, which took place in 600 BC, roughly. So, 600 BC in roughly roughly is 2600 years ago, add that to the 9000 years and near as you're 11,600. So now, what has happened is 2500 years ago Plato gave a date, which would seem to suggest that something, some something immense happened in the Atlantic Ocean, and you had an island complex that sank, perhaps from rapid sea level rise now 2500 years later, here's modern science coming up with the exact date showing, hey, there was a massive meltwater pulse into the ocean at that date. Now, at this point, nobody within mainstream science is going, Oh, well, see he doesn't mention here. Oh, that's the date given by Plato. They don't say that. But it's, it is the case. That's incredible. Yeah, that's so amazing. Now, Plato that he was told that right. It was all through stories. It was Yeah, it was handed down so long handed it down. Let's see if I can remember this through the Pitus, the Pitus to Kritius the elder Kritius the elder to Kritius the younger, then Kritius the younger, I guess to Socrates, actually at the forum, where Plato would have heard it would have been the Socratic forum, where it was told. So I think there was like, three generations between Solon and Plato, the wise men of the time where the people that were in charge of disseminating knowledge back then, it was such a critical job, critical job. Yes, no internet, no books. And the whole thing was, was that the whole emphasis was on transmit the oral transmission had to take place without not one iota of change. It had to be transmitted from mouth to ear, unbroken without change without alteration, which has always been the issue with human beings. Hence that telephone game. Yes, you tell someone something, they tell you something. It's but if you start out in you know, it's going to be the same with Native Americans and the Native American storytellers have to go through a very long, arduous term of initiation to show that when they tell the story, it's going to be exactly like they heard it. That's what one of the basis of modern Freemasonry to we need to get that with today's modern gossip. Yeah, they need to nail that. But let's just run through a quick succession here of some of the most recent research shock synthesized hexagonal diamonds in younger driest boundary sediments. Oh, now these shock synthesized hexagonal diamonds only occur. They there's no natural known natural process that will produce them, except for the intense heat and pressures of the cosmic impact. Whoa. Okay, and what year was this study? Oh, this has been very recent. This is probably within the last 10 years. There was something since 2007. This is probably around 2011. There was something that was released very recently about micro diamonds and micro diamonds corresponding. Yeah, and that also was the same timeline. So it's just like the evidence keeps accumulating in this time period that the micro diamonds, the nuclear glass, the spikes in warming that's observable on the ice cores, the mass extinction events of all these animals. This is an event. This is an event. This is crazy that you're you're the guy talking about this event. I mean, this is really nuts. But not anything taken away from you, but there's so few people beating this drum that there's so many people that are so much more than just the people that there's so much information. We're talking about hard data. You've shown on this show three, four different examples of hard data that points to this event. Well, see, here's the thing. Modern science does tend to get over specialized. And so what happens is the guy looking at extinctions might not be looking at, you know, glacial melting. The guy who's looking at glacial melting isn't real. The geology is not gonna make you look at it. The one that's gonna be a big deal, the one that's gonna be a big deal, and he's gonna be a big deal. We're going to be looking at a lot of that in the future. And that's one of the things that I think is not gonna be the just as not looking at what's going on in the sky. They're not looking at, you know, traditions from thousands of years ago. See what it does is because of the power of this specialization. I mean, the specialization is extremely powerful, but it's shortcoming is is that it's easy to miss the big picture. What that does is opens the door for generalists, guys who are just, you know, people who are just, I say guys, men or women, anybody who's curious about this stuff to look into it and try to see the big picture. Why am I bringing this? Well, it's just because for 40 years, I've been obsessed with this stuff. And you know, I read two or three scientific articles every single day and have done so for 40 years plus. So that adds up after a while. And I don't just read them. I study them. I take notes, you know, two or three every single day. So you figure what is that? That's 1000 a year. You go back 40 years. That means I probably read something in the order of 40,000 scientific articles from anthropology, geology, when I studied geology and astronomy in college. So, you know, I have some academic background in that. But, but, you know, basically what I have done is tried to piece together the big picture because early on I saw nobody's doing that. Nobody's doing it really. And some of the guys that are out there doing it are not doing it with academic rigor. You know, they're bringing in all kinds of weird stuff, which makes it easy for the critics to attack them and dismiss them as being fringe science. They're throwing some woo into the mix. They're throwing some woo into the mix. Yeah. In fact, the one of the, the, the, the rational wiki entry on me says something about Randall Carlson and his woo. That's all it says, you know, so I took that as a sort of a compliment. Well, people love to be able to dismiss anything that's not mainstream, right? That's outside. Yeah. Yeah. Because there's this cult of authority, you know, that's why you hear somebody says, well, what does a real scientist say about this? What does a real scientist say about this flood? And am I, well, which real scientist, you know, Vic Baker, Richard Waite, you know, Roy Breckenridge, you know, I've read or talked to every, almost every scientist that's done work on the Missoula flood, you know, so I know what they're saying and what they're thinking, you know, and what they've written. So, so, you know, when you say, well, what are the real scientists say? Well, okay, let's get a little more specific. Who are you talking about? Because there are different points of view. You know, are you talking about John Shaw's idea? Are you talking about, you know, Victor Baker's ideas or, or, or any of the others? Well, you know, and that's the thing, they say that because they don't really know they've got this idea in their mind that there's this authority that's got it all explained, which makes it easy, right? Because if somebody's got it explained, then we don't need to concern ourselves with it or think about it. Right? Right. So what I say is, okay, forget about who says what, let's just look at the facts. Let the facts dictate to us what the meaning of all of this is, you know, and let's look at all points of view. Because that's what I try to do. You know, I've got in my in my archives here, I've got, you know, not only the research that supports the idea of a cosmic impact back during the Younger Dryas, but the criticisms of it as well, you know, and I go, Okay, how can we explain those criticisms? And in the give and take of science, that's part of the process. You know, that's how it evolves. Because somebody puts out a new idea, you're supposed to attack it, you know, and then if it withstands the assault, the onslaught, that shows that it's a credible idea. You know, it's like a last man standing sort of thing. And I think that the cosmic impact really is going to end up being the last man standing. Well, it seems like there's so much evidence that you're you're you're bringing up that's so hard, you know, the this, the, the, how do you say that word? Condrite, Condrite, Condrite like mineral from black matte. I mean, all the various things, the micro diamonds, the nuclear glass, the mass extinction events, the evidence of the flooding, warming, the flooding, the sea level rise, all of it, all this converges. Yeah. And this, this is basically saying, Condrite, Condrites are a type of meteorite. So this is saying, Condrite like material, in other words, material that would have had its origin in space from the black matte. Now this black man is really interesting. I'm going to show you a couple of slides of it, because this black matte layer, it's black. The reason it's black is because it's so loaded with soot. What is soot the result of fire, right? So let's, let's go through here. Yeah, this discovery of a nano diamond rich layer in the Greenland ice sheet. So nobody had looked. But when these guys, Richard Firestone and James West and James Kennett, these other scientists that are working on this Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, said to their colleagues, check out the Younger Dryas boundary layer 12,900 years ago and see if there's anything that shows up there. They did. And what do you suppose they found? Here it is right here, a nano diamond rich layer. So there it is showing up in the ice sheets. Here's new evidence from a black matte site in the Northern Andes supporting a cosmic impact 12,800 years ago. Very high temperature impact melt products as evidence for cosmic air bursts impacts 12,900. So they, you know, they haven't, they're getting closer and closer to refining the date, but it's coming in 12,800 to 12,900 years ago. Wildlife, wildfire and abrupt ecosystem disruption on California's Northern Channel Islands at the Alarod Younger Dryas boundary at basically 12,900. 12.9 k a means 12,900 years ago. K you know, is the universal means a thousand. That's great. It's all the same. Everything keeps coming back the same date. Yeah. Nano diamond rich layer across three continents consistent with major cosmic impact to 12,800 calendar years before present evidence from central Mexico supporting the younger dry as extraterrestrial impact hypothesis evidence from Northwestern Venezuelan Andes for extraterrestrial impact. The black matte enigma evidence for deposition of 10 million tons of impact sterols across four continents 12,800 years ago. See, it's coming in, man. It's coming in in abundance. And what's gratifying to me is I theorized this 25 years ago. Wow. And it to see now the hard evidence coming in supporting a scenario I had pieced together from all of these different realms of knowledge is very gratifying to me. What was the seed in your mind that led you to be obsessed for a lack of a better word with this? Not only the lack of a better word. I think it's pretty accurate, right? With this subject. Okay, I guess it's time to come clean. I was on mushrooms. I was on top of a mountain. Well, no, you're actually pretty close. Yeah. Okay, 1969. Oh, that's a good year for mushrooms. Yeah. Well, it wasn't mushrooms, but it was something in their family. Okay. Okay. I'm going to a rock concert, right in the beautiful summer day, early summer 12,000, 12,900 years ago. No. 1969. Right. Okay. So it's on a field next to a little airport in just out southwest of many the twin cities, Minnesota, which is near where I grew up. Okay. The Minnesota River flows through there. Right. Minnesota River flows into the Mississippi. I think I'll have some slides coming up here. I can maybe even show you. Okay. So what we have here is that in the middle of this thing between bands or whatever, I wandered off from the main area where the, where every, the crowd was gathered to listen to the music. And I walked over to these 200 foot high bluffs overlooking the Valley of the Mississippi, of the Minnesota River. Now, the Minnesota River currently flows in a little channel at the bottom of this Valley. And I'm standing up on this hill and I'm looking down at this Minnesota River, you know, hundreds of feet below me in this channel and three miles, four miles across, I see another set of bluffs matching the ones that I'm standing on. And I had this, all I can say is it was kind of a revelation that I'm looking down here at this little river flowing in a channel. And then I'm seeing just a gigantic version of that same channel, but it's three and four miles wide. And I just looked at that and it was almost as if for a short period of time, I got transplanted out of time or something. I don't know how to explain it. You can see this raging river. I had this sense that this whole thing was a gigantic river at one time. I came away from that with this idea planted in the back of my brain and it bugged me for years after that. Right. And it was maybe five, six years. This is now into the seventies. There was not a whole lot on catastrophism available in the seventies. There was, you know, Emmanuel Velikovsky, one of the forerunners. But, you know, he, he came up with some really wild ideas that made it very easy for mainstream science to dismiss him. But he came up with some really solid ideas too. His book, Earth and Uphievel, basically was just a documentation of all of this geological evidence for great catastrophes in the history of the earth. I think he misinterpreted the cause of those catastrophes, but nonetheless, when you look at the criticisms, you've heard of Emmanuel Velikovsky, right? Velikovsky, I've heard of him, you. Okay. Well, he was famous, best-selling author, one of the big best-selling authors of the 1950s, you know, maybe in a sense a forerunner of, in fact, Graham Hancock has been compared to Velikovsky now and then. I've actually seen some of, some of that. Although Velikovsky's work, I don't think was anywhere near as credible as Graham's Graham is very, very assiduous in his, his referencing and his detailing. And so Velikovsky went way off into this really weird astrophysics to explain his, his theories of geological catastrophe, which again allowed the critics to basically dismiss everything he had done. So his, but his book, Earth and Uphievel, I think has upheld the test of time. We're basically in the 1950s, he was accumulating all of this evidence suggesting that there had been catastrophes in earth history and like I said, a best seller, but the mainstream scientific community was very dismissive of it. Okay, and then after that you had a book called, by Charles Hapgood, called The Path of the Pole. I think it came out in 76. And he, he and their theorized that there had been a sudden pole shift that had brought about, you know, the quick freezing of the mammoths and the end of the ice age and so forth. So, you know, I was familiar with that stuff and I would, I would read that stuff just out of curiosity, you know, because that was some of the stuff that was out there and, and, you know, somebody would say, Hey, did you read Velikovsky? And so as I was reading this stuff, I would keep thinking back to this image I'd had of this, you know, and then in the early 80s, I was talking to somebody, I actually gave one of my very early lectures on this stuff. And there was a, somebody had a degree in geology who stood up and he said, no, no, no, no, that, that valley that you're talking about was created over millions of years. I said, I don't think so. And we kind of got into it a little bit. And but what that did was it kind of pissed me off. And I said, Okay, I'm going to research this thoroughly. And I did, I thoroughly researched it. I went and I found every single thing that had been written on it and discovered that there's actually mainstream geologists that have said, yeah, that river channel, that giant river channel was actually created by a huge melt water flood. And they estimated that its volume, they called it River Warren, they estimated it as volume might have been 4000 times greater than the modern Minnesota River that's flowing in there. So I felt very vindicated from that. And this was by the early 80s. So that was like one of the key things. There was other things, you know, I, I spent the summer of 1970, mostly sitting on a mountaintop in Colorado, you know, in a hut that I had built, studying and reading stuff and traveling you know, this was back in the days when you could hitchhike and travel all over. And I think at one point, I was with a buddy and we were in his old camper van and other times I would hitchhike. But I spent the whole summer traveling around the western states. And the thing I came away from that summer with the you know, I traveled the first time I traveled down to Columbia Gorge. And as I did, I had this overwhelming sense that there was something in the landscape that I was that was that was waiting to be revealed. You know, I would look at these features in the Columbia Gorge when I showed you that huge that that waterfall with the basalt over and that's in the Columbia Gorge. So that was the area I had traveled through in 1970. And I came away with that with this sense that, boy, there's something that that landscape is trying to tell me. And so it goes back to that. And I just you know, I got very interested in this stuff, because I'm interested in science and I love the outdoors. So, you know, I love a good mystery, you know, and I love, you know, ancient traditions where so how all this sort of came together over a period of, you know, a couple of decades. So I began really, I would say obsessively, really going into this in the early 80s, you know, where it went from just more or less casual reading into, you know, spending hours in university libraries, digging up these things, going back to the 90s, going back like to the early geologists to see what were they saying, why did they believe that the history of the earth have been catastrophic, you know, and, and it just accelerated. It doesn't seem like a ridiculous idea at all when you consider what we see on the moon, the moon is so fascinating, because we can look right at it. There's no oceans, there's no forests, we can see the evidence of impacts all over it just completely covered completely covered with our minds living in this very small window of life. You know, we're lucky we get 100 years. And then of course, you know, we have the history which goes back to about seven plus thousand years. Yeah, just not enough to really to represent what we're looking at when we look at the moon, we look at the moon that's covered with craters, we're looking at potentially billions of years of impacts. Yes. And the assumption that those impacts ceased hundreds of millions or billions of years ago is clearly not correct. Well, there's no evidence that ceased or why it would cease. And when we look at how many known near earth objects are floating around. Oh, in the last few years, there's been dozens of close flybys. There was one the other day that had a fucking moon. Yes, yes. So something that flew by that had its own moon. Yeah, yeah, that's wild. And so think about this, Joe, here's what's happening. We've got geologists who are looking at the crust of the earth and discovering that yeah, if we strip away the biosphere and the oceans and account for plate tectonics, the earth is going to look like the moon. Right? There are now hundreds of identified craters, right? At the same time, astronomers are looking out into the near space, the near earth neighborhood of space and discovering, wait a second, we assumed that, you know, we were pretty much isolated that there was nothing else going on. We're now realizing that near earth space is densely populated. The inner solar system is densely populated with cosmic debris. And this stuff is whiz and bias all the time. And it's and now at the same time, you've got paleontologists who are looking at the record of life and realizing that the record of life is not a smooth curve. It's seesawed, you know, life proliferates, and then suddenly, bam, it's like the hammer comes down and you have these mass extinction events. So this is our time right now, but it could very easily end. And there could be some new bug like creature that takes over and becomes super smart a billion years from now. To me, it all comes down to this. This to me is like, okay, human species on planet Earth, it's time for you to grow up and start paying attention to the bigger picture because whether you like it or not, you're a part of the bigger picture. And if we if we finally accept the fact that maybe our predecessors have undergone, in a sense, cultural mass extinctions, you know, it suddenly implies that we can't take our own unending future for granted, that we have to we have to incorporate this bigger picture into our thinking. And, you know, the evidence continues to yes, like here, this was just from 2011, multiple lines of evidence for possible human population decline settlement reorganization during the early Younger Dryas. In the three years, four years since this was published, more evidence has emerged that yes, the the events that caused the mass extinction of half the great mega mammals on Earth did not leave the rest of the mammals, the rest of the animals unscathed, including humans. And there's now emerging evidence, hard scientific evidence that the human population crashed during the Younger Dryas. So this would completely coincide with Graham Hancock's ideas about the Sphinx. The Sphinx absolutely showing very clear, according to Robert Shock, Boston University geologist, John Anthony West, John Anthony West, that there is clear evidence of water erosion on the Sphinx, which would indicate thousands of years of rainfall, where there hasn't been rainfall in the Nile Valley since like, I believe it was 9000 BC. Yeah, that's 11,000 years ago. Yeah, all the same stuff. It's all the same stuff. God, this is crazy. Yeah, we're on the verge of a major paradigm shift. And where it's going to go remains to be seen. We live in a shooting gallery. We live, we listen, it's not an exaggeration to say that we are sitting ducks in a cosmic shooting gallery. Exactly. But the point is, here's the point is, the only thing that's see, it's like, what was it in the in the book of Matthew, there's an interesting quote, and I'm not, you know, I'm not not thumping the Bible here. But the Bible is full of just like all the traditions of ages are gone, the Bible is full of some very powerful, interesting stuff. There's a part in here where one of the disciples asked Jesus about when are we going to know about the end of days? And he says, Well, as it was in the days of Noah, when the people were eating and drinking and marrying and giving in marriage, so will it be again, in the days, the end of days, when the flood comes, when the people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage until the flood came and swept them away. So will it be again, at the end of days. So what that seems to indicate to me is that we just get comfortable and relaxed and do well. Yeah. And when we do well, that's when we get hit. But it's not saying that the everyday stuff, the stuff of everyday life, there's anything wrong. It's not saying that it's just saying, if we get so preoccupied with the minutia and the trivia of everyday life, to the exclusion of the bigger picture, that's when we open ourselves up. Well, there's been, I've had these weird conversations with people about asteroid impacts over the years, because before I even met you, I've been obsessed with this stuff. Not nearly as much as when I met you in Atlanta, and we started talking, then I got really into it. But what they would talk about, the asteroids that killed the dinosaur, oh, today, we'd be able to stop that. And I'm like, okay, really? Is that true? And then I started looking into it. Well, what has been done? Is nothing some theories? See, here's the thing, potentially, yes, we could someday we could do it. And really, you know, within within a decade or two, yes, we could, we could do that right now, potentially. But see what happened on February 15 of 2014, when that little meteor came in and exploded over Chelyabinsk, Siberia, injured 1500 people. Now, you know, and damaged thousands of buildings. That was a wake up call, right? That was a little spec. It was a little spec. Now, here's the thing, if it had been a little bigger, a little denser, if it's an angle of approach had been a little steeper, if its velocity had been a little bit greater, we might have been looking at thousands of deaths rather than just injuries. And Tunguska, as you said, only 150 foot wide, only 150 foot wide object, right, right. So that's very, very small in the cosmic sense. This room. Yeah, well, it's the building. Yeah, well, from here to the front door. Yeah. You know, I mean, that's not that big. It's not that big. What you've got there was velocity. And you think, like, you know, think of a say a 38 slug. It's not big. If I was to throw it at you, even as hard as I could, it might sting a little bit, but it wouldn't do any damage. But if it came out of a gun with a muzzle velocity of 1000 feet per second, think about that little thing and what the damage it would do to you. Yeah. And see, that's the thing about an asteroid or meteorite or a comet coming in, it's moving really, really fast. You know, so that's why, like I said, it packs such a powerful kinetic punch when it hits. And some of them are even made of iron. Some of them are made of iron. So, so if there's if there's a moral to all of this, it's simply this, look, we are the one species that could prevent the type of mass extinctions that have dominated the biosphere of this planet for a couple 100 million years, or we could keep putting our resources to fracking. Yeah, well, I still haven't made up my mind about fracking yet. But you know, I do believe that what we need to do is be thinking of, if we're going to extract the resources of this planet, let's do so in such a way that what we're doing is implementing the transcendence of human culture into the cosmos itself. Because I ultimately believe that is the destiny of terrestrial life is that terrestrial life wants to become cosmic, it knows, on some level, that as long as life was confined to the surface of a planet, it's vulnerable. But and, and you know, it's without getting into all of this, there's, there's growing evidence, you know, that life originally came to this planet from space, right, was seeded here, probably through comets that carry organic material, all the sperm, panspermia, exactly. So here's the thing, you know, if you're an environmentalist, and rightfully critical of some of the things that humans are doing to disrupt the environment, you got to though place in context, the fact that nature itself has done things to the environment, so that so far exceed anything we have done yet. What I showed you with that slide showing the ice sheets over Canada, think about this. Suppose some logging company got a contract from the government, US and Canadian governments, to clear cut every forest from like the 47th parallel up to the Arctic Circle from the Atlantic to the Pacific, we're going to cut every single tree from the northern United States up to the tree line in northern Canada, we're going to cut billions of trees, billions of board feet, we're going to clear cut every single tree, we would rightfully be up in arms and say no, you're not going to do that, right? Well, what do you think that ice did? It wiped out, you know, there's evidence now that 35 and 40,000 years ago, there were forests growing up there, right? A few thousand years later, the ice has bulldozed everything, there's no forests growing under two miles of ice, right? Imagine if we said, well, we're going to just decimate the shallow marine ecologies, we're going to go in there and we're going to just wipe out the coral reefs, we're going to overfish them till there's no nothing, nothing left of the shallow marine ecology, ecologies less than 400 feet and you know, below sea level. Well, what do you think a drop in 400 feet of 400 feet in the sea level did to the shallow marine ecologies, to the coral reefs that were growing there? You see, that's what I'm just saying, it's not to justify that we can ransack nature willy-nilly, but it's to say we have to have a realistic context for thinking about this and bear in mind, the environmental movement was born during an era of total gradualistic dominance in the 50s and 60s. If you go back then, again, only the fringe, the, you know, the fringe science people like Velikovsky and others were talking about catastrophes. The assumption was that all global change occurred one grain of sand or one drop of water at a time, right? Well, we've come 180 degrees from that model of Earth history, but our thinking has not really evolved to incorporate such a dynamic planet, you know, at this point. Now see, so when the environmental movement was born, it was easy to think that if all change had happened at this imperceptibly slow rate, then yeah, obviously then humans have accelerated that pace of change and humans are now contributing to, you know, more global change than we've seen in millions of years. If that uniformitarian or gradualistic model was correct, but it's not. And I'm afraid that there's a large faction of the environmental movement that's still locked into that thinking of a gradual evolution of the planet, one grain of water, one drop of water, one grain of sand at a time, and that it has not suffered any kind of disruption until we bad humans came along and started, you know, with our factories and our oil wells and our SUVs and everything else. But, you know, clearly, we have to come to terms with the fact that we live on one hell of a dynamic planet. And one hell of a dynamic solar system. One hell of a dynamic solar system. Without Jupiter, right? We'd be fucked a long time. We would be. Somebody said they wanted to hear me say the word fuck at least once. So I'll throw out to go ahead and throw it. Yeah, we would be fucked. Jupiter is the big kind of like the bouncer for all the bigger asteroids that get sucked in. Well, Jupiter can play a dual role. See, Jupiter can act as a as yeah, the bouncer that that kicks a lot of those guys back out, you know, back out into the Kuiper disc or wherever they came from but it can also hurdle stuff in towards us. It can do either one. Sacred geometry is a subject that I wanted to talk to you about because we we could go on about cataclysmic impacts forever. But it's one of the things that you mentioned at the end of our last podcast that you wanted to talk about on this one. Yeah. And it's the name of your organization sacred geometry. Well, it's the name of the website. Yeah, I could find some stuff here to show you about that. And it dovetailed because bear remember, we're talking here a lot about geology, geometry, right? They both are sciences that have evolved out of the study of the earth. And, you know, one of the things that I've done is, is, you know, in geology, we have this thing called scale invariance, which is that if you look at a geological picture, you're always going to see somebody you're going to see like a rock pick set in the picture, you're going to see a person standing there, because oftentimes, you don't have a sense of the scale of what you're looking at, right? If, and in geometry, we have the same phenomena, it's also kind of the modern term for it is fractalization, where the part looks the smaller part looks like the bigger hole. And that's one of the basic working ideas of sacred geometry. And it's the same idea of what I was describing standing there looking into the Minnesota River Valley. This was an example of scale invariance that you had the same that the big channel was just a much, much larger version of this small channel. And that if you didn't have a scale of reference, you couldn't tell really what you're looking at, how big or how small it is, see. So in the study of sacred geometry, one of the fundamental ideas is this idea of scale invariance. So when I first was interested in geometry, because geometry, I think is one of the keys to deciphering many of the ancient traditions, like, you know, I became a somebody wanted me to talk about Freemasonry, and I can talk about that up to a certain extent, you know, I, you know, one of the things that that I learned, as soon as I actually, I think I learned it before I was actually initiated into the Masonic fraternity in 1978, was that at the core of all the Masonic symbolism was geometry. If you wanted to understand the message of the great cathedrals, you had to have geometry. If you wanted to understand the this amazing plethora of symbolism that is of which masons are the custodians, you had to study geometry. And secondarily, you had to study astronomy. So that sort of confirmed some of the ideas I had already been thinking at the time that I went in, in the late 70s. Freemasonry is full of symbolism. Why did you join the Freemasons? Well, you know, because for one thing, I've always loved our, you know, I come from a family of builders, I build things for a living. That's what I do. I design things and I build things for a living. That's what I how I make my money. So I was always interested in the built environment. And somewhere along the line, I just began to realize that there was a whole lot more to the built environment of ancient times, that in modern times, you look at architecture in that architecture is not necessarily symbolical, except on a very abstract sense. I became aware of the fact that the ancient architecture, the ancient structures, whether it's the pyramids of Giza or Stonehenge or Angkor Wat or the Mayan temples, they're all profoundly symbolic. They're not just built because hey, it looks good. No, it's they convey information. You know, cathedrals, it was Victor Hugo, who referred to some of the great cathedrals as being literal textbooks in stone. And that's what they are. Chart cathedral, beautiful example of a textbook in stone. And and I have I don't know if you ever been to any of the cathedrals. No, that's something you need to put in your bucket list, Joe. Yeah, I'm planning on going to Europe this summer. So when I do on a vacation instead of working. Yeah, that's yeah. Make it a research vacation. Make a lot more interesting. Before you go have kids. It's tough to do a lot of research for got little kids that get bored real easy, but I'm going to check some shit out. Yeah, check some shit out. You know, I can send you some places that I don't know about your kids, but I could easily have been eight years old and been totally blown away by. Okay, you know, well, one of the things about the Freemasons, the idea of the Freemasons is that it's a secret society. Yeah. And this secret, you know, and people associate it with the Illuminati and the people that control the world and don't I wish. But you know, Joe, I think I would love to be the dick dick supreme dictator of the world. Really? Well, you do differently. differently. We could get in that's going to be a yeah, that's a five hour. But yeah, that's a different podcast. Right. Um, the but when you say like, I'm a Mason, people would automatically, you know, especially ignorant people would automatically assume that you're a part of some sort of society that's victimizing the general population. And you're involved with the people that put the eyeball on top of the pyramid. It's on the dollar bill. And you're, you know, I don't even know where to start with some of that. secrets in the Freemasons, we're not allowed to talk about it. Well, bear in mind, now, secrets, you know, in the Middle Ages, there were trade secrets, and, you know, building secrets, clearly, you know. And when you went through the process of initiation, you learned about these secrets, right? But it's not that really that different the idea than say, modern, you know, commercial or industrial secrets, you know, coke, has it keeps it formula secret, right, and it's done so for 100 years, right. But the thing was is you got to realize that Freemasonry became an outlawed organization, right? During the Middle Ages, when the church was persecuting anybody who was branded a heretic, which could have meant anything that they wanted to be, Freemasonry had to go underground. And that's the primary reason for the secrecy is because it was a survival strategy. And it only re emerged in the early 1700s with the consolidation of four lodges in Britain to become the modern institution of Freemason. And you know, to anybody who comes up with that, I would just challenge him, show me the hard evidence show me that, you know, I like to say that, well, yeah, I'll admit, you know, 14 of the American presidents have been Freemasons, but 22 of them were Episcopalians. So clearly that implies to me that it's the Episcopalians who are the puppet masters ruling the world, right? If you want to make that argument, well, why were they Freemasons? Like, what's the benefits of being a Freemason? Well, for one thing, what you're doing is you're aligning yourself with probably the oldest institution that still exists on the planet that goes back now we can historically trace it back to the Middle Ages. But if you go back further than that, while the historical continuity breaks down, we can go back and we can talk about the Coma chines in Italy, we can talk about the Martinists, we can talk about the, the Mithraeus tradition, we can talk about the mysteries of Egypt, we can talk about the Zoroastrian tradition, the list goes on the Eleusinian mysteries, and what we see is a structure of initiation, it's virtually identical in all these cases to what modern Freemasonry is. And with modern Freemasonry, basically, you know, you have a whole cross section of individuals that join who who a lot of them joined simply because, hey, my dad was a Freemason, or my uncle, it was a family tradition. So that's why I joined. Others joined because Freemasons raised every year raised millions of dollars for charity, mostly for children's charitable causes, you know, they run the Scottish Rite Hospital for crippled and burned children, they run eye hospitals, and, you know, children that need medical care, they can go to these hospitals and not have to pay anything. So they're, they're fraternal organization, they're one of the largest charitable organizations on the planet in terms of the money that they raised, you know, again, Jesus said, you by their by their works, you shall know them, you know, you know, you can twist that around, perversely twist that around and say that's some kind of nefarious strategy to, you know, whatever get control. The other side of the equation is that they're also custodians of this body of ancient symbolism, where all of these things that we have been talking about, basically are encoded. And, and I could pull up some interesting stuff here that you, you know, that you could could look at to see what we're actually talking about there. But, but yeah, they have this amazing body of symbolism. Let me let me pull it. Here's an example of a Masonic apron. Okay, let's take a look at this, we'll zoom in here. And what do you see right at the very center of this symbol, symbolical array? What do you what is that? I think it's a barn. It's not a barn. Is that the arc? It's the arc. It's you know, it's probably from Noah's arc. It's Noah's arc. So that's the, so that's supposed to be the ocean around it. And that's, it's floating in the waters of the Great Flood. And if you look closely, I know it's hard to tell, but growing out of here, it's a chicken. What's an acacia? The acacia is an acacia bush. It's a Masonic symbol for rebirth, regeneration, rejuvenation. So the idea here is that in that arc is preserved, all of the seeds, the biological diversity of the world that is now being erased from the planet by the waters of the flood. The acacia, is it related to the acacia tree or the acacia bush? Is it the same sort of thing? Yeah, they know that's the same bush that they believe is responsible for Moses having the visions of God. So what are giving him the 10 commandments? Because the acacia Bush is rich in dimethyltryptamine. Ah, the flaming bush, being symbolic of somehow or another extracting the DMT from that, smoking it or lighting it on fire. And that being the transmission method for the dimethyltryptamine, which of course is one of the most profound psychedelic experiences and gives people this feeling of being in contact with the divine. Now, do you think it's any coincidence that the Freemasons have venerated the acacia for hundreds of years? It makes a lot of sense. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Yeah. Yeah. Well, there's modern day scholars who are looking at the story of Moses and connecting it to some sort of a psychedelic trip. Yeah. Here is what's called is another thing that's slowly being exonerated today. Those ideas are being vindicated today. Yeah. The way that before, you know, you would say just a few decades ago that somehow or another Moses was on drugs, I'm like, get the fuck out of here. Yeah. And people would just, and any real legitimate sort of stories being connected to psychedelic drugs, people would think of as being preposterous. And now, and now more and more accepted every day. Right. Simply because the evidence is a cumulative overwhelming. The Ellison, there's no question that in the Ellisonian mysteries, they were imbibing some type of a consciousness altering substance. I think that there's no question during the Mithraic mysteries. Also they were, they don't know what that was though, right? Not exactly. Unless you, you know, I think, who was it? Maybe Albert Hoffman and a couple others, they, they, they wrote a book in the seventies on the Ellisonian mysteries where they were talking about that. And I read it so long ago, I've kind of forgotten what their, what their final conclusion was, but it was definitely that they were doing some type of a psychedelic potion. Well, even Soma, when you go back to the ancient Hindus, the Soma being some sort of a mystery concoction, they don't know what it was, but most likely had some sort of psychedelic properties to it. Exactly. They don't know what it was. They don't know exactly what it was. Which is amazing when you consider the fact that this stuff was so profound, so important to them. And now we don't even know what was in it. Most likely some concoction was probably included psychedelic mushrooms. Yeah. Well, I'm convinced that, you know, one of the, that one of the great boons to humankind is psychedelics. And it was a profound mistake to criminalize it when we should have venerated it as ancient cultures did and provided a context in which people could do it with wisdom, you know, and propriety rather than driving it underground, you know, and turning it into a criminal enterprise that has been, I think, enormously had enormous destructive consequences for our society by, by criminalizing this for the last half century. Yeah. Well, most certainly. And you can see the difference in the art of the 1960s, especially when it comes to music, the difference between the sixties and the seventies, the shallow nature of a lot of the music that came out of the seven days and the disco and all that stuff. And then look at what was going on in the sixties with Hendrix and Jim Morrison, most likely psychedelic related. Of course it was. Yeah. Yeah. Of course. Led Zeppelin, the Beatles, the profound change in the music of the Beatles once they discovered LSD. Oh, it inspired an enormous burst of creativity. What's really interesting that what we're seeing now is a huge benefits in psychedelic therapy for people with post-traumatic stress disorders. Right. And it's out of war that we're finding these therapies for people that went to war and these therapies, the best ones are psychedelics. Yeah. Which is really amazing. Well, you know, in my own case, you know, I basically went from essentially being a juvenile delinquent to the quest for God in one weekend after my first basically. So wow. It was that quick. A lot of people have had the same story. I mean, Terrence McKenna spoke of his, one of his trips to the jungle being that he was this sort of ne'er do well, just couldn't get it together. And then he came out of it, the psychedelic shaman who had this intense desire to spread the word. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. So yeah. And I think it's, we're definitely moving in the right direction. I just, it's, of course, you know, for me, I'm impatient. I want to see it move a lot faster. I want to see us just end this ridiculous drug war, you know, and, and yeah, of course, there's going to be a downside to it. There's downside to everything, you know, and, but the upside is so substantial. The upside is so substantial and the downside of it is minuscule compared to the downside of the drug war itself. Not only that, how about the drugs that we already have that are legal, the drugs that are sanctioned are the worst ones. The worst ones. Yeah. We're not going to have a drug free society. I've had Dr. Carl Hart on the podcast, who's an expert in this, has written some pretty amazing stuff on it. And one of the things that he said is not only do we not want a drug free culture. We've never had one, right? No one has ever had this idea of a drug free culture. They've never existed. Right. Once people figured out a way to perturb their normal states of consciousness and the benefits of that, whether it's alcohol or psychedelics or whatever, it's been even yoga and meditation, you're essentially, you're, you're, you're stimulating endogenous drugs. Yes. Yes. And, and see, here's the thing. It's somebody brought this up. I don't remember who it might've been somebody like Richard Alpert or something back in the day, saying that, you know, you can go, you can embark on a quest for spiritual enlightenment and, and mystical at one minute, right? Through, through this arduous program of, of yoga and meditation and, and, and all of that. And it'll take you years. But who's going to embark upon such a program, not really knowing that the end of it is this ecstatic mystical union with the Godhead, right? Well, they said it basically nature's provided shortcuts so that, you know, we could actually see what the goal of it was and know that, yeah, at the end of this process that might take you 10 years or five years or whatever, depending on your dedication, there is this all this experience of your consciousness expanding into these ecstatic states, agents of evolution, as it were. And that's the thing that people, I think universally feel from psychedelic experiences is that it allows you to get over a lot of these sort of built in instincts that we have from our thousands of years of evolution and the, the time that we were essentially living like wild animals. I mean, those, those genes are still in our system. And we have all these ideas of paranoia and fear and ego and the, you know, jealousy and all these different things that allowed us to be ultra competitive, which allowed us to innovate at a faster rate, which allowed us to get to where we are in 2015. But those things are kind of hampering us. Yeah. Because we're outgrowing the monkey body. It's like, you know, if we're going to travel to, we want to travel to Europe, right? You can't drive there in a car, you can go drive from here to the East Coast. But once you get to the coastline, you have to get out of the car and get into a different vehicle, right? Because if you keep driving in the same car, you're going to go into the ocean and you're going to drown, right? We're kind of like that in the sense that, you know, see, I think that war was perhaps inevitable, you know, this, this, because it's embedded in our consciousness. You see, I just showed you here evidence that the human population crashed coming out of the younger dryas. Well, what's ironic is that after the, after the ice age was over for about three or 4,000 years, from 6,000 to about 9,000, 9,500 years ago, what we had was a period known as the climatic optimum by the scientists who've looked at it, in which some of the estimates are that global average climate might have been two to four degrees warmer than now. What that meant was that you had a much longer growing season and anybody who doubts this, please do your own research or I can post all kinds of stuff online that anybody who's not immediately, you know, you know, can't handle this, this kind of information. Anybody who's open-minded can actually go and do their homework and see that the climatic optimum is well documented. And for about 3,000 to 4,000 years, basically we were living in an almost quasi-paradezial state, almost a garden of Eden-like. It was almost like after the traumatic birth of this modern age, the Holocene that we're in, it's like nature just sort of was this nurturing environment. It was during this period that humans were worshiping the earth in the form of this corpulent pregnant goddess, right? It's been called the goddess civilization by Maria Gimbutus, who was the archaeologist who did all of this work. And what was interesting, if you look into her work, is that during this period of the early Neolithic in the archaeological terminology, there's no evidence of any warfare. There's no evidence that people, you know, looking at the carvings that people did, the artwork that people did, looking at the communities that were not daccades like there were later, there was no evidence in the archaeological record of, you know, weaponization. And it makes sense because in the aftermath of this extreme event that ended the ice age, what you had was huge areas of the planet that were depopulated. Nature quickly begins to reclaim. And what you now have is you have this sort of this benign warmth where growing seasons are months longer than now, you know, farming, you know, 14, 1500 feet higher in the mountains than is now possible. You know, longer growing seasons, a rapid expansion of population during this era. This would have been the era, you know, think about what would the biblical injunction that Yahweh gave to Adam and Eve, what did he say, be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it, be fruitful and multiply. Well, if you've got a species hovering on the brink of extinction, what's the most important thing that that species can do? Lots of sex, lots of reproduction, right? In the context of those times, it would have been very important for people to have lots of sex to quickly reestablish the viability of the human species because we were literally, it now appears hovering on the brink of extinction, as were so many of the other large mammals of the planet, right? And nature gave us this interval, this window of three or 4000 years of extremely mild climate, right? During this time, human population rapidly expanded and moved into these vacated habitats. Around 6000 years ago, the climate shifted. What started was, has been called by the paleoclimatologist, the neo-glaciation, because the planet cooled a couple of degrees. What happened? Agricultural habitats contracted. The growing, the elevation of viable agriculture came down. Okay, now if you've got settled human communities that have become well established and living in the context of that environment, and now suddenly that environment changes, right? Exactly coincident with those environmental changes around 6000 years ago is when we see the first appearance of human conflict, because now with this change in climate, you've got this disruption, this major disruption in human communities that have been well established and proliferating for three or 4000 years. Think about, you know, if you're, you know, living in a community and you're farming at 10,000 feet above sea level, a smaller example, a micro example would be the freezing out of the of the Greenland colonists with the onset of the Little Ice Age, right? For 500 years they were able to farm on the west coast of Greenland, and then the Little Ice Age came on and they were frozen out. And they tried to hang on as long as they could, but it kept getting harder and harder to grow crops. And then the climate declined further and the sea ice began to move south. And the one they who waited too long lost their opportunity because once the sea ice had moved south, it cut off the sea lanes so that they could actually evacuate. The Greenland colonies completely went extinct. Iceland itself was almost completely depopulated during this. If we take that scenario, expand it and go back 6000 years ago, we essentially see a very similar parallel phenomena going on. And so when you figure for during it, a civilization age of the goddess, this this time that people were worshiping the earth in the form of this corpulent pregnant goddess, this benign, motherly nurturing goddess, there was no reason for conflict because human populations were small, they were isolated, resource base was enormous. And then with the climate change, what happened? Suddenly now human communities and populations are disrupted, migrations began happening, one group conflicts with another group. And now we see the implements and the evidence of warfare. If we go back to 10,000 12,000 years ago, clearly, whatever happened then must have been profoundly traumatic to the survivors. Think about this, if you were the survivor of an event that basically erased modern civilization, and you were living in a small isolated band of survivors, with no way to communicate with the rest of the world, and no knowledge of whether there was even other survivors anywhere on the earth, it could profoundly affect your consciousness. And that could be so profound that it's the imprint of those events could be so profound that it could be passed on, you know, for generations, and be lodged in our subconscious this idea of human conflict necessary for human survival and the traumas that have been visited upon our species by nature itself. So I think that once we come to terms with the possibly origins of human only until we come to terms with the origin of human conflict, are we going to be able to purge it once and for all, and realize that that the modern analog for that scenario was that coming out of that catastrophe, abundant resources, abundant habitat, abundant space, no conflict for territory resources because the human population was limited. What I suggest is that if people want to understand the viable future of the human species, go out on a crystal clear night and look at the sky. There is the future. There's our potential future because the scenarios that have been around since the 1970s show that everything that we're extracting now from the earth, the minerals, the precious metals, the hydrocarbons, it's all out there in infinite abundance. And it's basically just outside of our doorstep. And we are as close now to being able to harvest the resources of the cosmic environment as we were from setting foot on the moon in 1960. Do you think we've been visited before by something from other planets? I think perhaps long, long ago maybe, but there's another scenario there that has been overlooked in all of the discussions about UFOs and aliens. And at some point we'll talk about that. At some point? Yeah. You tease. Well, you know, it's the kind of thing where you kind of need to lay out the case. And what I like to do is basically present the evidence and see if whoever then draws the same conclusions from that evidence that I have. So, but okay, let me put it to you this way. In what we were talking about at the very beginning of this interview, and talking about 7000 generations of people and the fact that in four or five generations we went from horseback to rocket ships. How many times in the last 7000 years do you suppose that we could have done that? To me it's not implausible that we could have achieved flight, even interplanetary flight more than once. Just as we have now. Just think about it. We have achieved interplanetary flight even though only manned expeditions to near-Earth space, but we're sending our satellites out beyond the solar system. All of this has come about in my lifetime. Right. Totally in my lifetime. All of it since the 1950s. Yeah, my grandfather when he was a kid, you know, it was horses. And a big point is that if we died off now, if there was some sort of mass extinction event, there'd be very little evidence of this space travel. Thousands of people, there'd be no evidence of it. All the aluminum, all the stuff that the rockets were going out of it would all be gone. Right. The Earth would absorb it. Now let's just consider as a wild, outrageous working hypothesis that humans have been able to offload from the planet prior to the modern space age. So at one point in time we went to Mars? There's probably somewhere a little closer than that. It would have made sense. Like the moon. Like the moon. Like we've been able to establish a base on the moon. Yeah. Now this is like I said, I'm admitting crazy talk. This is an outrageous, crazy, you're a heretic. What else? You've done drugs. Oh my God. Dismiss this man. This is over. It's time to lock me away. Gag me, muzzle me and lock me away. If we consider the fact that our civilization, if all your theories are true, which they most certainly appear to be, our civilization has been rebooted as of 12,000 years ago. Modern civilization emerges somewhere around 7,000 years ago in 4.6 billion years of life on earth or excuse me, of the life of the earth, the earth existing, and then life on earth being in our form, what, a few hundred thousand years? Right. And a hundred thousand years is a long time. That's 10, 10 events since the big impact. 10 times. Well, remember the Greenland ice core graph that I showed you. I mean, what you're seeing there is a dozen or more enormous events in the last quarter million years. In the time, probably the human, again, the oldest human skeleton, modern, modern human skeleton is now dated to about 180,000 years. How much earlier than that were we? I don't know, but conservatively, we can say 180,000 years. That Greenland ice core graph that I showed you goes back 250,000. So the Rig Veda stories of the Vamanas and the flying crafts and all that could actually have been based on real live objects, real live spaceships that someone read, read the Sumerian stories. What do they say in the wake of the flood? It was so disastrous that what did the gods do? They fled the earth and went to space. It says right there in the myth itself. It says they left. They went, went, they left the earth and went to the heavens because what was going on on the earth was so traumatic. It even freaked them out. Read the story. The gods, the gods, Enki and Eon and Ninana and the rest of them. What did you think of Zacharias Hitchen and his fantastical translations of the Sumerian texts? I'm dubious about some of his stuff. Most are, right? Yeah. Most people who are experts in the Sumerian languages in cuneiform think that he was kind of cuckoo. Kind of cuckoo. Well, but what's fascinating is there's so much that they absolutely understood that's really confusing. Like they understood they had an accurate depiction of our solar system, which included Pluto, which included all the planets in all the orbit and the correct, you know, relatively correct sizes on these clay tablets that they made 9,000, 7,000, who knows how many thousand years ago, you know? Yeah, I guess I'm, you know, I read some sitch and stuff years and years ago and at the time took it with a grain of salt. And subsequent to that, you know, after I've seen some of the critiques of him, you know, I'm kind of in that category myself of thinking his, you know, some of his translations are dubious. He made some leaps, for sure. But what they did discover, what they have, just, it's so fascinating to me when you look at like the Caduceus, which very clearly resembles the double helix of DNA and how it's closely associated with some of these images of larger beings holding little smaller people with tails. Like what the fuck is that? Like this idea of genetic engineering of taking lower primates and introducing human or alien DNA into these lower primates to create modern humans. I don't know what to think about that. It sounds ridiculous, but if we found a planet, like let's say we exist in this state right now and we evolve without getting hit in the head by a big rock from space for another thousand years or another 10,000 years, let's get really fucking crazy. Just imagine how far we could come if we don't blow ourselves up, we don't, Yellowstone doesn't explode. We live another 10,000 years and we jet off into the cosmos and find some planet with a bunch of dumb monkeys on it. You don't think we would splice our DNA into those dumb monkeys just to say, listen, I think you guys could do better. You could be like us. We're going to give you a little bump. We know what's coming. If you guys keep going along this way, you could get to where we are in a million plus years. We can give you a little injection. Maybe. How about a scenario like this? Okay. Well, from our superior perspective, we know that you guys down there are living on a vulnerable planet that's going to have its ass kicked every so often. Right. So we're going to do something to accelerate your evolution a bit so that perhaps you can become a little bit more intelligent and figure this out. We're going to leave some clues behind for you and then we're going to leave it in your hands to basically redeem the planet. It's amazing how often people just like will completely dismiss any ideas like that, but yet we clearly are, we're very advanced and compared to life on earth, but clearly we're advancing into the solar system at the very least with robots. You know, we haven't really been doing manned space trips anymore, but we're sending a lot of fucking robots. Yeah. We're sending satellites. We're sending all these things to go around other planets and take images. We're sending robots that land on Mars to rove around and take photos and soil samples and send information back through the sky to earth. I mean, that's pretty fantastic stuff. Well, imagine if you tried to describe to this, this to somebody a hundred years ago, they'd go get out of here. This is outrageous. I don't even want to hear such ridiculous talk, but like you just said, considering the pace of change over the last century, given a century ago, there was no airline industry. Of course, the thing was, if you had the government bureaucracies like you have now back then, Orville and Wilbur would have never been able to test their flights because some government bureaucrat would have been out there saying, you don't have the proper permits to do this. Right. And right now that's one of the big obstacles is that we've gotten, we've got these top heavy political systems that are really, I think, really encumbering the creative process, the evolutionary process. That's why I'm such a big supporter of basically freedom. Getting back to the idea of individual liberty, because I think the upside of people being free. Yeah, of course there's a cost of freedom and there's going to be a downside to it. But the upside, I think, again, is so much greater than the downside that let's do it. Well, that's what the internet is showing. The internet is, it represents freedom, the free, the ability to freely distribute information. This show itself would have never existed. This podcast could not have existed without something like the internet. No one would have ever given me a show. No one would ever like said, yeah, go talk to this guy from Georgia for three hours about asteroid impacts. People will like it. Get out of here. Get the fuck out of here. Actually, I'm from Minnesota. Well, I mean, you live there. Yeah. You know, but it's just the whole idea is that freedom allows people to innovate at a much quicker pace. Yes. It allows negative things too, but so does life itself. There's more of a chance of negative things if things are controlled. Yeah. If things are locked down and innovation goes, where does, you know, it goes right out. I mean, in my own personal sphere, like 20 years, like I'm building a project right now in Atlanta, took me six months and nine trips down to city hall to get permission from the bureaucrats to do a small project, which 20 years ago, I could have gotten that permission in an hour or two. 20 years before that, I didn't even would have would not have even needed permission from anybody. You know, oh, you've got your own house. You want to do this. Your neighbors don't care. We'll do it. See, right. So this is what my experience there multiply that by millions across the board. You know, it's like, you know, it's going to get to the point where, you know, can we do we dare breathe out without a permit because we're exhaling carbon dioxide, you know, right. So yeah, I just I think that a couple of things need to happen. One, we need to really get back to the idea and America, that's the great dream and vision of America was that this was supposed to be the home of freedom on planet Earth. Yeah. Bureaucracy is pretty disgusting. But it's also I feel like sometimes we need some resistance in order to facilitate action. Some resistance. Yeah. And some resistance sometimes gives us this real desire to overcome that resistance, which makes innovation. Yeah. You know, and that might be one of the things that we're experiencing with this new culture that's emerging from the internet. It's kind of emerging in response to the resistance that we received from mean going back to psychedelics from the 60s to the 70s, 70s into the 80s, and the 90s, the internet emerges. And the internet is causing this big pushback on all the archaic ideas of being promoted during those dark decades. Yeah. And I totally agree with you. I mean, without some resist, I mean, after all, I mean, if there's no resistance, you know, we're going to basically turn into slugs. We turn into couch potatoes. We turn to couch potatoes. We're lazy. Right. We're lazy. Yeah, it's very rare that human beings by default are ambitious. It's like in response to something like one of the worst things you could do to a kid is give the kid everything they want and not have them work. Right. Though they never develop any instincts to work towards things. They never develop any, any instincts to recognize that there's a benefit to struggling and being uncomfortable and that the rewards when when you have a hard day's work and a job completed that you feel satisfied by, then the beer tastes so much better, so much better. The Jewish Kabbalists have a term for that, which I can't remember, but it translates as the bread of shame. And it's like the bread of shame is the bread you get that you didn't really have to work for. You didn't have to struggle. You didn't have to put forward any effort. It's just given to you, you know, and, you know, it's like one of the stories that kind of goes along with presenting that is, you know, the man who builds up this great business empire, you know, and then, you know, he's getting ready to retire and he wants to pass it on to his son and he says, you know, come in, I'm going to make you CEO of my business empire and the whole, you're going to be able to run the whole thing. And the son says, no, thanks. I don't want it. He goes, well, what do you mean? Says, well, let me start at the bottom and work my way up and earn that position. And it's going to mean a whole lot more to me and I'm going to be a hell of a lot more effective in that position. And if it's just dumped in my lap, it's just so rare that anybody has that mentality, though. Most people would take the easy road every single time. Well, and that is to the consternation, I think, of our ancestors who didn't look at it that way. You know, the people that came across the ocean, you know, at great hardship didn't look at it that way. And I think that they would be pretty much rolling in their graves if they could see, you know, what's basically, oh, well, we'll just let the government take care of us. Right. I don't have to get a job because the government's going to take care of us. But they would also look at our computers and go, holy shit, you guys have figured some things out. God damn. Wait a minute. Hold on. You ask a question to your phone and it gives you the answer. Yeah. I mean, they never even thought about that on Star Trek. Yeah. And see what that does is it shows there's these parallel trends that are that are happening, you know. So yeah, I'm, I'm, you know, I'm that's why I tend to be more optimistic. I'm not a pessimist. I have great hopes for our future. I do, too. And people give me a hard time for it sometimes, you know, they think I'm unrealistic or that's the hippie side of me that have a hippie ideology as well. The sacred geometry, sacred geometry name. Like, why did you choose that as the name for your website? Well, because at the time I was looking at there was so much interest. And because I saw it as a venue for putting information out there about that and showing some of the amazing correlations and linkages, you know, between the subject of geometry and so many of these other things, like I said, you know, the Mayan temples, Egyptian structures and helping using that as a key to decipher or decode these messages that have been have been embodied in architecture. It's the key. It's the it's a master. It's one of the master keys to decoding the archaic wisdom tradition. There's no question. And geometry pervades everything. I mean, geometry pervades, you know, we can actually I can show you now studies that have shown that the exact architecture of the solar system, if you change it even a little bit, none of this could happen, you know, because as it is now, you have this great reservoir of comets outside the orbit of Neptune called the Kuiper disk, right? At the inside of that on the inner perimeter of that disk of comets, comets are in a quasi stable condition. In other words, it doesn't take much to perturb them from that position. But at the same time, there isn't much there to perturb them. So they generally are just slowly orbiting the sun. Well, what happens is conjunctions of the great outer planets, Uranus and Neptune, primarily, the combined gravitational forces exerted on the inner part of the Kuiper disk are enough to dislodge comets and send them either, either the gravity effect, think of this, if you've got a gravity effect pulling on something from behind, and it's moving this way, it's going to act as a breaking mechanism. If it's a head and drawing on it, it's going to act as an accelerating mechanism. So if you accelerate one of these objects, it moves out further from the sun. If you decelerate it, it moves in closer to the sun. What happens is, is that the conjunctions of the outer planets can move these comets inside the, become within the sphere of influence of the planets. And it just so happens, and astrophysicists have worked out the mathematics of it, that the masses and the spacing of the four great outer planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, are exactly what they need to be to transport comets from the Kuiper disk to the inner solar system. And if you change that, even a little bit, you would lose this, they've referred to it as the bucket mechanism or the, like a bucket hand off, each planet will hand off the comet to the next one. And then when it gets to Jupiter, the big one, like you said earlier, Jupiter is either going to accelerate it and throw it back out, or it's going to decelerate it and send it in towards the sun where it becomes an earth crosser, where it begins to disaggregate and in the process, fertilize the earth with its constituents, which we now know are all kinds of interesting and exotic materials. So if it turns out, and it almost certainly will, and in terms of the the panspermia idea that, that life was originated on earth by comets, that you had to have an environment that was conducive, you had to have this matrix of environmental conditions that if were altered slightly, would not allow the proliferation of higher life, you now have the introduction of cometary material into that. Well, if the architecture of the outer solar system was not exactly lined up into geometry that it is, then you would never have that delivery of the organics and the volatiles from the comet. In fact, it's likely that the oceans that the the hydrosphere originated from space without the oceans, where would life on earth be, you see. Now, here's where it gets interesting. The architecture of the solar system is what's condensed and embodied within the sacred architecture of old. So they've taken that, those proportions, however that got there, whether they knew it directly or on some subconscious level and incorporated that into the designs and the proportions of the ancient sacred structures, it's there. Basically, the model of the holy city, the New Jerusalem, is described in the book of revelations, is basically a model of the solar system architecture. So it abides by Bode's law? Is that what it is? Yes, I think it's Bode. I think that's how you say it. B-O-D-E-S, is that what it is? No, just B-O-D-E. B-O-D-E, oh it's Bode. Yeah. And I've only seen it written. And that law being that the size and mass of a planet allows you to extrapolate and find out how big and far away the next planet would be. And so yeah, it shows up that one of the intervals within that sequence is, for example, where the asteroid belt is. There's no planet there, but there's an asteroid belt. Right, and that sort of coincides with the ancient Sumerian myth of the creation of Earth being an impact. That there was also Earth-1 and Earth-2, they know that Earth was, at one point in time, different and it was impacted and that's also what created the Moon, right? Yes, well that's the theory about the Moon. But, god, the Moon. I mean, the Moon is really something we could talk about for the next hour and, you know, we can save that for a future broadcast. But the Moon is really one of the grand symbols of the great mysteries with a capital M, no question. And it's right there every now, I mean, right now I think we're like one day away from the full Moon right now as we're sitting here. And I would highly recommend that anybody listening to this go out and begin contemplating the Moon. Unless you're afraid of werewolves. Unless you're afraid of werewolves. Unless you're afraid of becoming transformed into a werewolf. Yeah, so the, how is Jerusalem designed in representation, as a representation of the solar system? Well, the hypothetical Jerusalem, the new Jerusalem. Well, you know, it describes this layout. It gets complex. And again, when I show this to people, I usually rely on a lot of graphs and images and reproductions, geometric diagrams and so on. But basically, it's describing the city, Lieth, Foursquare, the length, the height and the breadth of it are equal 12,000 furlongs. And there's a wall great and high 144 cubits, according to the measure of a man that is of the angel. And then it goes on to describe other things. But it's when you begin to begin to do the analysis of these numbers you discover, it opens up this whole world of numerical symbolism. The 12,000 furlongs, you know how much a furlong is? No, furlong is one eighth of a mile, it still exists. It's a very ancient unit of measurement still exists. It's used in horse racing. That's the one place that I know of it still exists. One eighth of a mile at 660 feet, right? Now, if you were to take the earth, right, the earth, you know, is an oblique spheroid, it spins on its axis, so it bulges towards the equator shrinks towards the polar axis. So the difference is about 7,900 miles at the polar axis, about 7,926 miles at the equatorial axis. But if you were to take a perfect sphere with the same area, surface area, as the earth actually has, that sphere would be 7,920 miles in diameter. Now, that number 7,920 is a very interesting number because, for one thing, if we look at a furlong, a furlong is 660 feet. So I'm putting 660. Why don't you take that calculator here? Okay. Now, that's a furlong, 660 feet. Convert that to inches by going times 12. Times 12. Times 12. One, two, okay. And equals? Equals? 7,920. There it is, diameter of the earth in miles that I just said, right? Right. The perfect sphere that would have the same surface area and the same volume as the earth is 7,920 miles. And that's actually the diameter of the earth. If you took a line from the Tropic of Cancer, 23 and a half degrees north, through the earth to the Tropic of Capricorn, you would discover that that diameter is about 7,920 miles. That's the number which I'm theorizing and I'm thinking with a lot of evidence to back up that ancient peoples used to symbolize the earth, 7,920. But what you've just seen here is that this ancient unit of measurement called the furlong, which is 660 feet, is to the inch exactly as the earth is to the mile. Now, what was the origin of the mile? Where did this mile? We brought it up earlier. Length of the mile, 5,280 feet, right? Think about the Latin word mil. What does that mean? A thousand, right? Like a million is a thousand thousands. A millimeter is one thousandth of a meter, right? Because they're prefixing mil, the mil. The Latin prefix that means a thousand, right? So that's where the actual word mil comes from. So a mil is a thousand what? It's a thousand paces, human paces. So if you were to go out and walk off a thousand paces, say counting every time your right foot hit the ground, you did that a thousand times, you're going to have a mil more or less depending on your size. You know, I'm six foot one, so I'm going to have a slightly longer pace than somebody who's five foot five, right? But that's where the origin of the mile comes from, from five thousand, from a thousand paces. And given that the, and that's standardized, but it's very ancient, see? Now, the outer circle of Stonehenge, the Sarson stone circle, if you were to encompass it in a circle that just tangent to the outer faces of the stone, the radius of that circle is 50, has been, has been measured and it's almost exactly 52.8 feet, right? Or one hundredth of a mile. Now, if you take the diameter of Stonehenge, it's double that, which is 105.6 feet, right? 50 times 105.6, there's your mile. It suggests that the mile was being used by those who built Stonehenge five thousand years ago. But you see this number 5.28 is a universal relationship. It, it, for one thing, it says the average human pace related to the foot, which again, remember Protagoras said, man is the measure of all things, right? Where comes the inch? It's this, here's the inch right here, the origin of the inch, the distance between your thumb. Yeah. Or it's or it with of your thumb, it's this. Well, yeah. So you can, you can measure here and that's going to be an inch or you can take this and that's an inch as well. So, okay. So it's the tip of your thumb to the first joint. Yes. That's essentially an inch. And it depends because obviously some people have giant signs, right? Right. But the idea here is that the units of ancient measurement derived from one of two sources from the human yardstick or the earth itself. Okay. So now if you take the average human pace divided by the average human foot, it's 5.28, multiply that by a thousand and you have the mile of 5,280 feet, right? I'm suggesting that that unit of measurement was actually incorporated into the design of Stonehenge, right? Now what we have just seen is that the description of the new Jerusalem in the book of revelations describes it as being 12,000 furlongs, which again is an ancient British unit of measurement, but probably used way beyond Britain. And when we look at the ratio of the furlong, if we took out in the parking lot here and laid out a furlong 660 feet and then marked off one inch on it, that furlong to that inch would be exactly the same as the diameter of the earth to the mile. Now in, in the book of revelations, what it says is that the new Jerusalem is 12,000 of these furlongs. So if you take 660, which I put in there times 12,000, look at the number that comes up again. There's a number again, 792,000,000, but it's been raised by orders of magnitude. Yeah. Divide that by the number of feet in a mile. Put the divide button. Okay. Yeah. Divide by 5,280, divide by 5,280. And there is what they're describing, a body that's 1500 miles in diameter. Right? So what is that? What is 1500 miles in diameter? That's the mystery. Now, if you take that number and I'm going to go to the earth itself, 7920 and divide it by the new Jerusalem, divide by 1500. There's the ratio we get. The human pace to the human foot. Whoa. Coincidence? Or are we beginning to see that there's an underlying pattern now 528. Yeah. 528. So the ratio is there. Right? I'm not making any of this up. So you either dismiss it as coincidence or you go, okay, there's an underlying pattern here. And it's got some meaning to it. Now, I think it's going to be beyond our ability today to really get into that. But this is the kind of thing when you begin to peel back these layers, you begin to discover that there are these ratios built into this. So it's some, in a sense, fractal. It's fractal. Yes. Wow. And the idea here, just like Protagoras said, that we humans, we're the measure of all things. And all of these cosmic dimensions are miniaturized and encoded in our very anatomy. Randall Carlson, we have run out of time, but you have blown minds on multiple fronts. Once again, man, we got to do another one. When's the next time you tell me? Good. Well, give me a few months to recover from this one. Okay. I'm going to bed for a week now. Yeah, I'm sure it's quite a burst of information. But thank you, sir. Really, really appreciate it. It's always a pleasure having you here. You're one of my favorite podcast guests without a doubt. I enjoyed so much. And I'm going to go over this podcast with a fine tooth comb and try to figure it out. I want to say one more quick thing. A lot of this information that I've been talking about here is on our DVD that you can get online, cosmic patterns and cycles of catastrophe, where you get all of the images and a lot of the background and the stuff that we went into. So if you go to the sacred geometry international website, you'll be able to find a link and find out all about it. What is the exact website sacred geometry international.com I guess so if you just put sacred geometry international in the search engine, it'll be the first thing that comes up and your Google and your Twitter handle is sacred geometry. I n t correct. Yeah, right. Yeah, hold on a second. I'll check it out real quick. Sacred. Yeah, sacred geo. I n t. Okay, sacred geo at sacred geo. I n t. Thank you. My, my friend is a massive honor and a privilege and a pleasure and I appreciate this so much. Thank you so much. I appreciate you having me Joe. Listen man, you changed the world. You changed the world. Believe me, you're freaking people to fuck out. Well, you're helping me Joe. Randall Carlson. Randall Carlson, ladies and gentlemen, he will be back in a few months. We'll let him recover. We'll send him some vitamin C, send him some on it supplies. Get them back out here. Thank you, brother. I really appreciate it.